Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 42   Go Down

Author Topic: Libertarian vs Anarchism  (Read 93672 times)

admin

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2002, 08:27:58 pm »


My point is that between nations, there is by necessity no such thing as right and wrong.  It is true anarchy in that there is no authority to appeal to that has any real power.  If you (as a nation) feel you have been wronged, you can either do something about it or do nothing, but you can't go to court about it.  The United States is "right" due to being the most powerful force on earth.  It cannot do _anything_ however, since even the US can be defeated by some combination of other nations.  As such for the US to do anything aggressive it must have the tacit approval of another nation.  If a portion of the US seceded, the US would be within its rights (power) to forcefully take over the now "sovereign" nation, unless pressure can be brought against them to keep them from doing so.

Perhaps we are discussing different meanings of the term anarchist.  if "Anarchist" _only_ means that you believe the state shouldn't prevent secession, I am also an anarchist.  I think the North was wrong in attacking the South.  My understanding is that an anarchist is an advocate of the removal of all forms of government.  It is my argument that if that was possible, it would be a very brief state quickly ended by the grouping together under warlords, followed by other oppressive forms of government.

PS:  The North believed that the South still belonged to the US, and thus from _their_ point of view, it was "their land."  If the South had seceded by moving to Antarctica, I don't think the US would have worried with it, since they kept the land.


Maestro,

It's as though we really have no common ground at all.  You are espousing the position that whoever has the power to physically overpower someone else is morally in the right to do so.  Unless I'm really confused about terminology, to say someone has "the right" to do something implies they are morally correct in doing it.

Regarding secession.  I think it's true that if you believe in secession you are an anarchist.  Because if the state can secede, so can a county, city, individual block, or single privately owned lot.  If I can opt out of my city/county/state and federal politics by seceding my house, my participation is voluntary.  Once participation is voluntary, I call that anarchy.

Charles
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2002, 12:44:13 am »

I don't believe it is morally correct.  I believe it is fact, moral or not.  Morals are what individuals use to maintain their conscience.  Laws are what are used to prevent or to correct those whose conscience fails to match the social contract (which includes shared morals against assault and murder).  Nations have few morals, since they are run by committee in many ways, and nations have no laws.  Thus, the basic system of "might makes right" takes over.  As such, you are able to secede whenever you want, but if the nation you secede from doesn't like it, they can fight you stop you.  _I_ think that our constitution implies a legal right to secession of states, but the civil war proved that such a right will not be recognized without a fight, military or otherwise.

But regarding the definition of Anarchy, if a state had in its constitution a legally explicit right to secede recognized for individuals, groups, etc, then that state would still be a government, not an anarchy.  Webster is very specific in specifying the advocacy of anarchism, which it describes as lack of government.  I support the right of secession, but I am not an anarchist by this definition.

But my original point is _still_ that anarchy is not possible in any area with a significant population density, since similarly to the relations between nations, men without morals will consolidate into tyrannical governments and will simply use force to subjugate or kill the anarchists.

Unfortunately, it seems that humankind is not "civilized" enough to live in anarchy around other humans.

But I am simply discussing governmental philosophy.  Do not take these arguments as an endorsement of immoral or amoral governance.  I am merely telling it as I see it.  I apologize if I come across as harsh or heartless; I am not so bad when I'm not arguing philosophy and politics. :)
Logged

bud

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2002, 12:58:29 am »

Once we select and start moving into our target state, we will have the existing government to contend with, which we will attempt to take over by electoral methods. So, at least initially,  government will be part of the equation.
However, ALL government evolves into tyranny--ALL GOVERNMENT.  Look at  the system created by the founders of the American Republic. It started out as a free market driven system of governance, and gradually degenerated into what you see today.  Starting out with a minimal government and progressing to even less government is the only way to stay free.  The method of control--keep it deprived of money-- barely enough to maintain it, and do this by whatever means it takes.  Then, as citizens see how well they can do without government, the size of government will become smaller and smaller.  Like continually reducing a number by half, you theoretically never get to zero, but effectively, you do.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2002, 09:49:48 am »

I agree that all governments move toward tyranny, but some move faster than others, and a society lacking government moves even faster toward tyranny.  

To quote Jefferson: "the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."  Even if the FSP is entirely successful, and the US returns to its moral and philosophical roots, we will see it degrade again, and 100 years, 200 years or 500 years hence we will have to rise up again in another FSP or perhaps even another Civil War.  

But the fact that it won't last forever doesn't make the goal less worthy or less valuable.
Logged

bud

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2002, 10:18:48 pm »

Is the goal of FSP to return the US to some undefined former status, or to provide a free place for free people to live free?  I admit that if FSP succeeds, it will become a model for others to emulate, but the rest of the sheeple may not have the brass to try the same thing.  In addition, if it works, the Feral gummint can do any number of things to "persuade" other states to not follow suit.  That's too large a chunk for FSP to bite off.

Also, how can anyone say that lack of government leads to tyranny.  Just like true free market economics, its never been tried.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2002, 10:23:59 pm by bud »
Logged

amyday

  • Guest
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #20 on: July 28, 2002, 09:58:37 pm »

I am against all forms of government. All governments steal and hurt people. Example, all governments collect taxes. This is stealing. I don't want to give them the money but they take it by force. If I don't let them have my money they will take me away from my family and lock me up. If I resist them trying to lock me up, they will kill me. All governments need tax money, so all governments need the threat of death to enforce payment. This is immoral.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2002, 03:20:39 pm »

I don't speak for FSP.  I am not even a sworn member yet, since I am not financially independent enough to make the commitment.  As far as I can tell, FSP's plan is _limited to_ moving to a state and working within the state to create greater freedom.  Secession is not mentioned in the contract, and thus is just the opinion of a few members (or perhaps lurkers?), similar to the fact that my constitutionist views are just my opinion.

However, the US constitution did _not_ permit the federal government to tax people for federal treasury purposes.  It permitted the institution of tariffs and excise taxes which are taxes on commerce between the US and other nations.  Such taxes _are not_ coerced, since both parties have the right to refuse commerce.

I'll save my attempted proof of the failure of anarchy for another post
Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2002, 03:29:29 pm »

[quote
I'll save my attempted proof of the failure of anarchy for another post
/quote]

Actually I really like to hear from the anarchist on how they think they can form a society w/o any gov't.  There seems to be a good number of you guys.  I'd like to hear what the solution is to all of the problems that could occur?
-Eddie
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2002, 03:32:49 pm »

As for anarchy, I will attempt to prove that anarchy must fail.  This will not likely be rigorous enough for mathematics, but I'll do my best.

The natural state of man, and indeed most other creatures, is anarchy.  if men and women are released from their pre-civilization families to "make their fortune", they are in an anarchic state initially.  That anarchic state can survive as long as those men stay apart.  Inevitably, there will be conflict over space and resources, and conflicts will occur.  if any two or more men realize that they can hold more power by working together than by working apart, they will form a group.  That group will in almost all circumstances be lopsided toward a single dominant character.  Thus you arrive at a warlord and his war party.  Those not in the war party cannot survive alone, as they are severely outnumbered.  They can run, and starve, or they can fight by finding others who do not wish to be victims.  thus the second government is formed.  Regardless of which was the aggressor, both will eventually become corrupt.

The only way around this is if you believe that _all_ men can be convinced of the righteousness of anarchy (and it is a happy idea) and that no man will become a warlord, contrary to 6000+ years of human history.  Thus I claim that anarchy has been tried and has failed and cannot succeed due to the flaws of human nature.

Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2002, 03:43:58 pm »

To say it more simply:

Because government exists, Anarchy is impossible.

Logged

amyday

  • Guest
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2002, 05:06:57 pm »

Becuase something is unlikely to happen doesn't mean it shouldn't be tried and hoped for. It is unlikely that murder will ever cease to happen. But most people think murder is wrong, don't want it to happen, and are willing to punish murderers in hopes they don't do it again.  Many people believe in being armed so as to make it unlikely that they will be a victim of a murderer.  Should we just give up on the whole getting rid of murder thing because it is not going to happen? Or isn't it best to keep trying for the unattainable goal, because that is the right thing to do? Government steals from, hurts, and kills people. I would like to get rid of government. It may never happen. But I believe it is a better goal than just wanting government to steal a little less and kill fewer people.
Logged

maestro

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 854
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2002, 10:06:41 pm »

If you create an anarchy, then the first time someone else decides to destroy you, you will be destroyed, one by one, because you have no structure around which to mount a defense.  Thus while it is a happy ideal, it is a deadly dangerous situation to be in.  And if you come to your survivalist senses and band together, it is unlikely to be under a strong anti-tyrannical constitution, and thus you'll be speeding a tyranny along.

It's a bad idea to try, because failure will result in a worse situation than not doing anything.

Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #27 on: July 30, 2002, 01:04:04 am »

Although skeptical I really am interested in anarchy theories.  Currently it seems to me you could construct a society where many of the rolls of government were taken over by private contracts, mutual defense pacts, and insurance companies.  The more I think about it the more I realise all governments do is risk management.  The government is simply a really sound institution to assume this risk because it is by deffinition all powerful.  I think this is worth considering but yet I don't really see any of the anarchists putting up theories here.  Probably they haven't found this thread or had time to respond but really though I am interested!  :)
-Eddie
Logged

Matthew

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #28 on: July 30, 2002, 01:41:57 am »

My only problem with anarchy is that any country could come and take over the anarchist "state".  Then I read this: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secJ7.html#secj76 along with somwthing else... I started to think about how the people would defend themselves if there was an invasion plus there'd be militias.  If your city was going ti be invaded by China might you take up arms.  A city like L.A. was several more people then the world's largest army.

This is a good anarchist FAQ site although it is fairly left-anarchist:  http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/
Logged
"And if Donald Trump delivered the mail, you could send letters for 12 cents, and also gamble with the stamps." Howard Stern

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:Libertarian vs Anarchism
« Reply #29 on: July 30, 2002, 01:50:40 am »


I started to think about how the people would defend themselves if there was an invasion plus there'd be militias.


Two words: "Red Dawn"   :D
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 42   Go Up