Sobran - The Reluctant Anarchist

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

There are several links to articles there which are not written by anarchists. Anything but.

Parts of Somalia now have growing private sectors and are doing well in comparison to their poverty-stricken neighbors.

And those improving private sectors will one day want to form something ... call it a state ... to protect their wealth against the robbing anarchists.

[Emu]

Well, anarchy is working now, it must be a great idea for the long term, right?!

[Big Papa Goat]

Private sector business isn't the same as anarchy. Just because they don't call themselves a government, doesn't mean there's no power centers or social order or control.

[AChimp]

I dunno about you guys, but today at my private sector job I took a 15 minute shit then surfed for porn all day. ANARCHY!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Do you people even know who Sobran is?

Oh good Lord, so he's a crusty old conservative pundit who had some big ordeal conversion to anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, or whatever.

George Lincoln Rockwell wrote for the National Review for a bit, too. I wonder what he later thought about democracy and conservatism and all that stuff....? I should really, really care, because clearly, it's very important that we make a big deal of people who change their mind about things.

[glowbelly]

sobran sounds like a type of cereal old people would eat with prune juice

[The One and Only...]

It should at least disturb some of you that Sobran's movement towards anarchism was made by the fact that he viewed both the Civil War and New Deal as trangressions of the Constitution.

[Emu]

So, is that the point you were trying to make?

Also, why would he think that the Civil War was caused by a transgression of the Constitution? States did and do have a right to secede from the Union, but I don't remember the Constitution saying the Union can't annex them back in. (Although I could be wrong about that.)

[The One and Only...]

Well, I think succession is kinda pointless if you're forced back in through military force.

[adept_ninja]

Originally Posted by Emu

So, is that the point you were trying to make?

Also, why would he think that the Civil War was caused by a transgression of the Constitution? States did and do have a right to secede from the Union, but I don't remember the Constitution saying the Union can't annex them back in. (Although I could be wrong about that.)

If this guy ever went to school he would know that we had the civil war to free the slaves...duhhh

[Zhukov]

OAO, what kind of anarchist are you? All this talk about private sectors and the wonders of somalia, what the fuck are you on about?

[kellychaos]

Dig it. The southern states wanted to secede based on the northern states moral objections to politics, economy, and general way of life. The north maintained these objections but didn't want the union to dissolve. The northern states won and; therefore, the union stayed intact. Grant it, it took military force to enforce this, but the same is true of any occupying force following a war (Re: Japan, Korea, Germany, ect). Often, there are insurgents following the war who disagree with the results (Re: Lincoln assasination). The freeing of the slaves was a by-product, not a reason, for the war. So, you see, this war is not much different than other wars with the Constitution notwithstanding. It really has no place here.

[ziggytrix]

Fascinating Fact: It is significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason. A trial would have brought a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession. Federal prosecutors were satisfied with the verdict that had been decided in battle.

http://civilwar.bluegrass.net/secess...is/890304.html

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

OAO, what kind of anarchist are you? All this talk about private sectors and the wonders of somalia, what the fuck are you on about?

I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Most anarchists do not consider ourselves part of the anarchist movement; we consider ourselves an extension of both individualist anarchism and classical liberalism.

In other words, we support capitalism without the existence of a State.

And Kelly, what are you smoking? The fact that the US forced the Confederacy to rejoin the union shows that it did not recognize the succession.

[Dr. Boogie]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

It should at least disturb some of you that Sobran's movement towards anarchism was made by the fact that he viewed both the Civil War and New Deal as trangressions of the Constitution.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

The fact that the US forced the Confederacy to rejoin the union shows that it did not recognize the succession.

Well, frankly a lot of people have a problem with Papal authority. :/

[Dole]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

'Do whatever you want, but pay me for the privilege'

[Emu]

Seriously, how can you be an 'anarcho-capitalist?' Those two views are fundamentally opposed.

I'm imagining someone trying to build their wealth in the absence of a state, and therefore, in the absence of money with definite value. What the hell do you measure your wealth in? Cows? Gold? Okay, maybe gold works. But where do you get the gold? Unless your country's already rich in it, you have to trade with other states, and I don't think other states are willing to trade much of their gold to you for your cows. And you can't trade it within your country, because, well, they have no reason not to demand outrageous prices of you, and since there are no state-mandated laws, he probably won't be punished for chopping your fucking head off and just TAKING what you have.

And when someone suddenly gets a hold of all of the wealth, he becomes a ruler, and can command people to work under him for pay, which just evolves into the feudal system all over again. I can't see any way how this philosophy could work.

[Helm]

Emu, shut up and go read a little about political and economical theory. Anarcho-capitalism exists well outside the mind of OAO.

EDIT: however, now checking, OAO somewhat misdefined it.

SECOND EDIT: And this will teach me to read posts carefully. Emu, you successfuly explain why anarcho-capitalism can't work: when there's free trade, semblances of authority ( read: state ) always come to exist purely through the inequalities that emerge, and the reactionary forces that maintain them to their benefit.

[kellychaos]

Originally Posted by The One and Only

And Kelly, what are you smoking? The fact that the US forced the Confederacy to rejoin the union shows that it did not recognize the succession.

They respected it with the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives lost on both sides you disrespectul little twat. You're talking about one of our finest presidents trying to hold his country together throughout a crisis that was neither addressed nor defined in the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution gave the states rights to autonomy. He was basically making do as he went along the best way he knew how.

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Fascinating Fact: It is significant that no Confederate leader was ever brought to trial for treason. A trial would have brought a verdict on the constitutional legality of secession. Federal prosecutors were satisfied with the verdict that had been decided in battle.

And to reiterate what Ziggytrix said (above), they were certainly treated better than most post-war military.

Originally Posted by Helm

semblances of authority ( read: state ) always come to exist purely through the inequalities that emerge, and the reactionary forces that maintain them to their benefit.

Granted, those "semblance of authority" benefit most but aren't a lot more people benefiting from the order and security created by the "reactionary forces" than without even if they're at the bottom of the pyramid, so to speak?

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Helm

EDIT: however, now checking, OAO somewhat misdefined it.

Well, I did simplify it substantially. I didn't see the need to go into an in-depth explaination.

SECOND EDIT: And this will teach me to read posts carefully. Emu, you successfuly explain why anarcho-capitalism can't work: when there's free trade, semblances of authority ( read: state ) always come to exist purely through the inequalities that emerge, and the reactionary forces that maintain them to their benefit.

The inequalities that emerge wouldn't be that drastic in a true market economy. Monopolies are solely the result of the state, and what defines the state is its monopoly on force.

[ziggytrix]

So who guaruntees the equity in this imaginary "true market economy"? If there is no state, then you will have tribes - maybe corporations in this era - that end up holding all the force.

Tell me, what could prevent corporate dominance in the absence of the state? Or is that what you are advocating?

[Emu]

Originally Posted by Helm

Emu, shut up and go read a little about political and economical theory. Anarcho-capitalism exists well outside the mind of OAO.

EDIT: however, now checking, OAO somewhat misdefined it.

SECOND EDIT: And this will teach me to read posts carefully. Emu, you successfuly explain why anarcho-capitalism can't work: when there's free trade, semblances of authority ( read: state ) always come to exist purely through the inequalities that emerge, and the reactionary forces that maintain them to their benefit.

Yeah, I just meant that the belief doesn't really work without some cognitive dissonance, not that it couldn't exist.

Originally Posted by OAO

Well, I did simplify it substantially. I didn't see the need to go into an in-depth explaination.

Why not? I've been waiting for you to define it for a while now. I'm really not understanding how you can honestly believe this kind of society could function.

Originally Posted by OAO

The inequalities that emerge wouldn't be that drastic in a true market economy. Monopolies are solely the result of the state, and what defines the state is its monopoly on force.

How are monopolies the result of the state, exactly? Here I was under the impression that monopolies were formed by businesses stamping out the competition in the absence of state mandate.

Edit: piece of shit quotes

[Helm]

The inequalities that emerge wouldn't be that drastic in a true market economy. Monopolies are solely the result of the state, and what defines the state is its monopoly on force.

OAO, look outside of your ass for a while. The combined force of more than one human working in concert (besides being a small state in themselves) can overpower nature, and also single humen working alone. There begins both civilization, and class inequality. The State, big or small, strong or weak comes in much later. Read some Marx or even the Kropotkin you like, or something, before loudly declaring yourself an anarchist, especially such a rediculous one as a anarcho-capitalist. The will to power, control and safety is hard-coded into men, and as animals they will seek it, in unison if they have to. True market economy isn't fair and never will be. Taking the regulator out ( the state ) will only serve to make things worse. People aren't fair. They will not go by the rainbow fairlyand rule of libertarian non-agression. People who are oppressed by a system, be it by it's inherent flaws or their OWN inability to keep up with it will revolt and destroy it. Therefore there are two options, either stick to the libertarian shit to the very end, and perish along with the foolish system that JUMPS STRAIGHT from capitalism to anarcho-capitalism, without taking into account that philosophically speaking, the modern man is still a swine, or take measures to contain and control the dissident masses. Enter fascism. Even the most basic understanding of human nature, politics and economics will lead you to these probable scenarios.

Anarchism (as Kropotkin will tell you) is a byproduct of a refined society. One that abolished classes through communism, and one which gradually evolves into non-agression. And therefore, we should be more concerned with the stepping stone (socialism) than with the end result because we cannot get from here to there.

[kellychaos]

That's a fucking humungous stepping stone.