marshaul
Campaign Veteran
No, that's the end result of having government, as history has shown time, time, time, and time again.
Get your facts straight.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Should Distrust Of Government Be A Phenomenon Exclusive To Gun Owners?
- Thread starter Black Dragon
- Start date
No, that's the end result of having government, as history has shown time, time, time, and time again.
Get your facts straight.
fighting_for_freedom
Regular Member
Benjamin Franklin said, when asked what he had given them, "A republic, ma'am, if you can keep it."
And look where we are today.
Why is a republic easier to maintain than an anarchy? Why is it so bulletproof?
I contend that an anarchy is easier to maintain if there are enough people who love liberty than a republic with the same number of freedom loving men, because there are no laws to bind them, and no power greater than their own.
One would do well to research the various aspects of anarchy. For instance, one may enter into a governmental contract voluntarily. There may be a government of some sort, but only if the parties held by it join without duress. What a beautiful society, eh?
Franklin could as easily have said "An anarchy, ma'am, if you can keep it."
And look where we are today.
Why is a republic easier to maintain than an anarchy? Why is it so bulletproof?
I contend that an anarchy is easier to maintain if there are enough people who love liberty than a republic with the same number of freedom loving men, because there are no laws to bind them, and no power greater than their own.
One would do well to research the various aspects of anarchy. For instance, one may enter into a governmental contract voluntarily. There may be a government of some sort, but only if the parties held by it join without duress. What a beautiful society, eh?
Franklin could as easily have said "An anarchy, ma'am, if you can keep it."
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
"Anarchy leads to dictatorship" is one of these trite concepts which is practically a meme, it's so commonly repeated and so rarely substantiated.
Of course, it's pretty hard to substantiate something which has A: never happened and B: is a logically non-sequiturious outcome.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Great conversation, and kudos to the gentlemanly way it was conducted!
When the colonists resisted British rule ( a rule a lot less intrusive than our rule today) they were accused of being "anarchist".
I am called an anarchist, extremist, confrontational, radical....etc.......they no longer work as pejoratives for me.
Anarchy-lack of rule (not rules), and it seems like a much better way to run society than what I believe is a one party system masquerading as a two party system. So because I resist their rule and the rise of a police state I am labeled anarchist.....OK.
Extremist- Yes I am, but this is only because of rampant nationalism placing the state above individual liberty, so yes when someone has moved that far away from liberty I am extreme, but I am not the one who has moved the bar. It's all perspective, because those who love the state, and love Law Enforcement (for the sake of enforcing malum prohibitum laws that restrict individual liberty) are extremist from a free persons point of view.
Confrontational- Yes I confront what I perceive to be wrong, so did the English colonist, they were not as polite about it as we are. Try standing up for constitutionally protected rights to an officer infringing upon them, I can almost guarantee you their report and testimony in court will be "became confrontational" "uncooperative".
Radical- again another subjective word, misused and misapplied, the colonists who effected change where radicals, only radicals effect change, Conservatives do not. If we were in a state of freedom now I would be a conservative in the sense I'd want to conserve that, but we are not.
For me it is important to put these words back in perspective and to fight for them to be recognized for what they are.........a good thing.
When the colonists resisted British rule ( a rule a lot less intrusive than our rule today) they were accused of being "anarchist".
I am called an anarchist, extremist, confrontational, radical....etc.......they no longer work as pejoratives for me.
Anarchy-lack of rule (not rules), and it seems like a much better way to run society than what I believe is a one party system masquerading as a two party system. So because I resist their rule and the rise of a police state I am labeled anarchist.....OK.
Extremist- Yes I am, but this is only because of rampant nationalism placing the state above individual liberty, so yes when someone has moved that far away from liberty I am extreme, but I am not the one who has moved the bar. It's all perspective, because those who love the state, and love Law Enforcement (for the sake of enforcing malum prohibitum laws that restrict individual liberty) are extremist from a free persons point of view.
Confrontational- Yes I confront what I perceive to be wrong, so did the English colonist, they were not as polite about it as we are. Try standing up for constitutionally protected rights to an officer infringing upon them, I can almost guarantee you their report and testimony in court will be "became confrontational" "uncooperative".
Radical- again another subjective word, misused and misapplied, the colonists who effected change where radicals, only radicals effect change, Conservatives do not. If we were in a state of freedom now I would be a conservative in the sense I'd want to conserve that, but we are not.
For me it is important to put these words back in perspective and to fight for them to be recognized for what they are.........a good thing.
ron73440
Regular Member
I feel like James Carville in Old School, "I have no rebuttal, that was perfect."
papa bear
Regular Member
the non-trust of governments can be traced back to the mistrust that the GALLS and the Germanic people had for the Romans. some of those governments were no better than then the Romans, but most were based in freedom and equal rights. from these a lot of the ideas for this Nation were founded
this republic is by the rule of law. tyranny comes from the democracy, or people doing what they feel. though laws can become unjust. in this Constitutional society, it is very difficult for mob rule and even if a bad law gets through we can change it. but by the rule of law things can be fairly ruled. the laws are to be there for the rights of the individual, and not to take away from the individual. the problem comes in the larger government that individuals have no regard
agreed an anarchy is based in the strongest will survive and thrive. so it will be by the will of the strongest what kind of rights you have. in this imperfect society, the rule of law, makes sure that everyone is treated equally. it is a problem that some classes make laws that don't apply to them
not sure if i read your point right. there have been many example were anarchy has led to dictatorship. Po Pott is one. as well as Idy Amin, plus lots of others that are too numerous to mention. why do you think Soetoro/Obama wants to collapse America
this republic is by the rule of law. tyranny comes from the democracy, or people doing what they feel. though laws can become unjust. in this Constitutional society, it is very difficult for mob rule and even if a bad law gets through we can change it. but by the rule of law things can be fairly ruled. the laws are to be there for the rights of the individual, and not to take away from the individual. the problem comes in the larger government that individuals have no regard
agreed an anarchy is based in the strongest will survive and thrive. so it will be by the will of the strongest what kind of rights you have. in this imperfect society, the rule of law, makes sure that everyone is treated equally. it is a problem that some classes make laws that don't apply to them
not sure if i read your point right. there have been many example were anarchy has led to dictatorship. Po Pott is one. as well as Idy Amin, plus lots of others that are too numerous to mention. why do you think Soetoro/Obama wants to collapse America
OC for ME
Regular Member
So, how do you restore liberty?
Not me choosing this definition. You have every right to disagree with this definition. But, a great great many of your fellow citizens accept this definition. Heck, I'll wager that the only folks who disagree with this definition are the folks to whom the definition is applied.
Working within the current established order to affect change is how we change the currently established order, to a new established order the more to your/our liking. This will mitigate us being labeled incorrectly.
Also, I get that anarchists detest "established anything" that they themselves have not established.
Oh, one last thought, if the loyalists had stood next to the Redcoats on the battlefield(s), the outcome back in the day would have likely been far different. Some folks, back in the day, just wanted to be left alone I guess. But they sure did embrace the benefits gained from the efforts of a "small few" after the shooting was over.....sound familiar?
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Back in the real world, the legitimization and state sanctioning of aggressive force leads to the de facto legalization of "rule of might", as evidenced by our federal government and its law enfarcement officers' ready willingness to trample liberty and the Constitution in the pursuit of "better than sex" home invasions etc.
I don't see the logic in aiming to prevent something by handing out free monopolies in its exercise.
lololol! The illogic is astounding. The is nothing even theoretically, remotely "anarchist" about Pol Pot's rhetoric, tactics, regime, or anything else. Just because some blowhard says something doesn't make it so.
There are anarcho-socialists, and even anarcho-communists, but for them "communism" means something very different than it did to the likes of Marx and his followers (e.g. Pol Pot). For Marxists, communism is inherently and definitionally a statist, authoritarian ideal. They argue this is needed to ensure equality.
Where you get the notion that there is any relation between Pol Pot (or Idi Amin) to anarchy as an ideal (or practice) is beyond me, other than I'm sure you heard some law-and-order blowhard make the ridiculous claim as though it has any basis at all in historical fact.
Here is my dictionary (I've left no part out):
I think that's a bit more objective. It describes the two common ways in which the word is used, without attaching unnecessary and strictly irrelevant subjectivities.
Last edited:
fighting_for_freedom
Regular Member
I like the SECOND definition. Spot on.
For all who use the dictionary to define things, I urge to you check the tiny little date next to the base word, if your dictionary has them. That date is the last updated definition. Most, in the dictionary, are well over 100 years old, and horribly innacurate.
If you go by Webster's definition of Buddhism:
: a religion of eastern and central Asia growing out of the teaching of Gautama Buddha that suffering is inherent in life and that one can be liberated from it by mental and moral self-purification.
This was defined, per Webster, in 1843, if I remember correctly. Now, I know I'm no Buddhist scholar - I've only read a little on the subject - but it would seem that this is a misleading, even horribly inaccurate definition. From what I understand, Buddha's teachings cannot be summarized into 'suffering is inherent in life'. His teachings were that ALL THINGS are inherent in life. One must simply understand and accept them. Like his sermon where he held up the flower and did not speak - what he was saying was simply, 'It Is'.
If a modern definition of Buddhism were written, I think it would look a little different.
So pay attention to the dates of the definitions, and then decide if, perhaps, the author were not just a little misinformed or biased.
Course, I'm not entirely sure that a modern definition would do less to slander the precepts of Anarchy.
Last edited:
palerider116
Regular Member
Liberty is between tyranny and anarchy.
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."
John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787
I see an anarchist in the same light as a tyrant.
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."
John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787
I see an anarchist in the same light as a tyrant.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
It's a complete non sequitur that anarchy implies no recourse to acts such as theft or murder.
Anarchy simply means "without rule." It doesn't mean, or even remotely imply, that every person or group must be permanently powerless to effect redress of grievances. It simply means there is no single monopoly on the means of redress. If you can't imagine a couple dozen such non-governmental means, then you simply lack imagination.
(What would you do, absent government, in response to a person desiring to steal your property? Simply let them? "Oh, without the authority of benevolent government bestowing upon me an explicit legal privilege to defend myself, I am powerless to do so. Please, take my things!" Does that sound like you?)
Basically, this is further evidence that all the arguments against anarchism are strawmen from those with the imagination of a turnip. I can conjure irrelevant, non-sequiturious straw men, too. Would you like to hear a few?
John Adams was, incidentally, an individual with the imagination of a turnip. Highly unimpressive character. The best thing he ever did was star in a melodrama on HBO.
Last edited:
palerider116
Regular Member
That is the problem with anarchists. No rule equals no standard. Yes, I can dream of plenty of ways to exact vengeance, or some type of anarchist judgment. While you seem content to live without rule, or no canon or social standard, I reject it, and realistic people do. You eschew liberty and repackage it as anarchy. Tyranny or liberty or anarchy. They are not reconcilable with one another.
An anarchist is as dangerous as a tyrant. The tyrant wants control through absolute rule. You want control through no rule. Might determines who lives and who is right.
Now you are probably getting mad now and looking for cute phrases or some type of personal attack. If you had your way of anarchy, you would see me as a threat to your version of liberty. Since you have an imagination for non-governmental means, and if you were able to engage in drug usage as you advocate, you would be extremely dangerous to anyone who disagreed with you. A tyrant or an anarchist are equally dangerous and a threat to liberty. An anarchist is a future tyrant at best.
Imagination does not figure into it. Liberty is founded on reason and accountability. You offer none of it.
Last edited:
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Wait for it, folks...
Ooh, look, a personal attack (not to mention a straw man). And a vile, despicable one at that. What, did you think you'd deflect attention if you pre-emptively accused me of doing it first?
I'd report you to the mods for that cowardly, libelous assault on my character, but I think it says all one needs to know about your character – or rather complete lack thereof.
(How's that for a personal attack?)
And this makes no sense at all.
Apparently, in your twisted world, the only way you are not subject to tyranny is if you are able to impose it upon others.
I only want to be free of you. In your own words, this makes me a tyrant. The only logical conclusion to be reached is that you do not consider yourself free unless you are able to impose upon and aggress against me.
I have no words to convey my disgust.
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
Wow. Did I write that video??? There isn't anything in it that I haven't said repeatedly on this very site. As a matter of fact, the spectrum described in that video is the same as one I developed* in a paper I wrote in college to refute the traditional spectrum (also described in the video) that my professor was regurgitating. I made the point that the traditional communist-left, fascist-right spectrum was useless except the portray the republicans as being as evil as communists. A spectrum that represents a continuum of a measure of an observable phenomenon, the level of governmental control vs. the level of individual Liberty is useful for classifying governments.
I have also posted here that anarchy is a vacuum--which will be filled by tyranny. I have posted here that revolutions almost always result in tyranny. The American Revolution is an anomaly--if you even think of it as a revolution. I see it more as a throwing off of an external oppressor intruding in a system that naturally developed into a system of Liberty.
I have continually said that some amount of government is needed to protect Liberty. I think that the Framers nailed the precise amount of government. Unfortunately, creeping democracy has whittled away at their genius creation. It seems, ma'am, that we cannot keep it.
______________
*At that time, I knew of no one who had been pushing a similar spectrum. I can't imagine there wasn't, but this video is the first published presentation of that spectrum I have ever seen.
eye95
Well-known member
How long has our Republic lasted? How long has any anarchy lasted before total tyranny broke out?
I submit that anarchy lasts for seconds before someone tries to bully others, creating the tiniest of tyrannies that will eventually merge into a handful of large tyrannies or into one huge tyranny.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Fight the so called "authority" and show them they are our servants and not the other way around.
I perfectly understand the definition people choose to use now. That was done on purpose by anti anarchist. The number 2 definition is the most accurate. They also changed the meaning of Regulate to mean impose restrictions upon.
So the founders only worked within the established system?
Some who claim to be anarchist fit this description, I am working to change that perception.
The loyalist were a minority and many left, way more left the rebel colonies in the less populated America than French who left that rebellion. It was then many loyalist who had seen the way the tide was flowing who switched sides and became the Federalist....Hamilton, Franklin, Washington...etc.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
A "spectrum" designed to make the GOP look good misses the point entirely. In so many ways I don't know where to begin.
That said I agree in general that liberty vs anti-liberty is the most useful criterion for making political differentiations. However, I have no doubt that your and my idea as to what constitutes a pro-liberty political position differs radically. For starters, you would preferentially defend the GOP and "conservatism" as being pro-liberty. I have no use for either, and disagree that either the GOP or "conservatism" as an ideology have a history of furthering liberty.
By definition, it is radical to seek further liberty. There has never been a time when the liberties of the past were so great as to render conservatism an objectively pro-liberty position. At best it's better that progressives who actively seek to reduce liberty (and plenty of conservatives do this, too).
So, you accept that a "system of Liberty" can exist apart from government. That government isn't necessary to create or continue such a state of affairs. That it can last, at the very least, through a government transition necessarily implies it's not strictly a function of government.
It's my contention that this is only different from "anarchy" because you define "anarchy" exclusively as "snot nosed spiky haired kids throwing molotov cocktails, and gangs committing extortion and criminals free to run rampant."
If a "system of liberty" existed even after the government was dissolved and before the new one was instituted, then it simply does not follow that government is necessary for its continued existence.
Do me a favor: name a single instance of "anarchy". Just one.
I ask because, back in the reality, government lasts seconds before the agents of its legitimized coercion try to bully someone, creating an instantaneous and very real large tyranny, no merging necessary. And when I say that, I actually have the entire legacy of history to back me up.
You don't, as all these instances of "anarchy immediately turning into tyranny" exist only in your imagination, as it's never happened.
I'll give you a hint: Cambodia: not anarchy, never been. Somalia: not anarchy, never been. Uganda(?): not anarchy, never been.
The simple fact is anarchy is rarely found in the historical record, and there is no historical support for the notion that anarchy devolves to tyranny.
Even if the claim were true, there simply isn't any historical basis by which to support it. I've yet to encounter a single example not dependent upon a meaningless definition of "anarchy", one which ironically nearly always involves a despotic government and some groups who oppose it.
Last edited:
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
While I appreciate your post, you, my friend, have offered not one iota more than anecdotal information on Freedom losing.
President Obama, signed into law, making it legal for Americans to carry firearms in National Parks. I could be wrong about this, but that is an increase in Freedom.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it (can't remember who said that to me, on here).
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
I've met you in person...you are confrontational!
I agree with your post.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Hah, I say that one all the time.
What makes me feel real old is that people sometimes act like it's some cute idiosyncrasy when I say "good enough for government work". A: that expression is even more apropos today than ever, and B: it's not even that old an expression.
Last edited: