Have to share this. ATTN: All “Pragmatists” “Let’s All Just Get Along” Types. THIS IS WHAT YOU FAIL TO GRASP.

in anarchy •  7 years ago  (edited)

52EA0363-2393-49D0-9A84-DBE7F0F6D2E7.jpeg

FUCKING. READ. THIS.

“What statists of all types fail to understand is that anarchists don’t believe what they do from a utilitarian perspective. Although they realize that free people will do better in the world than ruled ones, anarchy is not adopted for a better ‘society’, or any other such collectivist notion. The belief in freedom is philosophical. It is held by men with the certain knowledge that they have a right to live their own lives, to pursue their own happiness, and no other man, or groups of men, has any moral right to rule them or impede their individual liberty.

So when you say ‘it won’t work’, it’s entirely irrelevant. There are answers to all your irrational fears about roads, police and armies. But, they are entirely beside the point. While anarchists understand that voluntary societies will always outperform ones where your options are limited by the arbitrary use of force, that is not why they believe what they do. Anarchists are anarchists because it is the only fully moral and non-contradictory position a man can hold about himself, and other men.

So, the real answer to ‘who will build the roads?’ is: ‘what does that have to do with my right to be free?’"

-Gary Margetson -

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

If I had a dime for every time I've tried to explain that my freedom is more important to me than someone else being "taken care of", I'd already be a whale on Steemit...

Just because others are wholly complacent with always having a "mom and dad" to make sure they stay in line, and that they always have a safety net to protect themselves from their own mistakes, does not mean they have a right to force the same authority on me.

If I had a dime for every time I've tried to explain that my freedom is more important to me than someone else being "taken care of", I'd already be a whale on Steemit...

There are many who feels the same. There is no such thin of objective value called "The Greater Good". there is only the NAP which must be upheld.

sure, but how will you get from place to place?

That's not the point. Being made to pay for something, no matter how beneficial it may be to myself or anyone else, goes against individual liberty. If someone doesn't want to help pay for the roads, they shouldn't have to.

Sure, but how do you achieve that? Let's say you want to build a road from point A to point B but someone owns property along the route they don't wish to sell to you, how do you build your road?

That's the funny thing about freedom. If that property owner doesn't want a road through their property, who are you or anyone else to tell them they have to allow it so other people can benefit?

someone who needs to get places, like everyone else, doesn't everyone need to get places?

There's the part that you keep overlooking though. Freedom has nothing to do with what someone else might "need".

To force people to do something they don't want is no one's right. It doesn't matter what "everyone needs", if we have to force that way of being onto everyone.

On the other hand I have a freedom to go places don't I? A good compromise that we have in the US to these competing freedoms is giving people the fair market value of their property in instances where a road or border wall is needed.

You make them a deal they cannot resist. They are paid well to give up a tiny fraction of their land to allow a road to be built. We already have plenty of examples of roads with large turns and other obstacles that were NOT resolved. The state simply bypasses those areas. It can and would be done without theft as it has before.

Eminent domain is typically that, people are paid market value and holdouts are paid well above market value.

Pretty sure he's got two legs and a brain, I'd bet he'll figure it out.

he better learn to fly without roads.

I imagine he will have to die as private companies cannot, and do not now, already build flat things from point A to point B.

In fact they cannot and do not now, they are contracted to do so by the government on land the government takes from private individuals.

You don’t think individuals could work it out for themselves. That’s my point. Read my response to @lucylin. Tired of your spamming BS. Don’t comment here again. I’ve tried to engage you honestly, and you keep bellyaching and making sarcastic quips. If we disagree, we disagree, but there’s no reason to continue disingenuously engaging me in conversation if you have no real desire to understand. You’ve already made up your mind.

The fact remains, Bobby, that a flat thing from point A to point B can be and has been built without a government.

As I said to the other goofball, don’t spam my comment threads anymore, or I’ll apply a silly flag to your inanity. Tired of wasting my time when you’re essentially just playing games. Yes, I am angry! You are correct! Congrats, buddy!

You spit your BS, ignore what is said, and make junior-high-school-type sarcastic jabs without even fact checking shit (our last conversation about Vietnam, for example) and end up wasting my time. Nearly every time.

I liked you, but you’re kind of being a dick. And a bit obtuse. Intentionally, I think.

The whole point of the quote I posted here, and everything I have said to you thus far, is that NOT DOES NOT MATTER whether roads, etc, could be feasible without a centralized monopoly on violence called “the state.” The point is that it is wrong to force people to pay for things against their will, and to not allow them to exercise their nature-conferred ISO. So, whether or not you think non-violent system is possible, is irrelevant. Have your government. Great. Now let the rest of us do as we please in peace as well. Oh wait, we can’t. The state which you support denies each individual their basic human freedom.

Peace.

  ·  7 years ago (edited)Reveal Comment

All land was stolen.

eminent domain involves compensation does theft?

You don't get it; it was never theirs to begin with. Stop paying your property taxes and find out the hard way what you own and don't own. You own something as long as they will let you, regardless of what you paid for it. If eminent domain doesn't work, they will simply condemn the property and take it. This is the exact tactic used by some Cities to build more riverfront marinas in the face of a complete ban on new marinas by the DNR, read the newspapers and/or court documents! They also condemned a Car Dealership to build headquarters for a large electronics retailer. All land was stolen! You can always pretend it didn't happen, but it won't change the facts: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/realestate/eminent-domain-revisited-a-minnesota-case.html

It wasn't stolen, it was taken. When someone steals something from you do you get a hearing?
You could try paying your taxes and then you could keep your property, usually people who can't afford their property taxes can't really afford their property. Do you often agree with the New York Times?
I am not pretending anything didn't happen. When someone steals something from you do they give you $24,000 above market value for it?
Using eminent domain for economic development reasons is controversial but legal.

Nice find Graham!
This is perfectly said. The constant demands from statists on anarchists to plan out and explain how everything will function as they are used to it is beyond frustrating. People fear change.

Especially when you don't tell them what the plan is or how things will function.

Have tried a million times. You pretend to be obtuse.

yeah, dawn defense will enslave those who don't pay right?

Instead of being shocked and disgusted and annoyed when people ask about how you will build roads what you need is a really good plan to do that that you all agree is truly voluntarist.

I think the annoyance comes from the notion that without forcing people to cooperate with something whether they want to or not, roads can't be built.

It's not on the people who don't want to be told what to do to come up with some perfect way for the rest of you to live. Anarchism would force you to figure things out on your own, instead of counting on some authoritative group of people to ensure you can "get around".

In places where they don't have functional governments and people build the roads on their own those same people also stop you frequently and demand random and varying amounts of payment under threat of violence.
It seems like a cop out to say that it is up to other people to figure out how your utopian vision is to be achieved. If you want to do away with the "authoritative group of people to ensure you can "get around" then you have to come up with a viable alternative.

how your utopian vision is to be achieved.

I'm kind of glad you said this, because you've just confirmed something I was wondering. What makes you think it is a utopian vision? I don't believe there is any such thing. The idea of heaven is the closest we'll ever get to utopia.

We all know they things as they are aren't perfect, but wish for the perfect solution that will make everything nice. Do we then subconciously analyse every suggested solution put forward and dismiss it because it won't create the utopia we hope for?

I think the thing that most people seem to miss about the anarchist beliefs is that they don't want any more than freedom to make their own choices and if your choices are the state, then they aren't going to stand in the way of that, because that would be taking away your freedom of choice. However, as things stand, the state doesn't allow people to opt out. Anarchists are happy to pay for what they want and want to use. They aren't trying to just get the best of the state while not paying for it.

I think we want to see the suggested solutions so we can see if they would be better worse than what we have now. To do that they need to be clearly expressed. At this point it often seems like talking to gun control advocates who will say how we could do away with gun violence if only we would do away with guns, anarchists are firm in the belief that they could do away with government violence if they could just do away with governments. Neither seems to have a good plan to achieve that so people charge them with being unrealistic.

The whole quote is about that being 100% irrelevant to the fact that you have no right to dictate how another man lives you fucking termite.

you fucking termite.
When did I try to dictate how you live Graham? you seem a little angry.

Who will build the roads has nothing to do with your right to be free...

So when you say ‘it won’t work’, it’s entirely irrelevant

Exactly!

It is held by men with the certain knowledge that they have a right to live their own lives, to pursue their own happiness, and no other man, or groups of men, has any moral right to rule them or impede their individual liberty.

The world i like to live in. Power is corruptable but freedom is our superior right. every man deserves to be free." I am a freeman" nothing sounds more better than that.

Yeah it sounds great, but then how do you achieve that?

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

Anarchists are anarchists because it is the only fully moral and non-contradictory position a man can hold about himself, and other men.

yup, totally agree.

An then we have reality - whether you like it or not. It doesn't disappear because you don't like it. Shutting your eyes won't make it disappear either.

A reality that proves that this doesn't endure in the real world.
can you give me _evidence of it working over time?
I like evidence.

You might not like it, but the reality still hasn't changed..
(using human history as a comparison - is an evidence based conclusion.)

Hence ideology never works
Pragmatism and does work.
Getting close to anarchy as a system , while also understanding that it is not fully achievable..... The pragmatist is born (me).

This is what you fail to grasp.

(I would upvote, but you are not taking them...? These are good discussions...)

lucylin,
Let's discuss real world. I asked this same question before though phrased slightly differently, so let's try it again.

--Is Individual Subjective Value what successful economies are based on, or Authoritarian Theory of value?

(For the record your reply last time was good but apparently there was some depth of meaning that wasn't fully realized)

(Please notice this is not an ad hominem attack against you or your personal position, but once again against the position of statism even within the constructs of pragmatism, which may show that the position shouldn't exist as pragmatic)

It seems like when you ask an anarchist about the roads their response is generally to mock you for asking such an absurd question you damned statist.

😂😂, yup.

see above ;)

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

(Misthreaded comment)

I'm not @lucylin

  ·  7 years ago (edited)

I apologize if this replied to you, it was a reply to lucylin comment above that contained the sentence:

"A reality that proves that this doesn't endure in the real world"

It’s working right now, everyday. And even if it “wasn’t working,” it doesn’t matter. Are you able to read and comprehend English? You’ve missed the very point of the quote. Saying “we have to have a system that violates people to keep order and peace” is pure lunacy. How do you guys not get this? Jesus christ.

A reality that proves that this doesn't endure in the real world.
can you give me _evidence of it working over time?
I like evidence.

care to give me some actual facts to support a fantasy being a reality?
Or do you discount all of written human civilizations as incorrect?

...the blatant avoidance of discussing historical facts is worrying, (reminds me of 'it wasn't real socialism',) and a weakness in your basic premises of anarchy ever being a reality.

Which was the point of the comment.

You’ve missed the very point of the quote.

A 'quote' doesn't make it any wiser
.

Are you able to read and comprehend English

Are you always so condescending when you are challenged? and this is exactly the same tone you get when communist are arguing with you, btw ...Jesus christ.

You did notice I said I agree with you totally ?

The whole point of the quote is that it matters zero whether you think societal frameworks based on consent instead of violence would “work.” It’s about right and wrong you fucking snake.

And I’m fucking sick of your condescending tone.

You don’t even know me man. You don’t know what I’ve been through. “Closing my eyes to realty.” Go fuck yourself in the face, man.

Don’t comment here again. Fucking had it. You goons deserve each other. You and Bobby “I can’t read and can barely do a Google search” 51.

Same to you, Bobby. I don’t wanna hear your retardation anymore. You’ve both taken advantage of me patiently trying to delineate why consent should be what things are based on, and not force. I’ve done this in a human way, and all you have is junior high school tier sarcasm to pay me back for my time.

...it [reality] doesn’t disappear because you don’t like it.

Bullshit, inane posturing.

No. I don’t fail to grasp what you are trying to say at all. Talking to you is like trying to tell an amoeba about gravity.

@funbobby51, Of course there will always be corruption. It doesn’t need to be institutionalized, though. I’ve tried time and again.

Some folks get it. You don’t. You low EQ fucks can fuck right off. Don’t comment here again unless you want those silly flags to be added to your comment.

Can’t tolerate this level of inhumane stupidity anymore. Over and over and over again. You artless little beetle-headed harpies think you’ve got it pegged. Just a bunch of goddamn phonies.

Get fucked. Stop spamming the thread, @funbobby51, and buzz the fuck off, @lucylin, you goon.

I been thinking that way for a long time.

Thanks!

“What statists of all types fail to understand is that anarchists don’t believe what they do from a utilitarian perspective."

It's pretty clearly a idealistic notion. I think there are a lot of people who think it is a practical notion and that's where the rub is. So you have a philosophy that makes you feel philosophically correct but that is unworkable in the real world. I think a lot of people would like a detailed and realistic plan for implementing such a vision. So what is the solution to that?

Morality is unworkable in the “real world.”
You sound like a goon. I have tried to engage with you many times. You’re unwilling to hear. Forcing folks to do things under threat of violence is immoral. If you think that the only inevitable way we can exist, then you’re not worth anyone’s time anyway and are a shitty ass human being.

Private companies already build roads.

Private companies already provide legal, defense, and CR services.

But even if they didn’t, saying violence is necessary for peace shows your brain and moral compass to be about as scrambled as it can get.

Private companies build roads under government contract on land that the government takes from people. That's how roads are built.
We have discussed that there are things like arbitration and security services that are in addition to and rely on public services. Your private security guards call the police. Your private arbitration keeps people out of the courts and only exist because the courts exist, the existence of courts is what drives people to use arbitration.

I have asked you a bunch of times and you usually respond in movie form and the movies have different answers to the question of: Why would anyone go to an arbitration without the threat of court?
Currently the government uses the threat of force to get people to attend court and oftentimes they don't, why would people go without the threat of force?

One of the movies you showed me had those that didn't comply being enslaved by private corporations, how is that not forcing folks to do things under the threat of violence?
I am sure I never said " violence is necessary for peace" you said that.

I am sure I never said " violence is necessary for peace" you said that.

Good. Then you’re a Voluntaryist.

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore? I don't want to talk to you if you are going to down vote it again.

“What statists of all types fail to understand is that anarchists don’t believe what they do from a utilitarian perspective."

It's pretty clearly a idealistic notion. I think there are a lot of people who think it is a practical notion and that's where the rub is. So you have a philosophy that makes you feel philosophically correct but that is unworkable in the real world. I think a lot of people would like a detailed and realistic plan for implementing such a vision. So what is the solution to that?

Right is right. Wrong is wrong. If you want to compromise that, and use force on non-violent individuals as a means of existence, do it to yourself.

how is that an answer to my question?

funbobby51,
Ok, here we go. Let's discuss real world.

--Is Individual Subjective Value what successful economies are based on, or Authoritarian Theory of value?

Until you answer this question about reality, I see no reason that you can understand real world ideas.

that's not an answer to my question.

The answer is the answer to your question.

  ·  7 years ago Reveal Comment

Do you know what the 'Subjective Theory of Value' is?

Do you understand statism and the subjective theory of value are not the same?

Those questions are not "a detailed and realistic plan for implementing such a vision".

The plans exist. They are real. Socialism/Communism is based in statism. These have been proven to fail in reality. The lifecycle of failure for a socialist economy that ignores subjective value and operates a authority theory of value has historically been approx. 100 years.

Economies that are based on subjective value outside of socialism show no signs of failure.

Subjective value has already been implemented and in the areas that aren't suppressed by statism it flourishes while the statist systems slow grind down the capacity for tangible capital formation.

There is simply no contest or argument that Authoritarian theory of value is better than subjective theory of value. That is the real world, there are just some positions that continue to be antiquated.

I agree, socialism and communism are terrible and outdated.

Would you agree that the reasons it is terrible and outdated have to do with authoritarianism and suppression of subjective value?