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

[bbrewer]

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:20 PM, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 	Your first statement is plainly wrong. 
> 	
> 	Anarchism is a political philosophy that rejects
> 	government BECAUSE government is a criminal enterprise.
> 
> 	http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anarchism?s=t
> 
> 	"a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental
> 	restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and
> 	political liberty. " 
> 
> 	People who claim they are against gov't but don't respect
> 	rights are NOT anarchists. For example, all the 'anarcho' commie
> 	clowns are not really anarchists. 
> 

I was curious about your stance on this matter, actually. I happen to agree with you here; share the wealth away, if you wish… But forcing someone to belong to such an agreement seems so not anarchist at all — It is curious to me as to why so many ‘old tyme’ anarchists thought this way. For what it’s worth, my license plate reads: “Agorist”. I believe in it, and unlike so much writing, I believe the doing is what matters. One can only write so much. (Yes, I realize paying the state for such a plate is ironic, but it’s a double edged sword of irony, and it costs $25 a year for this pleasure…).

Juan, would you define yourself as ‘anarchist without adjectives’? 



> 
> 2.   A 'Libertarian' is not NECESSARILY an anarchist.
> 
> 	Of course WRONG AGAIN.
> 
> 	Libertarianism is based on rights to life liberty and property.
> 	Government violates those rights, by definition.
> 	
> 	So yeah, the only real libertarians are the ones who fully
> 	reject government. Advocates of  so called 'limited' government
> 	on the other hand are frauds and dangerous criminals. 
> 

The notion, and fact, that there are self proclaimed ‘minarchists’ makes me very very sad and confused indeed. Actually, the ‘party’ of libertarianism probably most aligns with this term, no? 

Core underlying insane problems here? a) minarchist. Uhhhh. b) everyone has their own pieces of the pie that they like; group them; guess what? Entire pie. So, useless functionally, and useless conceptually.


> 
>>  (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.
> 
> 	That's pretty much absurd. Governments by definition violate
> 	the 'nap'. Governments are based on the "obey or die"
> 	'philosophy'. 
> 


Yup. This is what I said in an earlier post, but far more succinct. If you or your group are not forcing beliefs on others who do not fully align, well, you ain’t no ‘government’, are ye?

Side note: I find it funny, amusing, depressing, and perhaps regretful that so many post from un-attributable accounts. This is my name; This is my domain; Domain is registered to the house in which I am sitting in, in which my children are sleeping.

Accountability in belief goes a long way.