Re: "Antifascists Have Become the Most Reasonable People in America”

[jim bell]

 From: bbrewer <bbrewer at littledystopia.net>

>> On Feb 7, 2017, at 4:47 PM, Razer <g2s at riseup.net> wrote:
> 
>> "Anarchist Libertarian" has to be the BIGGEST FUCKING CROCK OF SHIT ever put in two words.


>Thank you. This hit my brain hard as well. 
Maybe because it wasn't working?  Or maybe you don't have much of an imagination?
>I’m not sure how someone can think that the term ‘anarchist’ can align with the slightest measurement of approval of governing forces.
>It’s instantly outwardly apparent that, well, said claimant is not there yet; May get there, isn’t there yet.
Anarchist:  Non-believer in government, at least government as we currently understand it.Libertarian:  Believer in the Non-Aggression Principle.  (NAP;   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle 
Your statement implies that "Libertarian" NECESSARILY amounts to the 'approval of governing forces.'
Even that has a problem:  What is your definition of "governing forces"?  
I'll say this:  A "Libertarian" has no problem with "government", at least a government of a type which does not employ violations of the Non-Aggression principle.  Now, I understand that this may seem to be a non-sequitur, since essentially every existing government we know of does, indeed, violate the NAP.  
What I am saying, instead, is that it is not entirely inconceivable that a new form of government could begin to exist which did not violate the NAP.  One, for example, that is based upon voluntary agreements, rather that collectively-defined dictates.  (AKA "laws").     
We can ask ourselves a question:  Does a person who, today, calls himself an 'anarchist' NECESSARILY opposes a 'government' that is implemented not by violations of the NAP, but instead is implemented by voluntary agreements?   Simplistically, he might say, 'If something is called a 'government', then I must automatically oppose it!'.  But if we asked him if he was unalterably against voluntary agreements by two or more people, he might think a little longer and decide, 'That would be okay...'  
Three statements I will make:1.   An 'anarchist' is not NECESSARILY a Libertarian.  (example:  A person who is opposed to the existence of government, but who feels free to initiate force against others.)2.   A 'Libertarian' is not NECESSARILY an anarchist.  (example:  A person who is opposed to violations of the NAP, but who has no problem with a 'government' which doesn't employ violations of NAP.3.   But, a person could, conceivably, be BOTH a Libertarian and an anarchist.
Above, when you used the term, 'governing forces', you probably assumed forces which employed violations of NAP.  But if you expanded your definition of 'governing forces' to include NOT violating NAP, perhaps you can see a common ground where both "libertarians" and "anarchists" can be satisfied.
              Jim Bell



×   
   
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 7826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170208/e9e507f4/attachment.txt>