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

[bbrewer]

> On Feb 7, 2017, at 8:44 PM, jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Even that has a problem:  What is your definition of "governing forces”?  

any group of people that expresses the notion or intent to apply their policy on individuals, as there is no way each and every individual will align, or to be kind, perfectly align with said policies.

> 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").     

You cannot have a group of people that considers themselves ‘governing’ that a) isn’t the definition of a collective b) can prescribe said , er, ‘suggestions’ (read: alt-truth ‘laws’) that are to be followed but without violating the NAP.

It can’t happen. The anarchist doesn’t subscribe. Now, if said government doesn’t force these, again ‘suggestions’ onto said ‘anarchist who doesn’t subscribe’, this is wonderful. But the anarchist remains an anarchist, and the government isn’t governing beyond those who follow. What you’re effectively describing is… A different group of anarchists that align differently, and have gathered, and.. An anarchist is fine with this — But it certainly isn’t a notion of a government, a (however nationalistic / dictatorship to whatever minimalistic) centralized governing being. 


> 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…'  

Between two people is okay; because that math is fucking possible. You cannot expect everyone in a ‘state or nation’ to subscribe to whatever agreement, voluntarily. You’re not suggesting as such. However, what I am suggesting is that if no coercion is present in these actions, of which I applaud, then this mystical government of voluntary actions isn’t a government at all ; It is a group of people agreeing to something; where others are free to not participate.

This government you speak of isn’t a government at all; It is a group of anarchists.

The notion of government simply cannot exist without coercive elements. 

Thereby, perhaps you’re a bit more ‘anarchist’ than you realize; Or perhaps you’ve mis-understood the notion of libertarian and THEIR PARTY.

My brain works fine, I assure you. I may occasionally use a slightly wrong term, or not quite get my point across because i’m responding in discourse mode, not ‘deep deep’ thought mode, or perhaps it’s all the beers , the exhaustion from working, and 2 small children, but it works, and I can fully recognize the break between ‘a government of any sort’ and anarchist, and start, deep, deep , deep into that abyss. It, in fact, stares back.

Sp, Mr bell, I implore you. Stop straddling the fence with these combo terms that will split you down the middle.

Do you believe in a group of people having ‘say’ over others, or do you not? A group of people who ‘abide by the NAP’ , and do not force their views upon others by any forceful means , well, that isn’t government at all. It’s a group of people, living their life, no matter whom subscribes. It’s a group of anarchists — Against government.