Few (other than Sensetti and Rex The Douche) are left here who consider themselves Repubs or Dems.
I guess the alternative is Libertarian.
But what about Anarchists?? In all the years I’ve been here I can hardly recall that being discussed — other than in a passing comment here and there.
Admittedly, I know very little about it. I’m thinking that it’s time to learn more about it. What say you?
Interesting short video … is it not?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ko_CHk7R8Tw000
Error in video.
Here’s what I do know:
I watched a great series on YouTube, hosted by Mark Passio on the subject of Natural Law. In that presentation, Mark defines what anarchism REALLY is, vs. how the meaning of the word has been distorted over time.
Anarchism literally means, ‘Without Rulers” NOT “Without Rules.” Thus, we can all learn to rule ourselves, rather than having other rule us from the outside. So, when we hear the word “anarchy” and we picture a city on fire, with people running naked in the streets, willy-nilly, that’s a misconception of what the word really means. The word means “absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.”
Since spending a good but of time listening to Mark Passio’s podcast, I have come to see that I’m an anarchist, also. Further than a libertarian.
My other favorite podcast, “The Survival Podcast” By Jack Spirko also advocates anarchism. He’s only just come around, having previously advocated for min-archism.
Anybody who puts any amount of open thought into this will see that anarchism is really the only political option that makes any sense.
As the joke goes:
Q: What’s the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
A: About 6 months.
Tim
Tim-The elite power structure of the world has spent much effort in making sure the sheep never figure out what you just stated. They (TPTB) are the ones who distorted the definition of anarchy. They have also wiped the planet clean of many tribes/clans/societies living in harmony with natural order void of a organized central government.
If you go to the extreme left of the political spectrum you have totalitarian communism, go to the extreme right of center in the spectrum and you have anarchy (lack of or no government).
People have condemned me for that statement many times as they have been schooled that anarchy is a state of lawlessness and violence…….not so in every case.
Higgs, nails it.
[img]https://www.tumblr.com/search/ht:%20robert%20higgs#[/img]
[img[/img]
Stuck…got a link to the vid?
All.you people are law abiding citizens.Hell ,Admin who claims to be an anarchist has never been arrested. He has probably never left Lancaster county in Pennsylvania. He administers at an ivy league school .He’s about as radical as my cat.
Stucky is to lazy . Lipoh gone to Australia. The rest of us have to ……WORK FOR A LIVING. I done see how anarchism can work.
I prefer to categorize myself as being simply Anti-Evil, or more specifically in this case, Anti-Amerikan.
Same thing.
Here is the link to the video ——— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko_CHk7R8Tw
Tim ,kinda like Biltmore last week ?
I did not realize Ron Paul was a closet anarchist
Doug Casey on Anarchy
(Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator)
L: Doug, you keep saying you’re an anarchist. I suspect most of our readers know that doesn’t mean you like to wear black army boots and throw Molotov cocktails at McDonald’s restaurants during WTO protests, but I’m not sure how many really know what it is you do mean. And since this is central to your world-view and hence touches on all your thinking as an investor and speculator, it seems useful to clear the air. Few may agree with us on this topic, but let’s talk about anarchy.
Doug: Sure. If people aren’t open-minded enough to even consider an alternative view, they’re their own worst problem, not my ideas. In point of fact, anarchism is the gentlest of all political systems. It contemplates no institutionalized coercion. It’s the watercourse way, where everything is allowed to rise or fall naturally to its own level. An anarchic system is necessarily one of free-market capitalism. Any services that are needed and wanted by people – like the police or the courts – would be provided by entrepreneurs, who’d do it for a profit.
Look, I’d be happy enough if the state – which is an instrument of pure coercion, even after you tart it up with the trappings of democracy, a constitution, and what-not – were limited to protecting you from coercion and absolutely nothing more. That would imply a police force to protect you from coercion within its bailiwick. A court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without resorting to force. And some type of military to protect you from outside predators.
Unfortunately, the government today does everything but these functions – and when it does deign to protect, it does so very poorly. The police are increasingly ineffective at protecting you; they seem to specialize in enforcing arbitrary laws. The courts? They apply arbitrary laws, and you need to be wealthy to use them – although you’re likely to be impoverished by the time you get out of them. And the military hardly defends the country anymore – it’s all over the world creating enemies, generally, of the most backward foreigners.
In a free-market anarchy, the police would likely be subsidiaries of insurance companies, and courts would have to compete with each other based on the speed, fairness, and low cost of their decisions. The military presents a more complex problem, beyond our range here, although we’ve gone into a lot of aspects in our discussion on terror last week and the military a couple months back.
L: That’s a lot for most mainstream folks to swallow at once, Boss. On the other hand, the way I see it, it would be inconsistent with my libertarian principles to demand that anyone agree with me – but I don’t need to be helping those who would enslave me to make money anyway. That said, let’s try to ease into this…
Doug: So, let’s start with a definition. Many people think of anarchy as being chaos. They see riots and chaos on TV from some place in conflict and think, “What anarchy!”
L: That’s if the talking heads don’t tell them that what they are seeing is anarchy to begin with.
Doug: Right. But chaos and bomb throwing are not anarchy. Chaos is the actual opposite of anarchy. Anarchy is simply a form of political organization that does not put one ruler, or ruling body, over everyone in a society. Whether that’s actually possible is a separate matter. This is what it means. And I see it as an ideal to strive for.
L: I’m looking at Webster’s, and it says that anarchy is: A: Absence of government. B: A state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority. C: A utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government. People might say you’re focusing only on C.
Doug: Look at the etymology. It comes from the Greek anarchos, meaning “having no ruler,” an-, not, and archos, ruler. Definition B has come into popular use, but that doesn’t make it right.
“Anarchy” is a word that’s been stolen and corrupted by the collectivists – like “liberal,” It used to be that a liberal was someone who believed in both social and economic freedom. Now a liberal is no better than a muddle-headed thief – someone who’s liberal only with other people’s money.
I refuse to let the bad guys control the intellectual battlefield by expropriating and ruining good words.
In any event, there’s no conflict whatsoever between anarchy and the rule of law, since there are private forms of law and governance. That’s what Common Law is all about. So the correct definition is a combination of A and C.
But I never said a truly free, anarchic society would be a utopia; it would simply be a society that emphasizes personal responsibility and doesn’t have any organized institutions of coercion. Perfect harmony is not an option for imperfect human beings. Social order, however, is possible without the state. In fact, the state is so dangerous because it necessarily draws the sociopaths – who like coercion – to itself.
What holds society together is not a bunch of strict laws and a brutal police force – it’s basically peer pressure, moral suasion, and social opprobrium. Look at a restaurant. The bills get paid not because anybody is afraid of the police, but for the three reasons I just mentioned.
L: I saw some of this in Argentina over the last few days. Here we are at your Harvest Celebration. Two hundred people, most of whom have never met before, a hundred miles from nowhere – I don’t know if the nearby town of Cafayate even has a cop, but if it does, he’s well hidden. For all anyone can see, it’s us, the grape vines, and the mountains.
And yet, there was order. The Estancia is private property. Your people organized things, and the guests went along with it and had a great time. Why? I don’t think many of them calculated the odds of getting killed if they tried to use violence to get everything they wanted, though a rational person making such a calculation would decide it wasn’t worth it.
Most people are brought up to be decent, and the people you tend to attract have a certain moral fiber. In other words, the event was governed by a culture of voluntary and honorable cooperation.
Doug: Just so. It’s like when people form lines at movie theaters or ski lifts. There doesn’t have to be a cop with a gun there to make everyone take turns. Everyone knows that if they take turns, it all works out better for everyone – and they are brought up to act that way, so they usually don’t even have to make that calculation.
A more obviously government-like example is Disneyworld, which is nothing less than a private city, complete with numerous rules that would be called laws if it were run by politicians instead of a corporation.
Why would anyone go along with rules that aren’t laws? Because they want to go to Disneyworld. They agree, and for the most part, they go along, and if they cause too much trouble, Disney kicks ‘em out – which they have every right to do as owners of their private property.
As Pareto’s Law indicates, there’s inevitably a bad element in most places. 80% of folks are truly decent, and 20% are perhaps problematical. And 20% of that 20% are bad apples. You have to have a culture that keeps them hiding under rocks, rather than rising to the top – as they wind up doing quite often in government.
The reaction of a person to the idea of a truly free society is an excellent moral litmus test. The more negative the reaction, the more likely you’re dealing with a sociopath.
L: What would you say to people who point out that when the government collapsed in Somalia a few years ago, bloodshed ensued, or that when the government disappeared from New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, ugly chaos did erupt?
Doug: It’s as you said: a cultural matter. If you have people who’ve been brought up to believe that the only limits on what you can or should do is the force exerted by the authorities, it’s no surprise that when the greater power disappears, they reach out to take whatever they want, by force.
That’s clearly the case in Somalia, but it’s also true of the people stranded in New Orleans, who were primarily those with no money to flee – in other words, the inhabitants of government housing projects. It’s not politically correct to point this out, but those people had, on average, a distinctly different culture from that of the average American.
Actually, ex-police states are the most dangerous places – like Russia in the early ’90s, the Congo in the early ’60s, or Haiti today, because they have a culture of repression that’s like a pressure cooker. When the lid comes off, it’s a mess.
L: I seem to recall a flood in West Virginia in recent years that wiped out half of a small town. Instead of raping and robbing each other, those not hurt helped the victims. They housed them, fed them, and even helped them build new houses. And no one made them do it. It wasn’t a case of better government – it was just their culture to do so.
Doug: And culture is a matter of education, which means that societies that function on voluntary cooperation, as in Cafayate, Disneyland, or the town you’re talking about in West Virginia, are possible.
There is nothing in human nature that makes it impossible to create a society of people who respect each other’s rights and follow accepted systems for working out differences, like getting in lines at movie theaters. There would still be criminals and sociopaths to deal with, as these occur in a standard distribution in every population – but the point is that the society doesn’t have to be built around an essentially criminal organization, the state.
L: And those sociopaths would be limited to whatever mischief they could wreak personally, instead of having access to the machinery of the state to multiply the harm they can do. But I think most people would balk at your characterization of the state as essentially criminal.
I know that’s a big topic people have written whole books about, but can you give us something brief to substantiate your view?
Doug: Well, it’s really not that complicated. We can probably agree that it’s wrong for me to point a gun at you and take all your money. Some people might feel sorry for me if I did that to buy medicine for my dying mother, but it’s still a crime, because it violates your human rights. And it’s still a crime if I ask someone else to do the same thing for me – and still a crime if a whole bunch of people vote to ask someone with a spiffy uniform and a badge to do the same thing.
It wouldn’t matter any more if a group of people calling themselves Congress went through some rituals that involved a leader putting some ink on some paper and said a violation of your rights was now “legal” than if a witch-doctor told a tribe’s warriors that it was okay to take slaves and sacrifice them to the gods. Laws are just a “civilized” man’s taboos.
L: Obamacare is a case of exactly this. Socialized medicine puts you and me in the position of the tribe’s sacrifice, because the mass of voters want free goodies at the expense of those who produce more than they do.
But to get back to the word “criminal” – you’re saying that the state is inherently criminal because it violates human rights. But does it have to be that way? Didn’t Ayn Rand have an idea for a kind of government that would not violate anyone’s rights?
Doug: I don’t think she ever came up with a detailed plan. I find it interesting that her “Galt’s Gulch” in Atlas Shrugged was clearly a private city. It was built on land owned by Midas Mulligan, and people who bought in agreed to his terms. There was no mention of police or elected officials. What Rand said was that a moral government could not violate anyone’s rights, and that meant raising revenues through user fees and other voluntary means – no taxes. That’s a great step in the right direction, but leaves a lot of unanswered questions as to how to do this.
Here’s the rub; imagine that the Quebecois decided unanimously that they really didn’t want to be part of Canada anymore but wanted to be an independent, French-speaking country. So they peacefully vote and take their marbles to play their own game. In doing so, they don’t violate anyone’s rights, so there is no moral way the government of Canada can stop them. They could use force, but that would violate the rights of the Quebecois, who would not be hurting anyone. And if the Quebecois could do this, so could Disneyworld, or your neighborhood – or you individually.
There’s no moral way to prevent peaceful secession – but if a state doesn’t prevent secession, it soon disintegrates. People always want to do things differently, and they would if the threat of force from the state didn’t stop them. Brute force – although gussied up with myth, propaganda, and red, white, and blue bunting – is what holds the state together. That force is ugly and corrupting.
No matter how benign a state might be, even one that found a way to fund all of its activities without resorting to force, it must still violate the fundamental human right of self-determination in order to preserve its own existence. That’s why the state is inherently a criminal organization – it must rely on force. Even the best of them are never based entirely on consent of the governed; there is coercion of the non-consenting minority. And there are always some who do not consent.
Democracy is no solution – it’s just 51% bossing the other 49% around. For God’s sake, Hitler was democratically elected. Democracy is just mob rule dressed up in a coat and tie.
You and I do not consent to Obamacare, but we’re forced to accept it. Of course socialized medicine is totally counterproductive, as we discussed in our conversation on health.
I suppose I can live with the idea of a state, as long as there were about seven billion of them in the world – and everybody had one. That would show that the whole idea of the state is just a scam, where everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. But the only people who really benefit are the guys on top.
L: The state’s requirements for self-preservation are why people so often say that the state is a “necessary evil.” It must violate some rights to exist, but people think that the state’s protection and support of civil society, which is a great value, is worth the violation.
Doug: I find the concept of a necessary evil rather repugnant. It’s largely sophistry, usually trotted out to justify some type of criminality. Can anything that’s evil really be necessary? And can anything that’s necessary really be evil?
Entirely apart from that, people say the state is necessary because that’s all they’ve ever known. But it’s not, in fact, part of the cosmic firmament. There have been times and places in history when central authority was so distant, or negligent, that the people did function – and prosper – in what was essentially a functioning anarchy.
David Friedman draws attention to medieval Iceland as one example of this. I recommend his book The Machinery of Freedom for lots of great discussion on how society would work without the dead hand of the state suppressing it.
L: And the reality is that there are all sorts of private institutions that provide regulatory and governance systems, from private cities like Disneyworld, to Underwriter’s Laboratories that puts “UL” seals on electronics they deem safe, to churches, some of which govern their members’ most intimate life functions – all through voluntary subscription.
The Mormon Church, for example, exerts a very significant amount of regulation of the private behavior of its members. I’m not a Mormon, of course, but I’ve lived in predominantly Mormon communities, and I have to say they tended to be cleaner, nicer, safer, etc. I’d say the Mormon religion exerts more control over its adherents than any state’s laws have ever exerted over citizens – but those regulated like it. They believe they benefit from it, and most important of all, they are physically free to leave any time they want.
Not so for the state. This is why I’ve said in the past that the state is not a necessary evil but merely necessarily evil.
Doug: Good example. The Amish and Mennonites provide other examples, although religious communities are entirely too uptight to suit my taste. And UL is a good one too, because people worry that businesses would all turn rapacious if the state weren’t there to regulate them. But electronics producers are not required to get UL seals on their products. They go to the extra expense of meeting UL standards because they know they’ll make more money if their products have the UL seal of approval on them.
L: Best Western hotels are the same way. Best Western doesn’t own the hotels; it’s largely a private regulatory agency that inspects hotels and gives those that make the grade the right to put a Best Western sign out front, which is worth a lot to a small mom-and-pop joint.
Doug: There are lots of private regulatory services. Insurance companies also exert a lot of influence on the insured, who have to go by certain rules to stay insured. And, of course, there’s a huge private security industry used by those who want to protect their assets, rather than call 911 after they’ve been robbed, etc. All by subscription.
You don’t need government for anything; if something is needed and wanted, an entrepreneur will provide it for a profit. And do so far better and cheaper than anything a government could possibly hope to.
The economic arguments for a free-market anarchy are overwhelming. I’m of the opinion we’d already be living with the technology of Star Trek if it wasn’t for the state slowing things down. But that isn’t the reason I’m an anarchist. The real argument is moral and ethical.
L: You know, I keep sending “unsubscribe USA.gov” messages to Washington, but I never get a response.
Doug: Good luck. To them, you’re cattle. They care only so much as you and all the others don’t stampede. Other than that, you exist for their benefit and have as much say in the matter as a steer.
L. Maybe that’s true for most people, but I can still vote with my feet. I’ve done it before, and I’ll do it again. And so have you. Which is why I was looking at property in your neck of the woods in Argentina.
Doug: It makes a lot of sense to be in a place where they have to treat you as a guest, to be courted, rather than an asset to be exploited. Of course, all governments are dangerous, destructive, and annoying. But the ones that are incompetent and disrespected are easiest to deal with…
Anyway, love to have you as a neighbor.
This brings up another problem with the nation-state – it forces obligations upon you. I’m a big believer in being neighborly, but when the state tries to force you into a relationship with other people, it only breeds resentment. I like communities that are self-selecting, where you can assume neighbors share some basic premises about the way the world works.
L: I loved the Estancia. Those mountains would probably convince me if you and your friends didn’t. But anyway, there are a million directions we could take this conversation, a million objections I could raise for you to answer, but I’d like to move from theory to practice. Even to those who agree with you, at least in spirit, this all sounds very theoretical – of no practical consequence since the whole planet, as you’ve observed, is covered with nation-states.
I’ve been your friend for the better part of 20 years, and I’ve worked with you closely for most of the last six of those. I know this is not all theory for you. You live your philosophy. I’ve seen you get up in front of a large lecture hall with hundreds of people and tell them that the whole of the law should be: “Do what thou wilt – but be prepared to accept the consequences.” They laugh or roll their eyes, depending on their beliefs, but I doubt many realize that you are not only completely serious, but that that is exactly how you live your life.
You’re not shy, but you’re not a braggart either, so I’ll go ahead and say that I have watched you match deeds to words. You routinely go in “Out” doors, you light up under “No Smoking” signs, you walk through metal detectors with your belt on, you get back on polo ponies regardless of what your doctors tell you, you leave your electronics on when all the other sheep on the airplane turn theirs off… I could go on and on.
The beauty of it is that most of the time, nothing happens. You did exactly as you pleased, hurt no one, and enjoyed life on your own terms. On the occasions when some busybody does confront you, you usually respond calmly and say, “Oh. Well, what should we do about it?” The worst that happens when you are confronted is usually that you end up where all the submissive people put themselves to start with. Sometimes you even fight back. I’ve watched you make fools of airport security guards or take your business to another hotel.
The important thing is that you start out doing what you want, not what the busybodies want. You may end up penned in with the sheep sometimes, but not as often as most people would think. And you start out doing things your own way. I admire the heck out of that.
Doug: Well… You’re Don Lobo, a well-known anarchist in your own right – well known for not cooperating with the state. But, like you, I’m very easy going, and always try to observe others’ rights to the fullest.
While it’s true the most basic law is “Do as thou wilt – but be prepared to accept the consequences,” you can extrapolate that out, as a practical matter, to two others. One, do all you say you’re going to do. And two, don’t aggress against other people or their property. Everybody understands those laws, and you don’t need a corrupt, and corrupting, government to elaborate on them any further, as far as I’m concerned.
The people I like to hang out with, like you, observe those things. Besides that, I find you’re quite good at keeping your cool while questioning minions of the state… maybe you do it just to see if there’s actually a real human in that uniform they wear.
L: Okay, okay, but I don’t want to comment in print on all the things I’ve done. The point here is not to flatter you, or myself, but to point out to people that submission is a choice, not a foregone conclusion. Freedom is something you never get by waiting for permission but by exercising it as vigorously as your creativity and energy allow. By pushing back against the barriers – like when you told the Inn at Aspen where to shove the city’s “No smoking in the bar” rule, and that you’d accept the responsibility if the mayor walked in.
In the most general terms, I think it’s a mistake to think of freedom as a noun, rather than as a verb. And your actions show the world the consequences of doing freedom, rather than waiting to be given freedom.
Doug: Well, that’s true. And, not to pat myself on the back, it’s worth noting that there have been times when I’ve had my setbacks and even a substantial negative net worth – but it was my problem and nobody else’s. So not having any money is no excuse for not taking charge of your own life and living it the way you want to. I wasn’t given freedom by my parents or the government.
L: Hear, hear! So… Investment implications?
Doug: Attitude is everything, and that matters. If you let yourself be treated like cattle or herded like sheep, you won’t invest so as to maximize your freedom. There’s a lot we could say about this, but we’ve gone on long enough. The place to start is with diversifying your assets across political jurisdictions, making it harder for each would-be Big Brother to corral you. This is a rule almost everyone forgets – but it’s the most important single thing in today’s world.
I would like to recommend a book here. Along with Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness, I’d say it’s the most important I’ve ever read, and had the most practical effect on my thinking: The Market for Liberty by Tannehill. It describes, clearly and precisely, how a society without government would likely work. Best of all, it’s now a free download from the Mises Institute’s web site. If you understand the basics, you’ll feel much less obligated to support the destructive institution of government – because you’ll know it’s unnecessary.
L: As we covered in our conversations on currency controls and living abroad – and Argentina, of course. What else?
Doug: Don’t feel guilty about finding the lowest-tax jurisdictions for reporting your income, owning property, etc. Shopping with your feet is not only your human right, it’s a positive good for the whole world; the more everyone shops for the least onerous governments, the more governments will have to compete for being less onerous, and the better off we’ll all be.
L: And the easier it will be for people to exercise their freedom as you do. What about trends?
Doug: Just the ones we’ve already covered – but now the need to take action is getting more urgent. I see that the new employment bill Obama just signed has new currency controls buried in its guts. It doesn’t necessarily prohibit anything new. But it has new reporting requirements and penalties. It’s an overture to what’s coming. As Mencken said, nobody’s life or property is safe while Congress is in session.
L: I figured you were right about this being in the cards, but I have to admit it’s started sooner than I thought it would.
Doug: Sometimes I hate it when I’m right. And I still think things will get worse than even I think they will. Remember my mantra: Liquidate, Consolidate, Create, Speculate.
L: No specific investments?
Doug: Nothing looks particularly good to me right now, except gold. If you don’t have a serious position in gold, you should build one post-haste – with as much as possible outside of the U.S.
L: Okay then. See The Casey Report for details.
Doug: Right.
L: Very good. Talk to you next week.
There are a number of excellent sites that talk about anarchy in its true form. To me it is the extreme opposite of communism (not the Marxist-Leninist version). That doesn’t make either one evil nor good. As the communism system eventually fails so does the anarchy system eventually fail because human nature takes over.
There has to be a framework of government (not control) for people to be able to work and live together with laws that do not control but help people live free from force from other people AND government (sounds kinda libertarian, huh?). That’s what the founding fathers attempted to do with the Constitution. But as soon as it was put in place human nature took over and it wasn’t long before people were trying to usurp it for their own benefit (or for the ‘benefit’ of others).
It is a never ending battle.
Having some serious fun reading about anarchy today.
below is from —-> http://www.preparingyou.com/wiki/Anarchist
========================================
Anarchy did not mean a violent opposition to government.
It does not even mean without government.
It does not honestly mean without a leader.
It does mean without a ruler who can exercise authority one over the other.
Anarchy it its original sense is about governing ourselves and even coming together in some form of mutually connected society by voluntarism rather than by forcing our neighbors to do what we want or give us what we want for ourselves.
Anarchy is about choosing for ourselves rather than having or giving someone else the power to choose for you.
It is about being a government of the people, by the people and for the people but under the Perfect law of liberty rather than coveting our neighbor’s goods through men who desire to rule over others, even men who call themselves Benefactors.
Anarchy is government without Archists, without people who may call themselves Benefactors but exercises authority one over the other. It is about people providing for the needs of society without giving some one the power of dominion and control over the private lives of its citizens.
“An” is a prefix meaning “without” and “archy” means “a ruler that exercises authority”. You will never be without the threat of tyrants and despots until you give up the idea that it is okay to rule over your neighbor by force to get benefits you want to enjoy, until you stop coveting what belongs to your neighbor for your personal benefit, which was the message of Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist and yes even Jesus Christ.
“I watched a great series on YouTube, hosted by Mark Passio on the subject of Natural Law.” —-Tim
I’ll watch it when I have six hours to spare. lol
He has another video “Jesus was an anarchist, Christians are statists” …. almost two hours long.
But, that’s a HELLUVA thought-provoking title!! LOTS of food-for-thought there.
Oops. Wrong thread.
Like Carlin said,the way we say things does matter. The term anarchy/anarchist has been twisted and subverted. One immediately gets images of angry, hate-filled groups of outcasts building pipe bombs in a basement somewhere. If one simply uses the self-governance, a whole new mental image is formed–more like Pa Cartwright.
go far enuf back in the woods and you can be all the anarchist you can be. no one will know. no one will care.
thanks for the link Stuck. There are are only two choices available to humanity, slavery or freedom .
and if stupid gets a vote , we all know what it will be.
The two big parties suck. People seem to fear freedom,(Libertarians) So what is left? Some day the country will go insane as the wealthy out of touch psychopaths are strung up and big time change happens. I figure an economic collapse will bring it on.
Russia Is Strong – re video – “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle. That’s right.” What a bunch of fucking morons!!! So tough, flying overhead, no emotion, nothing – a big fat flat line. It makes me sick.
Stucky
I have not watched the video “Jesus Was An Anarchist”, but I was trying to relate that Idea to you when you did the Jesus throwing the money changers out of the temple article. Same principal, as I see it Jebus wanted worship of God to be natural and unorganized but mostly free from the tithes required to enter the temple. That is how I looked at Jebus’s disgust for the money changers and the priests charging to worship. As I said in that thread at that time the Egyptian priests were also making a killing off religion.
How’s this for an idea: Since the current system obvious isn’t working for the 99.9%, and since neither Anarchists or Libertarians really suit our present needs, why don’t we invent something new? Suggestions?
@ Stuck_
“I watched a great series on YouTube, hosted by Mark Passio on the subject of Natural Law.” —-Tim
I’ll watch it when I have six hours to spare. lol
__________
Stuck – You don’t sit down and watch it all at once!! You load up the first part on your phone and then keep your phone in your pocket while you’re working. You know, like if you had a bunch of chores around the house, like scrubbing, painting, that kind of stuff. Tasks you can do on auto-pilot and listen while you’re working.
I think I stretched it out over several weekends while I was working in the yard. I think it’s worth a listen. Passio has some good stuff.
bb,
riots in baltimore was due to
the subsidies that are given to the free shitters come from govt.
the subsidies are stolen from working people via govt scum
the govt leader (mayor) actually said let them have their tantrum/riot.
sorry shit for brains. What happened was because of a coercive govt. Try your nonsense elsewhere.
Harry , rainbows and unicorns: How do you think these find civilians would behave if there was no government to stop them or maybe like the biker gang fight in Texas.Those old white dudes would have kept on killing each if the police had not stop them.
Harry ,people are sinful , wicked and evil.The only thing that keeps this violent nature of ours under control is God’s Common Grace and then police , national guard v the government. Anarchism will never work . Our hearts will not allow it.Now Harry back to Rainbows and Unicorns.
Harry ,one other thing
.The truth is you are a fine outstanding law abiding citizen. You just don’t have what it takes to be a radical
Tim — I will do as you suggest
harry p. — bb is a fuckin retard … try to be moar understanding
We are just ONE STEP from a DICTATORSHIP.
==========================================
Here We Stand, One Step Away from a Dictatorship: “The Groundwork and Foundation Have Been Put Into Place”
by Jeremiah Johnson
May 19th, 2015
“A dictatorship was impossible in our Republic because power was widely diffused. Today, as we approach Democratic Socialism, all power is being centralized at the apex of the executive branch of the federal government. This concentration of power makes a dictatorship inevitable.” ————– “None Dare Call it Conspiracy”
The aforementioned quote and book were written in 1971. Good Day to you, SHTF readers. This article is going to mention some of the “finer points” utilized by the executive branch (Obama) toward the totalitarian end-state he desires. The end state of slavery he erroneously (and intentionally) labels a “fundamental transformation.” Keep these points in mind, as we mentioned in the last article that Jade Helm is (as you readers also agree) a precursor for some unknown nefarious act to take place in the near future.
The Executive Order is a presidential directive that holds the force of law once it is published in the Federal Register. Now the United States has been continuously placed in a “state of emergency” since 1933. The War and Emergency Powers Act of 1933 has enabled all successive presidents to usurp powers normally designated to the legislative branch. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1862, flagrantly disregarding Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution that states a person may not be imprisoned without due process on a whim of the government.
In 1937, the courts in the case of U.S. vs. Belmont ruled that executive agreements do not require the consensus of other branches of the government to be enacted. On March 23, 2005, George Bush Jr. entered into a treaty with Canada and Mexico in which the president of the U.S. is allowed to use troops from those countries to stop an uprising or political unrest…in the U.S. The treaty was signed without the approval of Congress and via executive order.
Readers, I have read your comments and we see the writing on the wall for what it is! What reason for all of these different laws and executive orders if not to bring to bear the whole weight of the U.S. government against the American people? It is poised and ready, just waiting for the right moment to be unleashed.
December 15, 2011 was when Congress passed the NDAA, which of course was ratified into law by Obama while he vacationed in Hawaii, signed with that “auto-pen-thing,” slipped right into everyone’s New Year’s Eve drink under our noses. Section 1021 of the NDAA affirms the authority of the President to detain an individual via the Armed Forces of the United States, and this detention without trial until the end of the hostilities. Guess we all better hope Jade Helm doesn’t go “live.”
Section 1031 refers to the U.S. as a “battlefield,” giving the military the green light to act in a “law enforcement” role in the U.S., and this is the death-knell of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that the Warner Defense Act of 2006 had already negated. We are already well aware of the March 16, 2012 Executive Order Obama signed for National Defense Resources Preparedness, in which every thing that can be eaten, drank, driven, grown….virtually everything in the U.S., including human labor…is now under the authority of Obama and his minions during an “emergency,” whether real, created, or imaginary.
With all that has just been mentioned, there is so much more to it than this. He must be crafted out of Teflon…nothing sticks to him. Nothing. Not Benghazi (or the entire “Arab Spring,” for that matter), not Fast and Furious, not the bin Laden thing where an entire SEAL Team paid the price to keep a lid on the truth (in a Chinook, no less of an ignominy…when have you ever heard of a SEAL team extracted or transported by a Chinook?), and so on ad infinitum. Nothing sticks to this guy. Nothing.
Make no mistake about it; the groundwork and foundation have been put into place. The NDAA is there, all primed and ready to be used against us, the American citizens. The EO’s are all in place to confiscate our resources and to force us into internment camps to perform forced labor for KBR (Kellogg, Brown, and Root) under the supervision of the Internment Specialist MOS of the U.S. Army. The police departments, local and state, have effectively been federalized by the dangling of the carrot (federal funds) in front of the jackasses (the state governors and their respective state legislatures).
Now all that the regime needs is a good false flag, or the conversion of an existing problem into something cataclysmic. A war, or an economic collapse would be good triggers. Make no mistake, guys and gals, we are right on the edge. All it will take is a small shove and we’ll pass over the tipping point. The point is that the propaganda and the conditioning of the public consciousness to accept martial law are well under way. The “for your own safety” and “in the interests of the nation/national security/public good,” etc., slogans are going to be the keys to their pulling the trigger on a martial law scenario.
Every day the envelope is pushed just a little further. It is also quite obvious there are much larger forces that pull the strings of Obama: the globalists so desirous of their world government. The UN and other foreign forces, backed by the thieves of the IMF and the World Bank are slavering with anticipation of the United States giving away its own sovereignty and becoming another “district” in their version of “the Hunger Games.” I submit to you that the actions this regime has taken toward the American people is nefarious and evil because it cannot answer the question “why” for any of its actions with any legitimacy. There is no reason that has been given that justifies any of the things done by either the administration or its bureaucratic fiefdoms.
Why would DHS need billions of hollow point rounds for paper targets? Why would MRAP’s and other armored personnel carriers be sent to towns akin to Gomer Pyle’s Mayberry? Why are all of these military maneuvers being carried out on American soil in populated areas? Why is all of the hardware…tanks, artillery, etc., being shipped all over the U.S.?
The answer to all of them, good Readers, is that we are now in a “soft” tyranny. It will morph into something much harder, and the only unanswered question is “when” that tyranny will fully flower. Let’s open up the dialogue. The comments have been great: in-depth and thought provoking. I ask you to present your prognosis and your ideas about where we are and where we’re going, both short and long term. Also, I’m trying to answer as many of you back as possible, so please don’t be offended if I haven’t answered yours right away. I’m reading each and every one of them; they’re that important to me, and I hope they are important to you (one another) as a group.
.
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/here-we-stand-one-step-away-from-a-dictatorship-the-groundwork-and-foundation-have-been-put-into-place_05192015
Stucky- NDCC (“None Dare Call It Conspiracy”) was one of the very first books I cut my teeth on at age 18. I still have my copy packed away and I recommend it to people. People who could not grasp total dictatorship in this country surrounded me my whole life….I am thrilled when I see people wake from their stupor.
I believe in individual freedom. By whatever name.
I have never understood the anarchy meme, possibly because I do not believe that anarchy as most of you dream of it- which is to say the absence of rulers and structures of authority, can exist. You might stir your society up into an amorphous mass of “individuals” for a little while, but sooner or later, order will be imposed, usually by the most brutal and ruthless criminal gang.
What we have now is anarchy as I have always understood the term to mean, which is the utter absence of any rule of law, and any definition of what constitutes a reasonable law; and rule by brute force and by whatever bunch of goons manages to seize power. It is a regime in which the law itself has become lawless; in which you can commit any number of vile crimes and walk free while those with less power can scarcely move in any direction without being in violation of some law.. which moves briskly against those who are not at the top of whatever power structure has managed to seize control.
I don’t want anarchy and I don’t think any of you really do, either. What I want and what we all need is a small body of laws that enshrine the individual, and individual rights to be left alone and conduct your affairs as you please as long as you do not violate anyone else’s rights. This means, of course, a body of laws that protects property rights and does not permit theft for any purpose, whether it is of your money, your property, your person, or your life.
Looks like the new flag of TBP!
Genuine anarchy involves the banning of trees, as they are the sperm-spewing phallic symbols of male oppression – See more at:
http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/ban-trees-sperm-spewing-phallic-symbols-of-male-oppression-t16350.html
Stucky , you err an idiot for believing such nonsense. You’re never be anarchists . Never . It takes work and you are lazy. Face the facts. You are republican.
Voluntaryist.com
Chicago, study it a bit more. The anarchism they’re discussing is not chaos, it is order without POLITICS.
Admin, if you note it, periodically I end a comment with, “and people wonder why I’m an anarchist.”
I find AnCaps (Anarcho Capitalists), mostly endlessly annoying. They remind me of libertarians from the seventies whose brilliant idea of attracting converts was to wear T Shirts saying “Fuck the State.” All they want to do is argue over why all political economic ideologies other then theirs are false. Fuck that, it’s a waste of time. I don’t believe in utopias, regardless of the variety.
I believe history runs in cycles, from liberty to tyranny and back, and always will. Assuming an advanced Ancap society could be created, it would probably just end up being run by mega corporations who would become a defacto government…just another form of oligarchy.
Having said that, I also believe most government functions could be replaced by trade and industry associations and charity.
Chicago999- It is not impossible to self govern. That society would have to have moral standards and discipline or it could not work. You have never witnessed an autonomous disciplined society because you live in a cartoon facsimile of a free society. I see this work with the Amish on a regular basis.
Bea Lever says:
Chicago999- It is not impossible to self govern. That society would have to have moral standards and discipline or it could not work. You have never witnessed an autonomous disciplined society because you live in a cartoon facsimile of a free society. I see this work with the Amish on a regular basis.
________________________________
The Amish are collectivists. While they have private property and don’t have a communal lifestyle, they have a religion-based social contract that governs their behavior.
Sex Pistols “Anarchy in the UK”. That is how you do anarchy.
@ Jamie the Mighty (albeit having an off day or two) Quinn
“Rex the Douche”
LOL!
Coming from an SSN (Soiled Sanitary Napkin) as yourself, “douche” is actually a compliment!
Thanks!
BTW, besides the fact that world history of Civilization is completely void of any “Anarchists” utopian track record of success, it seems rather odd that you would find Mr. Douchebag Casey, the guy who absolutely cannot see where the Gold Price is being manipulated by the Banksters massively naked shorting paper derivative contracts like clockwork in the wee hours when the markets are most thinly traded, obviously because his nose is apparently stuck to his sigmoid colon.
But hell yeah! Casey is also an expert on Anarchy as well. LOL
Rule of Law? Who needs it anyhow?
It only works when there are enough intelligent Citizens willing to hold their Public Servants actually accountable to same.
“A Republic if you can keep it” Benjamin Franklin
However, Derelicts always wind up with “Democracy” for some reason.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. H.L. Mencken
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
H.L. Mencken
Cheers,
S. Rex
Sparticunt – seriously, are you as stupid as you come across? Come on now, be honest. You are working hard to appear as stupid as your posts suggest. I mean, seriously, no one can be as clueless as you are appearing.
Re track record of success, not very many examples of that of any ilk, now are there.
A number of inaccuracies have been put forth in the comments regarding anarchism.
First, anarchism is based on the concept of self-ownership, which is just another way of saying ‘no rulers’. No rulers, contrary to what more ‘traditional’ anarchists of the European flavor claim, does not mean ‘no bosses’ or ‘no hierarchy’. Since we we own ourselves, no one has the right to tell us how to live our lives or has the right to our property. And since we all have the right of self-ownership, we therefore must not interfere with others right to do the same. This leads us to the Non Aggression Principle which simply states that violence is only permissible in a defensive manner. This is not a social contract as many ignorant of anarchism claim.
Second, corporations would not rule in an anarchist society because corporations would not exist. A corporation is a legal entity that sits on top of a business to provide an artificial protection from liability of action. This protection is only possible in a system with a centralized ruling structure, aka government. Without the protection of government, a business must compete on in the free market, and as any economist knows, monopolies are not possible in a free market.
Third, anarchism absolutely does mean ‘no government’. Government is the exact opposite of anarchy. Government needs two things to exist (beyond the belief in its legitimacy, that is) – it needs to fund itself and it needs to be able to enforce its dictates. Since taxation is just another way of saying ‘extortion’, and because to enforce laws the rulers must use the initiation of violence, the right of self-ownership must necessarily be violated, and since the right of self-ownership is violated, government cannot exist in anarchy (note, laws that aren’t about protecting the property of everyone are ‘protectionism’, and laws that do protect the property of everyone are redundant. I don’t need a law to protect my shit, I just need the ability to do so).
Here is a great 15 minute video on how a decentralized society can be realized using modern technology. Definitely worth the watch.
And here’s a good website to learn more from:
http://www.notbeinggoverned.com/
Here’s a guy who LIVES the anarchist lifestyle.
==================================
Living Free Without Permission: “Building Without a Permit, Driving Without a License”
by Mac Slavo
May 16th, 2015
Everyone wants to live free, but few actually walk the walk and stand up for their rights.
Of course, the state has created the perception that you are required to get permits and licenses and official approval to travel or build a home and many other activities that have been established as individual rights by common law and historic precedence.
Most people just bow to the demands of offices, courts and officers either in ignorance of the law’s true requirements, or to go along, and get along in an orderly and convenient fashion.
Tom Hyland isn’t most people.
He tells his story of arming himself with the knowledge of state and federal codes and asserting his rights to be free.
Over the course of decades, he successfully built his own homestead by, with walls made of straw bales, and rescinded his driver’s license, registration and license plate to drive travel on roads in his car without much interference.
When pulled over, or confronted by inspectors and code enforcers, Hyland presented letters with sound defense of the parameters he is operating under. As he pointed out, the Supreme Court has ruled on this matter, and upheld the right to travel.
Rest of the story … and a youtube interview with Hyland … here; ——>
http://www.shtfplan.com/experts/living-free-without-permission-building-without-a-permit-driving-without-a-license_05162015