The Freeman Movement and England

Status
Not open for further replies.
tobjai said:
Go look up a true, undistorted definition of anarchy. I has nothing to do with "one's will to power" and everything to do with lived individualism.... With everybody being their own masters while respecting everybody else as they are without imposing on them.
Click to expand...
Are you planning on populating this anarchic society with humans?

Maybe you can use chemtrails or something to keep them docile.
 
tobjai said:
I'm sure you're about to tell me.
Click to expand...
In one sentence he uses the word "violence". In the very next sentence he uses the word "coercion" as if they are indistinguishable.

Is all coercion violent?

Mrs. D'rok coerced me to do the dishes the other day. Refusal was not an option. I guess I'm a victim of domestic violence, eh?
 
D'rok said:
In one sentence he uses the word "violence". In the very next sentence he uses the word "coercion" as if they are indistinguishable.

Is all coercion violent?

Mrs. D'rok coerced me to do the dishes the other day. Refusal was not an option. I guess I'm a victim of domestic violence, eh?
Click to expand...

Come on! This is harldy worthy an answer... Statist coercion is ALWAYS enforced with violence. If a "child of state" does not pay their taxes, they'll get sent to jail... if they resist they get shot. Its that simple. And I think Stefan made that point in his video as well.
 
tobjai said:
Have I not already given you an anwer to that? It doesn't matter how exactly things are going to work! What matters only and solely is that a system of violance (statism always comes down to the force of will by the point of a gun) has no legitimacy, therefore it has to be abandoned.
Click to expand...


No, you haven't answered these question in the least. I am not trying to use these questions to counter your argument. I am asking these questions because I am genuinely curious as to what life would be like in the scenario you describe.

I am willing to conditionally accept every part of your argument. Taxes1 are untenable violence which can never under any circumstances be implemented. So with that in mind, please describe life in this new society. Specifically:

(7) do you expect your life will be better after this change is made?

(1) After "everybody realistically considers their contributions" (from your post #3924) do you expect to have enough money to patrol the streets; arrest people accused of crimes; collect and store forensic evidence; house the suspect until the trial; provide for a courthouse; and pay a judge, a county prosecutor, a baliff, and a court transcriptionist?

(2) will you keep track of who contributes and who doesn't? Will people attacked by criminals have access to local police if they didn't contribute?

(3) will national defense also be paid for by voluntary contributions?

(4) [ignore if you are not American] how much money do you think each American will need to voluntarily contribute to the national defense in order to protect the U.S. from attacks?

(5) what is your opinion of post #3920?

(6) given that no government-issued IDs will be available (and no national database of fingerprints or DNA will be available), what is to stop a person from committing a crime in one "tribal area" or jurisdiction and then travelling cross country under an assumed name to avoid prosecution?
Click to expand...




Now, in order to bypass any further back and forth and to subsequently save all of our time, I suggest you and everybody else on this form to have a look at the "handout for statists" by Stefan Molyneux.
Click to expand...

I watched the video and still have no idea what this proposed society would look like. Please elaborate.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
footnote #1) I guess we need some clarity here. I have found some Freemen argue that a sales tax on gasoline used to pay for roads is acceptable. Should I assume that you are against all forms of income tax, sales tax, and property tax?
 
Last edited:
tobjai said:
Come on! This is harldy worthy an answer... Statist coercion is ALWAYS enforced with violence. If a "child of state" does not pay their taxes, they'll get sent to jail... if they resist they get shot. Its that simple. And I think Stefan made that point in his video as well.
Click to expand...
The state has a monopoly on violence - i.e., only the state can legitimately use violence as means of enforcement. That does not mean that all state coercion is violent.

Your anarchist utopia is a mythical society where coercion is not necessary and where we'll all just get along.

If you want a theoretical vision of how freedom and coercion can co-exist, look up Rousseau's concept of the General Will.
 
tobjai said:
Come on! This is harldy worthy an answer... Statist coercion is ALWAYS enforced with violence. If a "child of state" does not pay their taxes, they'll get sent to jail... if they resist they get shot. Its that simple. And I think Stefan made that point in his video as well.
Click to expand...

They don't get shot where I live.
 
tobjai said:
Violence is never, NEVER justifiable - period.
Click to expand...
Try and think carefully now, what would you do if someone said they were going to punch you in the face repeatedly and you were prevented from running away?


Because we're all born equal, no two have the right to force their common will over a third.
Click to expand...
It only takes one person to realise that they don't have to conform and that they plainly can force their will on the defenceless sheep of the rest of your ideal society.


Go look up a true, undistorted definition of anarchy. I has nothing to do with "one's will to power" and everything to do with lived individualism.... With everybody being their own masters while respecting everybody else as they are without imposing on them.
Click to expand...
I assume by true and undistorted you mean the original definition from around 1539:

anarchy
1. a. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.
 
tobjai said:
Come on! This is harldy worthy an answer... Statist coercion is ALWAYS enforced with violence. If a "child of state" does not pay their taxes, they'll get sent to jail... if they resist they get shot. Its that simple. And I think Stefan made that point in his video as well.
Click to expand...

Is wage garnishment violence?
 
Unfortunately this Freeman utopia only works if you completely ignore human nature.
 
Let me get this straight: the police in England shoot tax protesters for refusing to pay taxes? Please, cite an example of this happening.
 
Yeah, and no Canadian police have shot good old Eldon Warman who is currently holding court over on the Detax thread.

It's almost as if we have the rule of law in our countries whereby the state is severely restricted in its ability to go around shooting us.

But we should get rid of that rule of law and embrace anarchy! Then we'd be free!
 
D'rok said:
That does not mean that all state coercion is violent.
Click to expand...
Hold on! You're limiting the meaning of the word violence to physical violence. I don't think I'll have to explain that violating someone else's will is also a form of violence. Especially when enforced with the threat of thereof!

Your anarchist utopia is a mythical society where coercion is not necessary and where we'll all just get along.
Click to expand...
I think what you're trying to say here is that "coercion is necessary". So lets look into that a bit, shall we? You imply that it is ok for you and everybody else who thinks alike (possibly the majority) to enact coercion (and with it ultimately violence) on everybody. And all that just so the idea of how you and the likeminded think the world should be is supposedly going to be attained. Whether those who get affected by it agree or not seems not to matter (somehow the "right of the stronges" prevails - as if we were some primitive animals who have no concept of equalism - feelin' the violence are ya?!?). But is that REALLY a legitimate accomplishment... where some have it their way just because they believe it is necessary even though others may not find it necessary at all - yet they have to go with it? I beg the differ! Who are they to foist their definition of necessity over everybody else? Who gives 2 out of three the right to bully the other? NOBODY!

Having said that, whether my "anarchist utopia" may work or not, I honestly don't know. Funding things may possibly be challanging (no need to say more, Ladewig). Nevertheless, there cannot be a violent entity forcing anyone to do anything. NOTHING justifies violence - period. Human beings are all born free as equal individuals and as such their own masters, regardless what land they've been randomly born on. The land was there long before us human beings, which is why it can't be possibly owned by anyone. But of course it has simply been claimed by statists anyways... and gues what.. violently! Who gave them the right to do so and what in the world could have possibly legitimized such move? I'll let you answer that yourself.

If you want a theoretical vision of how freedom and coercion can co-exist, look up Rousseau's concept of the General Will.
Click to expand...
Coercion is the very opposite of pure freedom. They can't possibly co-exist.. and Rousseau is a hypocrate.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Unfortunately this Freeman utopia only works if you completely ignore human nature.
Click to expand...

If you're concerned about human nature, that is your business. It doesn't give you, nor a group of millions "yous" the right to impose on others. Crime will always happen (mind you more so as long as we live in the perverse state-supported environment of private monetary system). Statism only ads to it. People act most responsibly, when they're out on their own without getting to rely on any sort of state funded savety net... AND without having to fear government for whatever victimless action that nowadays is somehow deemed "illegal".
 
D'rok said:
But we should get rid of that rule of law and embrace anarchy! Then we'd be free!
Click to expand...

Nonsense! The rule of law only regards to the principal that everybody must follow the law. Now what's the law again? Not what ilegitimate governments create thats for sure. Just because there is no presence of statist violance, it doesn't mean natural law doesn't apply.
 
Sledge said:
Let me get this straight: the police in England shoot tax protesters for refusing to pay taxes? Please, cite an example of this happening.
Click to expand...

Child of the state - why don't you try it out. Stop paying your taxes without lawful excuse and resist when they try to violently drag you to court/jail... we'll see what happens.
 
Paul said:
Try and think carefully now, what would you do if someone said they were going to punch you in the face repeatedly and you were prevented from running away?
Click to expand...
Then its self defence as a result of ilegitimately used violence. Is that what statism does Einstein?

It only takes one person to realise that they don't have to conform
Click to expand...
Correct
...and that they plainly can force their will on the defenceless sheep of the rest of your ideal society.
Click to expand...
WRONG. Nobody has the right to force anything on anyone and most common human beings are in fact able to live peacefully and productively side by side with no need of the "above".

I assume by true and undistorted you mean the original definition from around 1539:

anarchy
1. a. Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.
Click to expand...
Sure. Though political disorder does not equal social disorder in case you're drawing this assumption. All it says is that politicians have no power because that couldn't possibly be in a world where everybody is equal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom