On 6/17/2015 8:31 PM, Juan wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:57:35 -0400 Tim Beelen <tim@diffalt.com> wrote:
So, pay attention : human/natural rights exist PRIOR TO ANY FUCKING GOVERNMENT. I concede to that point. Fine. Now work out the logical conclusions that follow from that premise. Here's one : any violation of such rights is criminal. Well, it's not necessarily immoral. So not necessarily criminal. Even your own dictionary definition of anarchy provides mentions a government. Albeit a minimal one. Governed you are. Whether it's by consensus, opt-in or otherwise.
So, I happen to know a few people that are marines. They don't like killing and are generally very agreeable. Would you like to meet one?
Not really. And I happen to live outside the direct 'jurisdiction' of the US government. Now, if you want to send one of your friends, unarmed, to my house, I might talk to him. From a safe distance and while pointing a gun at him, just in case. -.-
It might be your observation but also generally not true for actual marines. And actually not true in any sense. So. There's that. There's what? There's a neocon in this mailing list? Basically anyone you actually get to meet and say hello to. What do you think they are? Big bad bulky continuously angry men?
They are people who kill other people when ordered to. That's all that counts.
? There is lots of that going around amongst humans. How do you suggest people defend themselves against /any /hostile force? Do you think that calling it a militia makes a difference? Having trained defenders of your homestead is no bad thing. It's actually quite smart. Confusing them with lies and propaganda and making them shoot people that are innocent /is/ repugnant and immoral. But being confused or ignorant is not inherent to the institute . It's something that happens through lack of education and indoctrination through faith institutes (religion). Humans are fallible and on top of that, programmable. Many of them suffer from a massive, violent even, cognitive dissonance if you talk about what they are actually doing. Once you turn back on the cause and effect part of their humanity it's all tears, anger and confusion. PTSD, shitty coping mechanisms. And you just put them all in a hole, categorizing like a common Nazi.
Nope, that's not anarchy. Okay, lets try Bakunin, because for a guy who does not no anything about Anarchism I sure know about him. He claims to "organize from below, through local structures interlinked on a federalist basis". I agree with Bakunin on this point. It also happens to be a form of direct democracy. If individuals are free to NOT participate in such organization if they wish, then yes, it's anarchy.
If individuals are subjected to such organization against their will then no, that's not anarchy, bakunin or not.
And since you like dictionaries
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism 1*:* a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY; i.e.: Government as in a society's organizational form, but not it's authority. I.e. Direct Democracy.
"a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty. "
Oops. Government and anarchy just happen to be mutually exclusive concepts. (That of course shouldn't be news...)
Government OR governmental restraint. Government non-the-less. Learn to read you illiterate :D But yea, I agree that for the sake of the argument they could be considered mutually exclusive. If you want to abolish government. Which is kind of strange because every form of anarchism usually has an adjective regarding it's organization. Federated, syndicalists. All of them are organized in some fashion shape or form. Now, I don't mind NOT calling that form a form of government. But I don't want to confuse people in to thinking that anarchism is some kind of synonym for chaos.
J.