|
|
#12
05-25-2007, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Some people just prefer to live in the real world rather than fantasy land. [/ QUOTE ] What do you mean, AlexM? [/ QUOTE ] I think he means..... To do something about our current situation we have to ummmmm errr maybe DO SOMETHING instead of just talk out of our ass 
|
|
#13
05-25-2007, 04:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
[ QUOTE ]
because if we actually begin to achieve some of our goals and work towards a free society. Then Neilso would have less to bitch about. Also Alex Jones might shrivel up and die with less moronic international conspiracy theory's to foster. in case I'm not clear .. people advocating lack of action as a way to enact change are IDIOTS [/ QUOTE ] When the action out there is a coercive monopoly, then the lack of such action and it's support would be preferred, would it not? I don't understand how I would be an idiot for thinking so. Can you explain it to me?
|
|
#14
05-25-2007, 04:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Except that if you are in the majority that don't want a state and you cripple the state by building your own police and defense force to counter their force, you've just become an oppressive majority without bothering to count the votes. [/ QUOTE ] How so? Hiring private defense is not the same thing as a coervice monopoly. It's the difference between defense and offense. When I get a gun for the purpose of self-defense, I'm not de facto coercing other people. [/ QUOTE ] You are arguing from the position of an anarchist, though. You are saying that "it is ethical for me and my friends to defend myself from the state with force, so that makes it non-coercive" but what I am saying is that you need to consider that the moral code of the minority may disagree that the state is an evil entity. In that case, you are really just living your moral code through force as opposed to the statists living their moral code through force. Imposing your morality on someone counts as coercion, too. If they don't agree with your morality and you say "tough, I've got the most guns" that's coercion even if you think it's morally justified.
|
|
#15
05-25-2007, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] because if we actually begin to achieve some of our goals and work towards a free society. Then Neilso would have less to bitch about. Also Alex Jones might shrivel up and die with less moronic international conspiracy theory's to foster. in case I'm not clear .. people advocating lack of action as a way to enact change are IDIOTS [/ QUOTE ] When the action out there is a coercive monopoly, then the lack of such action and it's support would be preferred, would it not? I don't understand how I would be an idiot for thinking so. Can you explain it to me? [/ QUOTE ] how you gonna get other people to reject the stus qou with you? or are they all just gonna wake up one day with a mises library in there heads?
|
|
#17
05-25-2007, 04:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
I think alexM, much like other ACers is trying to distance himself from you. People see Nielso as a 'representative' of ACers, and that is unfortunate for them, as while I think AC is a silly idea, I don't think all ACers are bat [censored] crazy.
Here is the idea, If you think No government is good, then surely you must think less government is better than the status quo. If you want to show no government is good, then it is easier to lead people down that path, if you show how much BETTER having less government would be. Also, the more people decide to not vote, the more likely we turn into a tyranny of a minority.
|
|
#18
05-25-2007, 05:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
[ QUOTE ]
You are arguing from the position of an anarchist, though. You are saying that "it is ethical for me and my friends to defend myself from the state with force, so that makes it non-coercive" but what I am saying is that you need to consider that the moral code of the minority may disagree that the state is an evil entity. In that case, you are really just living your moral code through force as opposed to the statists living their moral code through force. Imposing your morality on someone counts as coercion, too. If they don't agree with your morality and you say "tough, I've got the most guns" that's coercion even if you think it's morally justified. [/ QUOTE ] Me defending myself from those that think aggression against me is justified is not coercize.
|
|
#19
05-25-2007, 05:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Except that if you are in the majority that don't want a state and you cripple the state by building your own police and defense force to counter their force, you've just become an oppressive majority without bothering to count the votes. [/ QUOTE ] How so? Hiring private defense is not the same thing as a coervice monopoly. It's the difference between defense and offense. When I get a gun for the purpose of self-defense, I'm not de facto coercing other people. [/ QUOTE ] You are arguing from the position of an anarchist, though. You are saying that "it is ethical for me and my friends to defend myself from the state with force, so that makes it non-coercive" but what I am saying is that you need to consider that the moral code of the minority may disagree that the state is an evil entity. In that case, you are really just living your moral code through force as opposed to the statists living their moral code through force. Imposing your morality on someone counts as coercion, too. If they don't agree with your morality and you say "tough, I've got the most guns" that's coercion even if you think it's morally justified. [/ QUOTE ] I don't intend to coerce anyone or hire anyone to do so. Borodog has a gun. Borodog is not a murderer or a thief. The gun is for defensive purposes. He will only use it when someone else is trying to hurt him or take his property. Borodog is not forcing his moral compass onto anyone. He intends to stop others from doing just that onto him and his family.
|
|
#20
05-25-2007, 05:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Except that if you are in the majority that don't want a state and you cripple the state by building your own police and defense force to counter their force, you've just become an oppressive majority without bothering to count the votes. [/ QUOTE ] How so? Hiring private defense is not the same thing as a coervice monopoly. It's the difference between defense and offense. When I get a gun for the purpose of self-defense, I'm not de facto coercing other people. [/ QUOTE ] You are arguing from the position of an anarchist, though. You are saying that "it is ethical for me and my friends to defend myself from the state with force, so that makes it non-coercive" but what I am saying is that you need to consider that the moral code of the minority may disagree that the state is an evil entity. In that case, you are really just living your moral code through force as opposed to the statists living their moral code through force. Imposing your morality on someone counts as coercion, too. If they don't agree with your morality and you say "tough, I've got the most guns" that's coercion even if you think it's morally justified. [/ QUOTE ] I don't intend to coerce anyone or hire anyone to do so. Borodog has a gun. Borodog is not a murderer or a thief. The gun is for defensive purposes. He will only use it when someone else is trying to hurt him or take his property. Borodog is not forcing his moral compass onto anyone. He intends to stop others from doing just that onto him and his family. [/ QUOTE ] Wrong. If someone believes they have a right to Borodog's wife, and he shoots him, Borodog is imposing his morals on him.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
