Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10stateswithnh]

My post wasn't meant to "nitpick" about semantics or to label anyone. Sensible debate requires using the correct terminology. I said nothing about any personal political stance (or yours for that matter) whatsoever.

an·ar·chy
   /ˈænərki/
–noun
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

Anarchy is an absolute condition, like Dead and Pregnant. Just as you can't be "a little dead" or "a little pregnant", you can not have a"little bit of anarchy". You CAN however have "a little bit of politics", "a small amount of government", or, "a limited amount of law". The term "Political Anarchy" contradicts itself, resulting in the condition coined by Orwell as "DoubleThink", i.e. believing that something both exists and does not exist at the same time.

Words are all we have to work with in Discussion and Debate, and using the correct terms matters.

Stoker, I disagree.
I say it depends on the tense of the words being used, if political anarchy is a contradiction. What about a person who shares the ideal of definition 3 for their desired future society but does not see using politics as immoral WHEN focused on regaining liberty and reducing government? How would you label this person, if political anarchist is so wrong? I might have used the term political anarchist to describe myself as well, not because I thought the term fit, but because I didn't have a better one.

Another of your posts had, I thought, some extra assumptions about whether a person could be an anarchist who participates in a political system. I mean extra assumptions beyond how anarchy is defined. What is the basis for this extra assumption, and why should every other anarchist here bow to your superior knowledge of what we're allowed to think?

I wanted to quote your extra assumption but there have been so many posts since that it did not appear on the page after I started the reply. I will quote it in a separate post.

I agree with this point by another poster:

I can't resist again pointing out the difference between a goal or philosophical/moral stance and tactics.  Unless I'm missing something, by your definition (and mine) an anarchist is one who aspires to live in a place without government.  I fail to see how an anarchist who sees gaining political office as the best way of achieving anarchy is not an anarchist.  Such a person may be mistaken in their efforts but that's a dispute over strategy/tactics rather the person's aspiration.  So politician and anarchist are not mutually exclusive in the way that you believe; unless you conflate goals with tactics.

[10stateswithnh]

What you are alluding to are examples of people who have have quasi-anarchistic idealogies , but again, if you are part of the governmental process you are not an Anarchist. If you vote or especially if you actually run for office- you are a de-facto part of an organized governmental process and therefore not Anarchist in principle or action. The only way to be an Anarchist is to not participate in any type of organized rule over others. I am personally not a proponent of true Anarchy, just pointing out misnomers that are commonly associated with the term "Anarchy".

This quote is the extra assumption I was referring to. The definition of anarchy I just quoted which you originally posted, Stoker, says nothing about a person who holds to the theory of anarchy and whether they can participate in a political system. It is an extra assumption that you have not provided any evidence to support.

By the way, I like that definition 3. It is the ideal of anarchy I want, not a here and now sudden jump into a state in which so many essential services previously monopolized by governments now have no provider. Nor is it a logically necessary view, I believe, to hold that voting to keep more of my own money, or telling others I won't let them force me to pay for stuff I don't want, is somehow forcing them to do anything. If I could view that as aggression then I would have to agree that participating in politics is immoral, but if it is force it is defensive only. I'm not going to stop my neighbors from having a coercive state, as long as they let me opt out.

[10stateswithnh]

"Political Anarchist"?

Sure.  Back when I lived in TN, about half the people that attended the local LP meeting were anarchist.  You see, anarchy may be an ideology.  It doesn't have to be a way of life.  There are liberal Republicans and libertarian Democrats.  There are also plenty of anarchists that vote, or even run for office.  I've known them to run as Independents, Libertarians and even Democrats.  Some of them likely run as Republicans.  Sure, it may not be common, but anarchists in general aren't common so that isn't saying much.

I'll bring up an example of someone you have heard of, Ian Freeman.  He is a V, not an anarchist, though he used to be an anarchist.  Either way, he was and is still political.  He encourages others to run for office, helps them campaign and so on.  He even testifies in front of committees and contacts the state representatives in the district where he lives. Of course, he, like many anarchists, has voted.

Maybe you are new to the ideas of FSP.  Please stay around.  Lots of interesting stuff is happening here.

I agree with everything here. Except I don't understand this comment:
Ian is a V. What is a V?

[John Edward Mercier]

Voluntaryist. Anarchy can have both an orderly and chaotic outcome. Voluntaryism remits the chaotic outcome by the individual chosing to avoid aggressive behavior toward others.

[Stoker]

Voluntaryist. Anarchy can have both an orderly and chaotic outcome. Voluntaryism remits the chaotic outcome by the individual chosing to avoid aggressive behavior toward others.

And here I thought it meant "Visitor"

[citizen Winston]

But, I consider those trying to change the system by voting to be deluded allies, scratching at the surface of injustice.

The feeling is mutual, but I can at least admit that CD (the tactic) is a useful tool when used in conjunction with voting.

How much aggression do you support as a mini-statist?

Ian, that question is just not constructive if you're talking to someone who already self-identifies as a libertarian.

I know you feel this was a valid and useful question for debate; indeed, it would be, if it were intended to enlighten 3rd parties (such as on the radio) -- at the expense of alienating the person to whom you are asking the question.

Denis how would you recommend explaining to politically minded individuals that the idea that government can protect the rights of the people by first taking them away? How does avoiding things like morals and principles honor lives destroyed by government? The reason it alienates people is because they want to pretend not to see the continuing harm caused by governments every single day.

Hi Sam, I can speak for myself. I saw that post and I ignored it because like Jason Sorrens said, I already identified myself as being a libertarian.  I took it as an obvious attempt at belittling me and sidetracking the thread early on. I don't pretend that this large and out of control government is destroying lives, however to equate that with all possible forms and scales of government is the sort of absolutist leap I don't take.

BTW I did contribute to the CD fund and I thought your story and the former police officer's were quite sincere and powerful.

that is really my biggest frustration with the CD folks: you could be doing that _anyplace_, NH's political system is unique to here, so you're making it harder for those of us who are trying to do it here because we CAN here.  If you decided to do 4:20 in Vermont, or Mass, or New York, you could do it.
We can't.  NH is _special_, for politics.  It's the last vestige of what politics should be, instead of the money/snake pit it's become.

That is why I am baffled at the sort of reception people like myself who are libertarians receive.  This sort of contempt is un-called for and doesn't seem compatible to what the FSP highlights as being reasons to move to New Hampshire in the first place.  Below are a couple of snippets taken from the official freestateproject.org website...

The success of the Project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government, to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.

Whether you are planning a legislative effort, grassroots campaign, formal conference, or public demonstration, you will find an enthusiastic legion of libertarian activists ready to help.

With 400 members, the largest state legislature in the US, providing the highest ratio of representation and easy access to politics.

So when I see anarchists at PorcFest disparaging legislative efforts to reform government, I feel it turns would-be movers off and only muddles what the FSP is really about - unless people on here are being disingenuous.  Then again I just recently found a video of PorcFest's rap competition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgFAS6tFCxk) whereby the host says...

Host: "Fuck those guys...Rand Paul, Ron Paul"
Host: "Did you not realize there was an anarchist hosting this rap battle?"

Again, I interacted with many a anarchists while there that didn't resemble this guy at all.  If anything, this serves as a perfect example of the type of chauvinistic, "more anarchist than thou" attitude that disgusts me and is totally counter-productive to what I read were the goals and motivations of the FSP. 

[FTL_Ian]

Rand Paul is a wannabe thug.

Big Mike (the host) rocks.  What did you expect at a rap contest - clean lyrics?

[citizen Winston]

lol, not at all.  I'm not a big fan of Rand Paul either.  Its the whole F Ron Paul just because he works within the system thing.

[BigJoe]

Rand Paul is a wannabe thug.

does that mean that he wants to be a libertarian but is actually a thug, or wants to be a thug but is a libertarian 

[freedomroad]

Rand Paul is a wannabe thug.

That's absurd.  There is no need to make fun of Rand Paul in such a way who will likely be the least bad Senator in the nation in decades if elected.

[freedomroad]

lol, not at all.  I'm not a big fan of Rand Paul either.  Its the whole F Ron Paul just because he works within the system thing.

There was lots of stuff like that during the Soap Box Idol.  I wouldn't take it to serious.  I'm pretty sure that some of those people were playing up the hate.  I doubt there is as much hate it that room as it appeared, as has been said in other places in this forum.  I really like that alternative events were scheduled at the same time though, so if someone had anyone problems with Soap Box Idol they could leave and still have fun events to enjoy elsewhere.

[FTL_Ian]

Rand Paul is a wannabe thug.

That's absurd.  There is no need to make fun of Rand Paul in such a way who will likely be the least bad Senator in the nation in decades if elected.

Unless you are brown.  He seems to hate brown people.

Unless you don't want a police state with underground electric fences and helicopters everywhere.

Unless you don't want military tribunals.

[freedomroad]

Unless you are brown.  He seems to hate brown people.

Unless you don't want a police state with underground electric fences and helicopters everywhere.

Unless you don't want military tribunals.

I have seen zero evidence of Rand Paul hating brown people.  Making such a statement in a completely serious manor perhaps reflects more on you than Rand Paul. 

Maybe we use the term thug differently.  The commonly used definitions I usually hear people use are low level criminal or inner city cool person.

[Argentum]

Rand Paul is a wannabe thug.

That's absurd.  There is no need to make fun of Rand Paul in such a way who will likely be the least bad Senator in the nation in decades if elected.

Unless you are brown.  He seems to hate brown people.

Unless you don't want a police state with underground electric fences and helicopters everywhere.

Unless you don't want military tribunals.

Why inject race into it?  I oppose immigration laws but recognize that most of the opposition to free movement of people is not based on race.  What evidence do you have that demonstrates that he seems to hate brown people?

[Stoker]

Rand Paul is a wannabe thug.

That's absurd.  There is no need to make fun of Rand Paul in such a way who will likely be the least bad Senator in the nation in decades if elected.

Unless you are brown.  He seems to hate brown people.

Unless you don't want a police state with underground electric fences and helicopters everywhere.

Unless you don't want military tribunals.

Why inject race into it.  I oppose immigration laws but recogize that most of the opposition to free movement of people is not based on race.  What evidence do you have that demonstrates that he seems to hate brown people?

He heard it on from the mainstream media - probably msnbc . And we all know that anybody that doesn't believe every god damned word from the Media that is completely fucking owned by the Fascist Warmongers is a Wacko Conspiracy Theorist right???