Should Distrust Of Government Be A Phenomenon Exclusive To Gun Owners?

[Beretta92FSLady]

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.

I like that saying. I run into those types all the time when I'm at the welfare office.

 

[shastadude17]

I dunno. Ask this guy.

 

[ron73440]

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).

You're right that was anecdotal, and you found one example.

Let's see, No Child Left Behind expanded Federal involvement in schools, taking away the freedom of States, Patriot Act infringed on due process, Obamacare forces people to buy insurance, higher taxes take your freedom to spend your money the best way you see fit. The economy resulting from all the regulations (Dodd/Frank) and artificial bubbles(CRA, Fannie/Freddie) take away the freedom to earn a good living.

That's just a few at the federal level, state and local govt's can be just as tyrannical if not more so.

I admit some of the new marijuana laws are a good step in the right direction, and I have seen some hopeful signs, but overall it's like Thomas Jefferson said "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

 

[J1MB0B]

Apparently computers don't trust them either.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I've met you in person...you are confrontational!

I agree with your post.

Yep you were there when I confronted this cop's illegal interference into the transaction of some pistols I was interested in buying, who knows you could have bought something in that sale too, since the man had several. Skeith has full audio, but this officer stated to the man about to show me his weapons..."I have been advised to tell you not to sell to them" "This man then announced "he's my lawyer" and walked away to destroy several pistols....

 

[sudden valley gunner]

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.

Good points. There are cases of fairly anarchist societies working very well, the book "The not so Wild West" talks about how the west was more civil before civilization. Rothbard points out several times in U.S. history where anarchism was almost the political norm at times, in his book "Conceived in Liberty", Pennsylvania's early history and Rhode Island. William Penn almost lost his charter several times because the colony he started just ignored government. They also for the most part had good relationship with the indigenous population around them, even putting them on jury's when it was a native to be tried. Much of this was lost due to the manipulations of Benjamin Franklin.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

My new acronym....because I C.A.R.E. Confrontational, Anarchist, Radical, Extremist.........

 

[papa bear]

sorry MARSHUAL, for the functional intelligent, will clarify my post. the question was about weather or not tyranny raises out of anarchy, and my response was that several tyrannies have rose from anarchy. sorry you couldn't figure that out

i will try and dumb down my responses for the blind that will not see

 

[marshaul]

Good points. There are cases of fairly anarchist societies working very well, the book "The not so Wild West" talks about how the west was more civil before civilization. Rothbard points out several times in U.S. history where anarchism was almost the political norm at times, in his book "Conceived in Liberty", Pennsylvania's early history and Rhode Island. William Penn almost lost his charter several times because the colony he started just ignored government. They also for the most part had good relationship with the indigenous population around them, even putting them on jury's when it was a native to be tried. Much of this was lost due to the manipulations of Benjamin Franklin.

Fair enough, although of course you know the statists will claim in a heartbeat that those aren't examples of anarchy, if for no other reason than there weren't people throwing molotov cocktails and committing extortion on a daily basis. (Forget that that's circular reasoning. )

Actually, it's fair to say that many of the indigenous areas had functional anarchy before whites came to America. Tribes were much more voluntary communities with their own unique rules etc., and much less "government" as defined by the legitimization and monopolization of coercive force.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Paranoia is not the problem, apathy is. Pres Nixon's abuses were minor compared to present day abuses of government, the people were and rightfully so outraged. NOW, as long as the people get their freebees they couldn't care less what the government does to "somebody else".

Some paranoia is a good thing, it is needed to keep government honest, IMO there is not enough of it, and too much of it by select individuals.

 

[palerider116]

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.

Convey your disgust. Report me to the principal. I care not.

You failed to establish how anarchy is liberty. You cannot.

We can agree that our ideas of liberty cannot be reconciled.

P.S. John Adams has furthered the cause of liberty more than any of us, HBO series notwithstanding.

 

[OC for ME]

I wonder what the chief had to say about his tribe, of mostly volunteers, doing what they wanted instead of what he thought was good for the tribe.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Fair enough, although of course you know the statists will claim in a heartbeat that those aren't examples of anarchy, if for no other reason than there weren't people throwing molotov cocktails and committing extortion on a daily basis. (Forget that that's circular reasoning. )

Actually, it's fair to say that many of the indigenous areas had functional anarchy before whites came to America. Tribes were much more voluntary communities with their own unique rules etc., and much less "government" as defined by the legitimization and monopolization of coercive force.

True they just can't let go of a demonized vision of anarchy.

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said something to the effect that if the savages could do it why can't we?

I wonder what the chief had to say about his tribe, of mostly volunteers, doing what they wanted instead of what he thought was good for the tribe.

Depends on the nation but chiefs were killed or disposed of if they became tyrannical. Many North American tribes had developed a much more libertarian way of doing things, than the empires of the south.

 

[OC for ME]

True they just can't let go of a demonized vision of anarchy.

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said something to the effect that if the savages could do it why can't we?



Depends on the nation but chiefs were killed or disposed of if they became tyrannical. Many North American tribes had developed a much more libertarian way of doing things, than the empires of the south.

Was there 100% agreement amongst the mostly volunteers on the fate of the perceived tyrannical chief?

The fundamental issue that anarchy does not address "what to do with the supports of the last chief."

 

[marshaul]

Was there 100% agreement amongst the mostly volunteers on the fate of the perceived tyrannical chief?

The fundamental issue that anarchy does not address "what to do with the supports of the last chief."

You don't need 100% agreement on anything, nor is the answer to your questions pertinent.

An individual could simply leave a tribe. And, unlike government, that tribe wouldn't claim to govern every square inch of land, so "leaving" might actually be a reasonable response (under government, "if you don't like it, just leave!" is of no merit, because there is nowhere to leave to – government has monopolized everything).

 

[OC for ME]

You don't need 100% agreement on anything, nor is the answer to your questions pertinent.

An individual could simply leave a tribe. And, unlike government, that tribe wouldn't claim to govern every square inch of land, so "leaving" might actually be a reasonable response (under government, "if you don't like it, just leave!" is of no merit, because there is nowhere to leave to – government has monopolized everything).

You implied that leaving might be an option. The pertinence of the question depends upon which faction the mostly volunteers align themselves with. You choose to consider the question to not be pertinent, the former chiefs supporters may find the question very pertinent.

Though, the detractors of the former chief would likely be the majority and thus give the option to "leave or else" to the former chiefs supporters.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Was there 100% agreement amongst the mostly volunteers on the fate of the perceived tyrannical chief?

The fundamental issue that anarchy does not address "what to do with the supports of the last chief."

Anarchy doesn't have to deal with those issues, individuals deal with those issues, that is anarchism.

In anarchist Pennsylvania, British officials were constantly ran off, not everyone agreed some liked being loyalist and subjects to the king. It was one of the most peaceful colonies, getting along with indigenous folks, and their court houses were rarely used because people resolved issues amongst themselves, generally peacefully. It is why for a long time Pittsburgh became a bigger more prosperous hub of trade than the overgoverned, trade protected etc, than New York.

The modern day demonization that "anarchy" equals chaos is just plain wrong. Would you suddenly go wild and start looting and killing and treating your neighbors and community horribly, if suddenly there were no state government and law enforcement? I don't think so, here's the dirty little secret neither would the overwhelming majority of your neighbors and community. The Indians with vast amounts of land and resources were no different than you and I.

 

[marshaul]

Would you suddenly go wild and start looting and killing and treating your neighbors and community horribly, if suddenly there were no state government and law enforcement? I don't think so, here's the dirty little secret neither would the overwhelming majority of your neighbors and community. The Indians with vast amounts of land and resources were no different than you and I.

+1

Well, except palerider. I think his suggestion that I would be a threat to him was projection, because it's unfathomable otherwise how a strict adherent to the principle of non-aggression could be a threat to anyone (except, you know, aggressors).

 

[sudden valley gunner]

+1

Well, except palerider. I think his suggestion that I would be a threat to him was projection, because it's unfathomable otherwise how a strict adherent to the principle of non-aggression could be a threat to anyone (except, you know, aggressors).

How true that's a good way of phrasing that.

 

[OC for ME]

Anarchy doesn't have to deal with those issues, individuals deal with those issues, that is anarchism.

In anarchist Pennsylvania, British officials were constantly ran off, not everyone agreed some liked being loyalist and subjects to the king. It was one of the most peaceful colonies, getting along with indigenous folks, and their court houses were rarely used because people resolved issues amongst themselves, generally peacefully. It is why for a long time Pittsburgh became a bigger more prosperous hub of trade than the overgoverned, trade protected etc, than New York.

The modern day demonization that "anarchy" equals chaos is just plain wrong. Would you suddenly go wild and start looting and killing and treating your neighbors and community horribly, if suddenly there were no state government and law enforcement? I don't think so, here's the dirty little secret neither would the overwhelming majority of your neighbors and community. The Indians with vast amounts of land and resources were no different than you and I.

Well stated.

I intentionally omitted a third option for the chief's supporters, to stay and coexist. Individuals, as you correctly point out, are ultimately responsible for their own actions. But, liberty demands that the citizenry respect the rights of their fellow citizens regardless of their personal views.

The chief's supporters would have had a difficult decision to make. The majority should respect their right to choose, give them time to choose their course of action, and then respect their decision. Liberty demands that the chief's supports respect the majority decision.

The issue re the looting and killing is singularly important, some number of citizens will resort to looting and killing and anarchy, as you define it, would evolve/devolve, for necessities sake, back into a form of "government" to deal with violent anarchists. Such is the nature of humanity in my view. Once the "government" (collective if you will) has dealt with the threat we once again start down the path that was started over 200 years ago in this country.

+1 to you Sir.