• Member Since 15th Jan, 2015
  • offline last seen 10 hours ago

Godiswithus3


I'm a simple man who loves Jesus, Freedom and My Little Pony

More Blog Posts62

Nov
22nd
2017

My Thanksgiving Thoughts · 8:34pm Nov 22nd, 2017

Even though I am an anarcho -capitalist, I still have tremendous pride in the founding of the United States. One such episode I always look on with admiration is the separatists who fled England and established the Plymouth Colony, wanting to worship God according to their conscience. The settlers also quickly learned that socialism is a death trap and instead structured their colony around recognizing and respecting private property rights. To be charitable, not coerced into giving. To work for your land and not rely on others.

The fact that Christianity and capitalism is so entrenched in the founding of the Plymouth colony is why Thanksgiving will always be my favorite holiday. And I plan to celebrate with both God and my family. I certainly have a lot to give Him thanks for this year, mainly that I got my first REAL job in my life. In the private sector no less. :pinkiehappy:

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

Report Godiswithus3 · 266 views · #Thanksgiving
Comments ( 6 )

4732475
It combines Anarchy and capitalism. And when I mean anarchy, it just means no government. Anarchy does not equate lawlessness as the critics claim, because you can have private law established by an individual within the property he or she owns.

In order to understand Anarcho-Capitalism, the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is the best place to start. Our philosophy revolves around the NAP and we stick by this principle both in private and public lives. What is the Non-Aggression Principle? Fluttershy would you care to tell the gentleman?

derpicdn.net/img/view/2017/1/17/1341705__safe_artist-colon-felix-dash-kot_artist-colon-sonigoku_fluttershy_adventure+in+the+comments_discussion+in+the+comments_libertarian_mouthpiece_.jpeg

Thank you. Anymore questions?

4732542
I must admit that I find the idea of successful anarco-capitalism quite... unlikely. Mostly due to the fact that, if it ever did happen, a couple other people who want your stuff could just gang up on you. And how would these hypothetical attackers be punished if there is no government to employ a police force to punish said people? Would other people just decide to stick up for you just cause it's wrong? As someone who believes that man is inherently evil and selfish, and that altruistic people are few and far between, I find that possibility dubious at best.

What are your answers for all of this, I'm genuinely curious to know more about this philosophy (is that the right word?).

I'm an ardent Conservative Constitutionalist btw (I believe that every part of the Constitution should be vigorously enforced, I believe that the state governments should have power than they do at the moment, and I believe that the Federal Government has WAY too much power, and that that should be reduced).

4732988

I must admit that I find the idea of successful anarco-capitalism quite... unlikely. Mostly due to the fact that, if it ever did happen, a couple other people who want your stuff could just gang up on you.

As long a free-will exists, evil will always be around, whether in a society run bu the government or a state-less society. I don't ever deny that. (State and government are interchangeable in case you are wondering on my use of State.)

And how would these hypothetical attackers be punished if there is no government to employ a police force to punish said people? Would other people just decide to stick up for you just cause it's wrong?

Either:

A) You pursue justice yourself, since you are the victim, you have the authority to reclaim what's been stolen, plus interest. Whether you have the means and ability to do it or not is an entirely different matter, but the principle is, if someone committed an act of aggression against you, in this case stealing, you have the right to pursue justice yourself.

B) Hire or report to a private law enforcement agency. A community owned either by one person or a group of people can set up rules that need to be enforced, as long as those rules do not violate the NAP. They then can hire private security or police to conduct patrols and enforce the rules established by the property owners.

And one thing you need to consider, there are more private security personnel than the government police in the United States, so manpower will never be an issue. I know two case studies where this is tried and is actually working. I will link two videos to illustrate my point:

"Texas Town Fires Police Dept , Hires Private Citizens For Security — Guess What Happened to Crime"

Private security firm's armed officers now overseeing Metrowest

C. And there are also private judges who compete for your services, in which the people are only gonna pay for one who has proven to be impartial and has good character. Government judges are paid by the state, so they have no incentive to be impartial and will typically make rulings that will benefit the state.

Ireland thousands of years ago was the closest we have to an anarchic civilization and they too had private judges who competed to provide service to the public in exchange for money. (If you want citation, I can provide you the video, though it is 40 minutes long.)

As someone who believes that man is inherently evil and selfish, and that altruistic people are few and far between, I find that possibility dubious at best.

I can make the same argument concerning people who hold positions of government.

I'm an ardent Conservative Constitutionalist btw (I believe that every part of the Constitution should be vigorously enforced, I believe that the state governments should have power than they do at the moment, and I believe that the Federal Government has WAY too much power, and that that should be reduced).

Between 2008 and 2014, this was my exact view point. I use to be believe that we can restore the constitutional republic of this country if we just get the right people elected. All those years has taught me is that politicians will lie to my face with the rhetoric you personally believe in and when they get into office, they break their word almost every single time.

And when I consider what we actually NEED to do to restore our Republic, which is to recover many institutions that have been hijacked by the Marxists, and educate the young on America's founding principles, this method will take at LEAST two generations, maybe more, to finally have a chance to restore our Republic. While we try to do that, the statists and Marxists continue to increase government control over the individual and our public debt. At the rate it is going, and with how much the Marxists are entrenched in their control over us, I then consider restoring the constitutional republic to be unrealistic and a fool's errand.

Instead, we freedom loving lunatics have two realistic goals, each with heavy consequences. Either secession (like when our founders seceded from Britain and became America) or separatism (like when the Puritans fled England to establish their own colony.

Thanks for listening by the way, it's not everyday I get to write my thoughts to someone who actually wants to understand me.

4733075

You pursue justice yourself, since you are the victim, you have the authority to reclaim what's been stolen, plus interest.

This could become problematic, I'd prefer option B and C. Also, send the link to that Ireland video and I'll watch it later.

Between 2008 and 2014, this was my exact view point. I use to be believe that we can restore the constitutional republic of this country if we just get the right people elected. All those years has taught me is that politicians will lie to my face with the rhetoric you personally believe in and when they get into office, they break their word almost every single time.

And when I consider what we actually NEED to do to restore our Republic, which is to recover many institutions that have been hijacked by the Marxists, and educate the young on America's founding principles, this method will take at LEAST two generations, maybe more, to finally have a chance to restore our Republic. While we try to do that, the statists and Marxists continue to increase government control over the individual and our public debt. At the rate it is going, and with how much the Marxists are entrenched in their control over us, I then consider restoring the constitutional republic to be unrealistic and a fool's errand.

Instead, we freedom loving lunatics have two realistic goals, each with heavy consequences. Either secession (like when our founders seceded from Britain and became America) or separatism (like when the Puritans fled England to establish their own colony.

You've got a point, and I agree with you on the conclusion that, unless something drastic happens, the Marxists will continue to tighten their grip until they just decide to shred the Constitution as a whole and do their own thing. I have lost faith in the idea that we can ever return to our roots, but I still hold on to a tiny glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, something will happen to change all that.

As for secession vs. separatism, I'm torn about which I'd prefer. I don't want to leave my homeland, I love it dearly, but secession didn't really work out the last time it was tried, and independence could only be achieved at a bloody cost, in a war that I don't think we'd be able to win. As for separatism, to where would we flee? The colonists had the advantage of an entire continent that was only inhabited by the natives, where would we go now?


Lastly, I believe that there must always be balance between the people and government. While the idea of anarchy may (although I doubt it lasting very long) work in a place as small as Ireland, I don't see how it could possibly be sustained over so large a nation as the United States. I hold to the belief that there must be some form of government, and some form of overriding law (the Constitution) to hold a nation together, but that the people should have much more freedom to conduct their affairs and do business than today, where everything is under the government's thumb.

There's also the question of environmental concerns. How would things such as National Parks be preserved? How would a limit be put on things such as pollution? What would prevent animal habitats from being bulldozed without a government to provide regulations? (I'm no fanatic environmentalist, but such things still concern me).

Thanks for listening by the way, it's not everyday I get to write my thoughts to someone who actually wants to understand me.

You're welcome, good sir.

4733222

Also, send the link to that Ireland video and I'll watch it later.

"Anarchism in Ireland: The History Nobody Knows"

Here you go.

You've got a point, and I agree with you on the conclusion that, unless something drastic happens, the Marxists will continue to tighten their grip until they just decide to shred the Constitution as a whole and do their own thing. I have lost faith in the idea that we can ever return to our roots, but I still hold on to a tiny glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, something will happen to change all that.

I can respect that.

As for secession vs. separatism, I'm torn about which I'd prefer. I don't want to leave my homeland, I love it dearly, 

I know exactly how you feel. And I'm sure the Puritans and our founders felt the same way.

 but secession didn't really work out the last time it was tried, and independence could only be achieved at a bloody cost, in a war that I don't think we'd be able to win.

If secession is tried at the current moment, yes. That argument is valid.

As for separatism, to where would we flee? The colonists had the advantage of an entire continent that was only inhabited by the natives, where would we go now?

To Mars. (Just kidding.) :rainbowlaugh:

In seriousness though, you have a valid point. Secession or separatism now would be suicidal at best. But what happens when the United States we live in now goes the way of the Roman Empire, the dollar becomes worthless, the territories get lost or withdrawn, and United States loses relevance?

When the Roman Empire fell, many of the former occupied territories felt relief and established independent communities, kingdoms and nations. Europe basically became a decentralized continent of independent nations and kingdoms. The same thing can happen here, where different regions will go their separate ways and become independent communities. That's when secession and decentralization becomes a realistic goal.

Lastly, I believe that there must always be balance between the people and government. While the idea of anarchy may (although I doubt it lasting very long) work in a place as small as Ireland, I don't see how it could possibly be sustained over so large a nation as the United States.

It won't. Even the hardened Anarcho-Capitalists that I talk to know the serious limitation of establishing a free and state-less society in a place as big as the USA. The Anacap society will work best in small decentralized territories.

There's also the question of environmental concerns. How would things such as National Parks be preserved? How would a limit be put on things such as pollution? What would prevent animal habitats from being bulldozed without a government to provide regulations? (I'm no fanatic environmentalist, but such things still concern me).

On the one hand, you and I can agree that each individual can do whatever they want with their personal property, as long as those actions does not violate the private property rights of others.

On the other hand, there are private property owners who care about the environment and will purchase particular lands for the purpose of being a "national park" as you say, and can establish rules forbidding poachers, vandalize-rs, etc. Preserving the environment can be achieved without the government, (who by the way does a crappy job protecting the animals and plants anyway. I think you know what I mean.)

Login or register to comment