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://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchism?s=t


    

    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.