American Revolution II Now?

One may want to look up to one's father, a village elder, or a Timothy Leary type, (as perhaps sunfighter might) for advice and leadership, or voluntarily put oneself under the control of a leader or boss, but I don't see how it can be ethical for one person to control or coerce another person against his/her will, and if this is so, then one person cannot logically delegate a right to coerce, which they do not possess, to a government. A pragmatic case might be made, but not a case that is both ethical and logical.

 

If a child wants to drink anti-freeze and someone stops them, is that coercion a bad thing? What if someone wants to dump 100lbs of rat poison into the river?? What about a raging drunk who wants to beat the shit out of someone but is normally a nice guy?

Coercion on the level that we see it today is more like tyranny, but I do not think that coercion is bad concerning every possible application. I know I've been coerced by my parents many times and now I thank them for it.

 

i would like to address ur three examples in point form

1) the child probably does not know what he is doing. therefore the parent or other person has a responsibility as a human being to prevent an accidental death to the child. this doesnt have to be legislated. its just common sense. lets say the person however is a teen or an adult who would most likely know the effects of the antifreeze. they are most likely attempting suicide. if someone does not want to live should they not have the right to end their own life?

2) lets assume its a small business that wants to dump the 100 lbs. of rat poison because that is probably the most likely scenario. consumers would probably find out one way or another. if the consumers do not want the small business to dump the rat poison in the river they can ask the business to stop. if the business does not stop the consumers then have the power not to shop there. either the business will get the hint not to dump the poison or it will go out of business. either way the problem is solved without creating legislation.

3) lastly and the easiest to answer. while the person is normally a nice and friendly guy, he is violating another person's divine rights (life liberty and pursuit of happiness as defined by the declaration of independence). basically this is assault. by committing this act u give up part of ur rights. its a responsibility question. if ur not responsible to be drinking and not hurting people you shouldnt be drinking. the fact that u r drunk is no exuse for violating somebody elses rights by assaulting them.

 

1.) I agree that a person should be allowed to commit suicide. And what if the person is just going through a rough patch, and you KNOW you can help your buddy get through it? But about the baby. It's my understanding that under Anarchy coercion doesn't have to be legislated. Such is the case with ancient kings.

2.) You forget that dumping deadly toxins into the water could impose upon the rights of others. Potentially killing untold amounts of people and causing crazy ecological damage. Sure populations can recover, businesses can shut down, and people will find safer alternatives. I dunno if its any better or worse than coercion, it's simply its own set of problems.

3.) Anarchy doesn't consider the principles of the Declaration of Independence. That would be very UnAnarchist-like to force your philosophical ideals on the rest of the population..... And the line between violation of rights is not always so defined. If I take food that you were going to eat, is it violating your right to life or ensuring my right to live? What if some hardcore gangster threatens to murder my family and rape my wife?

It's simply a fact that sometimes the rights of some deny the rights of others. It may not seem right to prevent people from shootin up heroin, but is it right for someone to convince a child to shoot up heroin?

So it's really a fuzzy issue. I don't really follow any social/economic philosophy into infinity. I just am.

 

FYI im not an anarchist. im speaking as a libertarian and trying to use my ideas as a libertarian. there may be other ways for the libertarian party to act upon such issues. the libertarian party does recognize the declaration of independence.

1) further addressing ur first point, as a friend or family member you have every right to try to help the person that may be trying to kill themselves so long as ur not violating their natural rights (again defined by the DoI) but it does not need to be done by the government.

2) i wont deny that this one is a hard one to answer. im not an expert in the libertarian party. im only 19 so i only tell you what i know. what i said is one way of acting. there may be other ways. i am an avid outdoors man so i too hate to see the environment get damaged. i love to hunt and fish and just be outside. there are ways that this can be stopped without legislation. besides legislation wont stop it either. in order for legislation to stop it somebody has to find out which would usually be after the fact. same with my idea. it may be after the fact but it has the same effect.

3) Again i would like to restate that i am not an anarchist but a libertarian and am posting as one. taking someones food is theft. this does violate ur pursuit of happiness and potentially ur life for the the reasons of u used ur money or time to buy or make the food and food sustains ur life so u need it. threatening is a crime as it violates ur right to pursue happiness. if ur always scared someone is going to harm u, ur not going to be happy. again the libertarian party would support the prosecution.

 

If a toddler is running toward a busy street and you grab him, or if you intervene to stop a mugging, nobody is going to call this coercion. What I think the problem is is codified coercion.

I recently had a new roof put on my house, and took out the required permit and had the required inspections. Although I think it is immoral/unethical for anyone to ask anyone else to seek their permission in order to improve their living conditions, I chose not to fight this. If one is going to attempt to fight repression effectively, one has to pick one's strategy and/or battles. You can't fight it all at once, or by yourself..

If, however, someone else was putting a new roof on his house and refused to get a permit, and was thus being fined $100 a day or whatever, and this person took his pump shotgun down to city hall and wasted those bureucrats and minions he felt were responsible, he wouldn't be convicted by a jury that I was on.

Most people would say that his actions were not only illegal, but unethical and immoral. This may sound harsh, but as far as I 'm concerned he was justified in retaliating against those who would not live and let live, who claimed that they had a "right" to coerce him, or were only following orders.

 

this is a tough circumstance. i obviously agree that u shouldnt need a permit to change ur house. would i justify going and blowing away the guy who asks for one? not necessarily. i certainly wouldnt justify it as the first option.

 

But what happens when someone's poorly constructed house turns and ablaze and sets the neighborhood on fire? Or what if somebody is killed in your house because it crumbles apart due to some unforseen structural problem?

Part of the problem is not just the philosophy, but with the world in general. Integrating anarchist principles into an evolved X other world system will not be the same starting from the ground up. There are many "anomolies" by integration which would not exist if the society had developed originally under anarchy.

 

You ask, "what if somebody is killed in your house because it crumbles apart due to some unforseen structural problem?"

Bridges, parking garages, and other structures that have been inspected many times by government officials have collapsed recently. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if there were less problems before governments got involved with inspecting buildings.

We hear arguments about new laws being needed to protect people from this or that all the time, such as "people should be forced to wear seat belts to protect other people from higher insurance costs due to more injuries without seat belts." Personally I always wear my seatbelt and would if there were no laws enforcing it. But to argue that it is necessary to have a seat belt law brings to mind William Pitt the younger's remark, "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." Yes, times have changed, but the French saying seems valid- "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"-- The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Congress has found it necessary to have an income tax law about 5,000 pages long, depending on type size. Isn't that bi-partisan effort alone enough evidence to prove that this government is totally FUBAR?

 

Below is an argument from necessity, the first three paragraphs of the Mississippi declaration of secession. The bold emphasis is mine.

Mississippi Declaration of Secession

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

 

1) for most people their house is their livelihood so it would only be natural for u to want to maintain it regardless of laws and statutes and mandates. this also applies to the fire idea. btw thats why we would have a fire department. those are the people we are supposed to be paying the majority of taxes to. the fire, police, and emt services.

2) im not really sure what ur second paragraph is saying to be quite honest. maybe u could just reword it? i would like to respond to it i just cant.

 

I think that he is saying that government rule is so entrenched and politically correct that we cannot get from here to individual liberty.

 

then if that is the case now is the time for a revolution. if u cant change the government to what it supposed to be peacefully then it is absolutely the time.

some people would be surprised to know that on the new hampshire constitution bill of rights, the tenth right is the right to revolution. we have the right to revolt. our founding fathers would want us to fight the government if we felt we were being treated unfairly. that is why we have the bill of rights.

the real question is what does it take to start a revolution? how bad do things have to get before people want to fight? the answers to those questions are what will really determine when a revolution will occur. atleast that is what i think.

 

Given the overwhelming support for horrible legislation like the Patriot Act, I think things will have to get way way way worse.

We have too many people in this country that trust the government and want to be taken care of. That isn't going to change any time soon.

 

unfortunately ur right. people are ok with being spied on for "safety" reasons. look at my sig quote and ull know what those people deserve. chalk another point up for good ol' ben franklin

 

I agree with sunfighter, too. If there's to be a revolution it's probably a long way off and the times would have to be very, very bad. But, at least withdrawing moral support for the US government is a positive thing. I haven't been patriotic in a long time, and I think that that in itself is empowering because it frees you psychologically. If you are pretty darned sure that the US government is FUBAR, you can just go about your business and try to avoid it as best possible, and at least you are not spinning your wheels working for Ron Paul's son thinking that if only he could only be elected as a Republican US Senator from the state of Kentucky, that like Mighty Mouse, he will save the day. At least we aren't in denial, kidding ourselves that if we throw the warmongering, wiretapping Republicans or the socialist Democrats out, that there will be a change of direction away from big government. The big government we have today has been a bipartisan effort, and the Libertarian Party that I once loved has become a conservative party, and is not of any value at all. Will Rodgers once said "Stupidity got us into this mess. Why can't stupidity get us out?" Too bad it doesn't work that way.

 

Hey, insomniac Shadow 2145. Did you hear about the dyslectic, agnostic, insomniac? He stays awake all night wondering whether there's a doG.

 

haha i like this. very creative.

 

ur probably right. i will probably never see freedom in my life time. so the best i can do is to vote my beliefs. the only thing i disagree with in this post is that the libertarian party has gone conservative.

 

I definately think it's time.

You guys know about that new government program CARS? Trade in your junker for a nice rebate on a more ecologically friendly model.

So wait... you're taking my money, and then trying to coax me to buy a new car?

I live in Ohio, and all I see on t.v. are "bailout" commercials for cars and debt consolidaton. They always repeat the word "bailout" 1000x time and say it's for the people. There's even a debt consolidation commercial which tries look like it's a government infomercial and they even put a speech of Obama talking about our economy.

"Universal" health care, cap n trade, food production certifications......

I feel the gears turnin.....