• Member Since 15th Jan, 2015
  • offline last seen 14 hours ago

Godiswithus3


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

More Blog Posts60

  • 18 weeks
    Quote of the day from lewroockwell.com

    “Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, it doesn’t go away.”

    Philip K. Dick

    “I’m not crazy about reality, but it’s still the only place to get a decent meal.”

    Groucho Marx

    11:46 am on February 25, 2020

    0 comments · 29 views
  • 21 weeks
    Quote of the day from Lewrockwell.com

    “It’s not as if socialism is a new idea. It was tried in the 20th century. It produced economic stagnation and despair. In its purest form, it extinguished more than one hundred million people.”

    - Lew Rockwell

    “When we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies.”

    - Ron Paul

    Read More

    2 comments · 32 views
  • 57 weeks
    My Favorite Straight Shipping And Their Stories

    In spirit of the coming Straight Pride Day this month. Whenever that will be. I wanted to highlight my favorite shippings and the stories written about them. Let's start with......

    NUMBER FOUR!

    Read More

    2 comments · 131 views
  • 75 weeks
    Top Ten Reasons Why Men Prefer Guns Over Women...

    Saw this post at my training academy, don't care if the joke has been overused or not, I still find it relate-able, funny, and worth sharing. :pinkiecrazy:

    Here we go:

    10. You can trade an old 44 for a new 22.

    9. You can keep one gun at home and have another for when you're on the road.

    8. If you admire a friend's gun and tell him so, he will probably let you try it out a few times.

    Read More

    3 comments · 120 views
  • 97 weeks
    Practical Path To A Free Society

    State Of The Union

    Read More

    6 comments · 213 views
Aug
27th
2018

Practical Path To A Free Society · 5:54am Aug 27th, 2018

State Of The Union

It is important to first explain what kind of place I live in currently before I strive for a free civil society. I'm just gonna get to the point and bluntly say, I do not live in a free country. While one can validly argue that we have more freedoms here in the United States than most other countries, I have to comply with many, many laws and restrictions that I never consented to. This alone is evident that I am not as free as we were lead to believe in government schools and family dinner tables.

Out of the top of my head, here are the following actions I can not do without the government's permission: start my business, own a land and house, live off the grid, collect rain water in some states, drink raw milk, drive my car, keep the money I earned, own a weapon, travel by plane, homeschool, take specific drugs for medical reasons, etc. I could go on.

I previously wrote about my philosophical...epitome concerning the relationship between the state and the individual:

The United States government never once asked me permission to enforce the laws I never had a say in, especially ones that were created when I was not even born! And I sure as hell never gave the government permission to take portions of the money I will earn in the workforce. And if I refuse to give the state their cut (taxes), the police will kidnap me and throw me in a cage like an animal, with food and care forcefully provided to me by the taxpayer. And If I resist the arrest, the cops will exercise their legal authority to either beat the hell out of me or kill me.

Now, there is inevitably a question that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are asked. It is the same question I once asked during my conservative years:

If you really believe that taxation is theft, why do you still pay for it? If you believe that many of the laws enacted are unjust and made without your consent, why do you still obey them? Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and practice what you preach?

To answer that legitimate question, I will have to paraphrase what Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote in his Democracy: the god that failed:

When an armed robber gets the drop on you and you do not have the skills or opportunities to effectively resist, compliance is the best option. There is no shame in self-preservation, because it is not worth risking your life for a property that can be replaced. In the same fashion, there is no shame in complying with state laws and regulations if it means the police will get off your backs and you can go about your lives peacefully. You will not do yourself or anyone favors by protesting in a jail cell where food and care is forcefully provided to you at taxpayer expense.

It did not take me long to realize that compliance to arbitrary laws does not mean that you approve the actions of the state. I'm just merely buying myself time and space so that I can adequately improve myself physically and economically. With this perspective in mind, I'm trying to stay under the radar for as long as possible, so that I can live as peacefully and free as I can. However, while I will comply with the will of the state for the sake of self-preservation, there are four exceptions to this:

1. If the government attempts to force me to pay for state-owned health insurance. I have better things to do with my money and I do not trust the state to keep me alive in the hospital.

2. If I receive a draft notice. Knowing about this country's history of unjust wars and the slaughtering of innocents, including the stupid wars America is currently in, I rather die than kill an innocent person. Period.

3. If the state come for my guns. I paid a lot of good money to acquire my weapons, and I consider them a treasure that will keep me and my loved ones safe. If I lose my weapons, I will lose whatever leverage I have against the state and they will bully me to their heart's content. So, on the day I hear that the government police are coming for my guns, without due process of the law, I will treat this as a threat to my life and will respond accordingly.

4. If I'm demanded to recant my Christian faith. Jesus Christ, the King of kings, is my Friend and my Savior. He has bestowed upon me favor and blessings...all of which I never deserved...His mercy is wonderful to behold, especially when I returned to Him after ignoring Him for so long. I owe Him everything for what He has done for me, including my life.

If it ever comes down to this in the future, I don't expect to survive. As far as I am concerned, that is a favorable outcome.

Can America Be Saved?

My years spent in college and political activism had been geared towards one goal:

Restoring America's Constitutional Republic.

It does not take a genius to see how far America today has been driven from the principles established by the Founding Fathers. With the number one problem being how the federal government has extreme supremacy over the states, when it used to be the other way around. Where checks and balances no longer exist except in paper. Where the bill of rights is constantly infringed upon. And don't even get me started on the gross fiscal irresponsibility the government has practiced over the years.

Naturally, I wanted to partake in a movement to restore America' founding principles and Make America Free Again. However, when I have read the Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and other Libertarian sources...I realized how much further America has been driven from our foundation. Central control over the individual and constitutional violations did not start in the Progressive Era, as I was originally lead to believe. It went back even further. As far back as the "American Civil War." Some authors argue that the road to tyranny, national debt, and unconstitutionalism started in Washington's presidency, thanks to that bastard Alexander Hamilton.

The question then becomes, can this tragic course be reversed? Can we restore our constitutionalism and fiscal responsibility...?

...with how our form of government works, long term strategies will need to be implemented. Constitutional conservatives will need to take over government education and influence the next generation into becoming American patriots. Not just education, but pop culture and media platforms as well. With how entrenched the Progressive authoritarians are in these mountains, that will take a long while. Only by influencing the next set of generations can we hope to elect constitutional conservatives into office as a majority, where statist policies can finally be removed and we can start repaying our government debts responsibly. At this current trajectory, restoring America's Constitutional Republic will take at least a hundred years, maybe two hundred...

...by then, it will be way too late.

The American treasury will eventually run out of money, the world will lose confidence in the US dollar, the soft tyranny we are suffering now will eventually become blatant and aggressive, and all pretense of a free country will be thrown out the window in favor of a strong authoritarian and police state. The United States of America will follow a long line of empires that have risen and fallen.

I foresee the coming collapse in my lifetime, making me realize that my years in college and political activism was a colossal waste of my time, energy, and money. I did not want to see the writing on the wall, but I can no longer ignore it. I resign to the fact the United States of America will cease to exist within this century...maybe even sooner.

What To Look Forward To?

There was a video I once watched called The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels by Stefan Molyneux. What caught my attention the most was towards the end, when Stefan chronicled about how the fall of Rome was a great benefit to the Western World. In government school, I've been told that the elimination of the central power (Rome) brought about the dark ages, where chaos, lawlessness, and wickedness reigned supreme. Both Molyneux and Hoppe reveal some fundamental truths that the government schools omitted. When the Roman Empire was gone, all of the government regulations and taxes were erased. Meaning the individual can finally keep his earnings, do what they wish with their personal property, and enjoyed more freedoms than they did under those crazy Roman emperors. While the Barbarian threat was still an issue, the former Roman citizens and subjects were more relieved to have the central government off their backs. Learning more about the fall of Rome and the aftermath gives me hope. When the United States of America finally collapses, it's not the end of the world. Liberty can still reign above the ashes, and a free civil society will have a chance to rise, one based on the Non-Aggression Principle.

Strategy I Would Not Advise

Taking my logic to it's radical conclusion, in order for freedom to flourish in the human race, the state must be abolished. No exceptions! Now here comes the next question: how can we finally liberate ourselves from the government? First, I must tackle a popular strategy that I do not believe is gonna work, with ramifications the proponents are not taking into consideration:

Violent Overthrow Of Government, Violent Civil War, Violent Revolution

Considering the criminal nature of the state and it's agents, including the innocent lives they have taken over the years, one could validly justify an armed revolution. The only innocent persons are those who work for the state either from compulsion or complete ignorance. The latter can be debated though. In any case, a violent overthrow of the government, for the purpose of liberation, is justified in principle. A principle I do not dispute. What I am disputing is if this pathway would lead to a favorable outcome for the cause of liberty.

Let me explain myself. Freedom fighters will already have entered this conflict with many disadvantages. The most glaring example is that there is not enough well-trained fighters, weapons, and resources to even contest the ferocious power the state holds against the people. And let's face it: anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are in the minority world-wide, let alone in the United States. So in order to increase the manpower and capital in our armed resistance, alliances and sympathizers will need to be made, including with those who fundamentally disagree with us. While those alliances can boost our numbers and morale, their advantage will only be temporary. The risk of our "allies" turning on us will ever be present, and our in-fighting will undercut our efforts in the long term. The anti-bolshevik coalition in the Russian Civil War was a great example of how their loose alliance was detrimental and eventually became a lost cause, leaving Russia to suffer communism for around a century.

And even if our alliance was victorious in overthrowing the government, our "allies" will install another form of government without our consent and back-stab us. Tyranny will continue to prevail, just with different masters. We will be back to square one or worse, and by then, the people's will to fight will long be gone. History has shown that whenever an armed revolution or coup-d'etat prevails against the established government, new rulers will immediately pop up and almost always make things worse. In the end, freedom still loses.

It is for this practical reason why I do not desire to violently overthrow the government, not when there are better solutions.

Practical Paths

After much introspection, I can only see three pathways to creating stateless societies. These three paths can overlap, but I will need to explain them separately.

Counter-Economics

Counter-Economics, or Agorism, basically means the individual engages the market outside of government control and regulations. Think of the black and gray market, with the latter dealing with products that is not illegal but can circumvent state regulations.

(Note: black and red markets are two different things. The latter does fall under the former, but it deals with activities that violate the Non-Aggression Principle, such as contract killings, slave trade, child prostitution, etc.)

One of the most prominent and recent examples of the gray market is Uber. It was a private enterprise that has challenged the taxi service, which has a close buddy-buddy relationship with the state, particularly New York City. In order to protect the revenue from taxi companies, many governments tried to heavily restrict or ban the use of Uber. Their efforts have been a laughable failure. Uber and Lyft are two private delivery companies that can provide services to the customer at less cost than the government-regulated taxi cars.

Taking Counter-Economics to a more radical approach, we would need to start relying on currencies or mediums of exchange that is not controlled by the central government. As long as the U.S. government produces and controls the money supply, their authoritarian powers will never end.Alternative currencies must spring about in order to challenge and defeat the central government's fiat money.

As an individual, while the dollar still has worth, I would advise setting aside ten percent of your income to purchasing either precious metals (gold, silver, platinum) or cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Rippie, Dash, etc). I consider this a wise move as the dollar's final days are approaching.

While Counter-Economics as a strategy is still debated among anarchists, it is one I'm keeping an open mind on.

Separatism

The Plymouth Settlers' journey to flee persecution illustrates my next point. When William Bradford and other Puritans saw how "purifying" the Anglican Church and English Crown was a fruitless endeavor, the next step was to get out of England and look for a new civilization to establish, where they can worship God according to the dictates of their conscience. Some of the New England and Middle Colonies, particularly Rhode Island, were founded on the basis of religious freedom. One has to keep in mind how the settlers risked their lives and fortune when they moved to these new territories. For them, it was better to die free than live under the tyrannical grip they fled from.

Taking lessons from the Plymouth Settlers, we freedom lovers should find a place where we can establish our stateless society, rather than try to "reform" the tyranny we live under now. In my research, I have seen projects that have started and been scrapped, including space colonization and cities on an ocean. That's a bummer. Some time ago, the Free Society Project has been working to raise funds and purchase land from a sovereign government, with the ultimate goal of establishing the stateless society according to the Non-Aggression Principle. I'm keeping an eye on this project and I'm hoping that it will come to fruition.

Separatism is admittedly a pipe dream. But who knows what possibilities this century will bring.

Secession and Decentralization

Jeff Deist, the current President of Mises Institute, recently caught my attention with his speech called "For A New Libertarian." He made popular a strategy that I...never would have reconsidered. Both Deist and Hoppehave argued that if liberty is to win in the long term, secession and decentralization must be our strategy.

If one is to be honest, there is very little I have in common with over 300 million people in the United States, let alone the whole human race. I see no reason why we should not just go our separate ways peacefully and govern ourselves according to our conscience. Let Californians be Californians. Let Texans be Texans. Let the socialists establish their own commune and try out their experiment, if they are willing to leave the rest of us alone. And while we are at it, why not let an Anarcho-Capitalist society secede from the Union and live peacefully by themselves. We promise that we are not gonna bother anyone, since we are voluntary in nature.

With nationalism on the rise and countering the globalist agenda, many secessionist movements have sprung up, thirsting for independence from their central powers. Scotland, Brexit, Catalonia, California, and Texas when Obama was in office. Despite the U.S. Government's supremacy over the states, nullification movements are still around and annoying the living hell out of politicians in Washington. Liberty-minded folks everywhere must strive for and champion the independence and secessionist movements wherever they are. After all, better to live under a government close to home than a big government from afar.

With this is mind, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists should rally together to secede from the Union. If our territory gets bigger, alliances will become necessary, so we must keep this in mind. I must stress the point that if any group of people attempts to secede now, when the United States still holds power and legitimacy in the minds of the people, they will easily be crushed. One has to look at what happened to the Confederates to realize that seceding today would be suicide. If secession and decentralization is going to move forward peacefully, we have to wait until the United States of America is in a vulnerable position both economically and politically, where invading the independent territory will cause more harm than good to the aforementioned central power. When the United States collapses like the Romans and Soviets did, this will provide better opportunities for independent movements to create their own countries or societies, including a free civil society under the Non-Aggression Principle.

Secession and Decentralization seem to be the best path in bringing about the existence of a stateless society. While the USA is still stable and relatively free, we should start preparing ourselves economically and defensively if we are to pursue this course of action.

Born In Slavery, Live In Liberty

While admittedly there is more to say, this is where I will end my story. At least in written form. I've articulated, to the best of my ability, what my principle is and how I came to believe and abide by it. It is my hope that readers will know the train of logic I was on and follow it to its conclusion.

This is where I stand now, with everything I've learned up to this point, and a path that still needs to be charted. So far, I've made significant progress, and I'm happy with it so far.

And while it is...surreal to come to the realization that I'm not born free in today's society, in the end, it does not make a difference. Because my source of freedom does not come from the natural realm. Liberty transcends beyond physical limitations. No one, both in the natural and supernatural, can legitimately take what has been given to us since creation. I will continue to believe in this one fundamental truth, even through beyond the gates of death:

In Liberty I was created, in Liberty I will live.

Comments ( 6 )

God bless Amerika! Urah

While I have no qualms with the articulation of your thoughts, it seems to me like you are trying to incite open rebellion against the United States if they don't give you what you want. I want things to be free for me as well--free anything is good--but I also believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law of the land. If it is an unjust law, I will protest it, but if it's a law that is simply trying to regulate and keep track of everything going on in its borders, then I can understand the sense behind it.

Often the government does things that we don't agree with. But it also does things that have saved us from catastrophes. I don't have any problems with the way America is run right now, and secession and open rebellion against it is the last thing on my mind.

Even Jesus Christ paid tribute to Caesar during the time of His mortal ministry. The King of Kings was subject to the ruler of the Roman Empire. He could have said, "This government is awful and stupid" and could have overthrown it in the time it takes to snap your finger. But He was humble enough to allow the Romans to continue doing what they believed was right.

Unless you're in a government position where you can bring your concerns directly to Congress itself, I think there should be no reason why you should think you know every last dirty secret about America and that you are the only person who can solve the problems with this corrupt and decaying country. I believe that the U.S knows what it's doing and that not everything the government does can be understood in the short term.

4926537
And Paul in Romans 13:1-7 tells us to submit to the governing authorities, and he also tells us to pay taxes because that is what we owe them. And Peter also tells us to submit to the governing authorities.

Remember, during this time Nero was the ruler of the Roman Empire, and many Christians (including Paul and Peter) would be executed under his rule.

I believe in liberty. And, as much as I disagree with Thomas Paine on religious issues, even though he was a radical he admitted that government "is, in it's best state, a necessary evil," before immediately stating that it was "at worst, an intolerable one." In short, I believe that some form of government must exist in order to enforce the laws. We tried the Articles of Confederation, complete decentralization, and it failed. If not for the Philadelphia Convention, otherwise known as the Constitutional Convention, the nation might have fallen apart into several squabbling states. Some form of taxation is needed in order for various services and for infrastructure (roads, specifically) to be built and maintained.

Naturally, the world has shown us what absolute power also looks like, in the forms of Hitler, Stalin, the Japanese junta and Mao. I am NOT in favor of eliminating the government. I am in favor of the states having more power, and I believe that lower taxes gives the private sector (in particular the lower and middle classes) more room to breathe.

I kinda favor the government of the fictional Federated States of America in the world of Dystopian Legions and Dystopian Wars (which I hope to get into, if I can ever properly paint and assemble the figures properly; the guys I've painted look like they have a skin disease :P)

Anyway...

I also have to bring up the points of Brady and Prof here.

3. If the state come for my guns. I paid a lot of good money to acquire my weapons, and I consider them a treasure that will keep me and my loved ones safe. If I lose my weapons, I will lose whatever leverage I have against the state and they will bully me to their heart's content. So, on the day I hear that the government police are coming for my guns, without due process of the law, I will treat this as a threat to my life and will respond accordingly.

I can sympathize, and honestly it's hard not to do so. However, Romans 13 really itches my conscience on this one, and makes me wonder at times whether our Revolution was validated (despite the fact that believing members of the family and a female pastor have said yes).

Let Californians be Californians. Let Texans be Texans. Let the socialists establish their own commune and try out their experiment, if they are willing to leave the rest of us alone. And while we are at it, why not let an Anarcho-Capitalist society secede from the Union and live peacefully by themselves. We promise that we are not gonna bother anyone, since we are voluntary in nature.

I feel strongly about this, so please forgive my next outburst.

Oh, no! We fought ONE civil war already, and that was costly enough. It's frankly surprising that more men people didn't die, given the outdated Napoleonic tactics used and deadly, rifled weapons. If states can just choose to break away just because an election doesn't go their way, democracy is dead. I cannot support secession where no independent state existed before (I'm looking at you, Confederacy and Palestine). We've existed as a great nation, as one country. If we allow this union of states to break apart, the legacy of America is gone. Period. And it will give rise to likely wars of conquest between the new nations carved out of the body of our murdered union.

Considering the criminal nature of the state and it's agents, including the innocent lives they have taken over the years, one could validly justify an armed revolution. The only innocent persons are those who work for the state either from compulsion or complete ignorance. The latter can be debated though. In any case, a violent overthrow of the government, for the purpose of liberation, is justified in principle. A principle I do not dispute. What I am disputing is if this pathway would lead to a favorable outcome for the cause of liberty.

Let me explain myself. Freedom fighters will already have entered this conflict with many disadvantages. The most glaring example is that there is not enough well-trained fighters, weapons, and resources to even contest the ferocious power the state holds against the people. And let's face it: anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are in the minority world-wide, let alone in the United States. So in order to increase the manpower and capital in our armed resistance, alliances and sympathizers will need to be made, including with those who fundamentally disagree with us. While those alliances can boost our numbers and morale, their advantage will only be temporary. The risk of our "allies" turning on us will ever be present, and our in-fighting will undercut our efforts in the long term. The anti-bolshevik coalition in the Russian Civil War was a great example of how their loose alliance was detrimental and eventually became a lost cause, leaving Russia to suffer communism for less than a millenia.

And even if our alliance was victorious in overthrowing the government, our "allies" will install another form of government without our consent and back-stab us. Tyranny will continue to prevail, just with different masters. We will be back to square one or worse, and by then, the people's will to fight will long be gone. History has shown that whenever an armed revolution or coup-d'etat prevails against the established government, new rulers will immediately pop up and almost always make things worse. In the end, freedom still loses.

It is for this practical reason why I do not desire to violently overthrow the government, not when there are better solutions.

It seems that you would support the idea of violent revolution, if you thought it practical. I must admit that I thought of insurrectionist ideas when it looked like Hillary Clinton was going to be president, which clashed with my faith, so I'm probably not the best person to lecture you on this. However, armed rebellion is difficult to control, especially in an organization (anarchists) that believes there should be no control; how would you react to people who reject the idea of abolishing the state and insist on rebuilding it after you've torn it down? You can't kill them, because that would be wrong, and if you let them choose to rebuild a government, that's in opposition to your ideology. Crushing them, however, would be against the free right of these people to choose. I would request to know what you'd do with such people.

Furthermore, how would an anarchist society defend itself and continue with progress? It's not like they can tax people to pay soldiers, or police, or pay scientists or keep NASA going, since that would require a governing body of some kind, which is anathema.

As much as the state has been corrupted (and I accept the truth of corruption in the government, as abominable as it is that it exists), I think the best solution is reform. Recent demonstrations (such as when Tommy Robinson was arrested, and the fan revolt in response to Star Wars; The Last Jedi) are proof in my eyes that the lower classes are not powerless against the powerful, and enough pressure can force even the government to back down on an issue.

When the Roman Empire was gone, all of the government regulations and taxes were erased.

And remade under the barbarian kings who took over. The peoples who invaded also did not have the expertise to maintain brilliant inventions like the aqueducts, roads, public baths, and other buildings or infrastructure that the Romans had built. They tore down the Empire, but put up a bunch of less capable civilizations. By the way, I get the idea that the barbarian kings who conquered the Empire were despotic in nature; obey my will or suffer my wrath kind of rulers. Do they sound like people who would NOT tax whatever they could out of the conquered?

Sigh...

Please forgive me. I both feel strongly about some of these issues (secession being a big one due to my Civil War interest and horror at the thought of states leaving the Union), and I enjoy arguing, or more to the point, getting my view out there. Probably not the best Christian viewpoint. And I don't see an anarcho-capitalist society (or an anarchal society) arising from established nations and managing to survive against other nations, particularly those that maintain some form of centralization. Only thing I can think of is Mars, but that has obvious problems.

4926973

I believe in liberty. And, as much as I disagree with Thomas Paine on religious issues, even though he was a radical he admitted that government "is, in it's best state, a necessary evil," before immediately stating that it was "at worst, an intolerable one."

I do not fault the classical liberals in this school of thought. The whole American experiment was a noble experiment, an experiment that failed. Anarcho-Capitalism as a concept did not come up until Murray Rothbard in the 20th century. I would have love to see the debate between Paine and Rothbard on this.

We tried the Articles of Confederation, complete decentralization, and it failed. If not for the Philadelphia Convention, otherwise known as the Constitutional Convention, the nation might have fallen apart into several squabbling states. Some form of taxation is needed in order for various services and for infrastructure (roads, specifically) to be built and maintained.

I think there's more to this.

I kinda favor the government of the fictional Federated States of America in the world of Dystopian Legions and Dystopian Wars (which I hope to get into, if I can ever properly paint and assemble the figures properly; the guys I've painted look like they have a skin disease :P)

Huh. I'm gonna spend time researching this. Something to keep me occupied in my post. :pinkiehappy:

I can sympathize, and honestly it's hard not to do so. However, Romans 13 really itches my conscience on this one, and makes me wonder at times whether our Revolution was validated (despite the fact that believing members of the family and a female pastor have said yes).

I do not think there is a universal consensus on this passage and it's interpretation. I would strongly encourage see this video by a dedicated Christian who dedicates his youtube to channel strictly to the Bible. On this very topic of Romans 13, he offers a perspectives I never considered.

I feel strongly about this, so please forgive my next outburst.

Oh, no! We fought ONE civil war already, and that was costly enough. It's frankly surprising that more men people didn't die, given the outdated Napoleonic tactics used and deadly, rifled weapons. If states can just choose to break away just because an election doesn't go their way, democracy is dead. I cannot support secession where no independent state existed before (I'm looking at you, Confederacy and Palestine). We've existed as a great nation, as one country. If we allow this union of states to break apart, the legacy of America is gone. Period. And it will give rise to likely wars of conquest between the new nations carved out of the body of our murdered union.

Spoken like a true yankee. or Unionist. Whichever is more appropriate.

In any case, I regret that you and I have this fundamental disagreement. That if me and my buddies decide to leave the Union, you would support the federal government's efforts to bring us back by force. The day this eventually will happen, my only prayer to God is that you and I do not have each other at the crosshairs. I do not want my first kill to be one who I still consider to be my friend, even though we would be at opposite sides of this coming conflict.

It seems that you would support the idea of violent revolution, if you thought it practical.

:applejackconfused: What do you mean it "seems" I thought my argument was clear.

You can't kill them, because that would be wrong, and if you let them choose to rebuild a government, that's in opposition to your ideology. Crushing them, however, would be against the free right of these people to choose. I would request to know what you'd do with such people.

If I was in this situation I would tell my allies:

if you want to create a government, you are free to do so at your assigned territory, while me and my buddies will create an ANCAP society at our assigned spot. Leave us alone and we should have no problems.

Furthermore, how would an anarchist society defend itself and continue with progress? It's not like they can tax people to pay soldiers, or police, or pay scientists or keep NASA going, since that would require a governing body of some kind, which is anathema.

Every service, including police, courts, roads, can be done voluntarily and without the use of aggression. And considering that everyone will finally keep their earnings and incomes and not pay taxes, more money will be available for these services that will definitely be needed. People should not be forced to pay for this services against their will and if they don't want it to begin with.

As much as the state has been corrupted (and I accept the truth of corruption in the government, as abominable as it is that it exists), I think the best solution is reform. Recent demonstrations (such as when Tommy Robinson was arrested, and the fan revolt in response to Star Wars; The Last Jedi) are proof in my eyes that the lower classes are not powerless against the powerful, and enough pressure can force even the government to back down on an issue.

Valid point. As long as the state relies on public opinion and legitimacy from the governed, your point is valid.

And remade under the barbarian kings who took over. The peoples who invaded also did not have the expertise to maintain brilliant inventions like the aqueducts, roads, public baths, and other buildings or infrastructure that the Romans had built. They tore down the Empire, but put up a bunch of less capable civilizations. By the way, I get the idea that the barbarian kings who conquered the Empire were despotic in nature; obey my will or suffer my wrath kind of rulers. Do they sound like people who would NOT tax whatever they could out of the conquered?

Hmm. I do not have a counter-argument to this. But if I remember correctly, different nations eventually sprung in Europe and there was no unified Europe, no?

Please forgive me. I both feel strongly about some of these issues (secession being a big one due to my Civil War interest and horror at the thought of states leaving the Union), and I enjoy arguing, or more to the point, getting my view out there.

No need to apologize. We are two friends with different views.

And I don't see an anarcho-capitalist society (or an anarchal society) arising from established nations and managing to survive against other nations, particularly those that maintain some form of centralization.

It's possible. I've provided links in the original post.

4927504

No need to apologize. We are two friends with different views

I hope that can continue. :pinkiehappy:

Spoken like a true yankee. or Unionist. Whichever is more appropriate.

In any case, I regret that you and I have this fundamental disagreement. That if me and my buddies decide to leave the Union, you would support the federal government's efforts to bring us back by force. The day this eventually will happen, my only prayer to God is that you and I do not have each other at the crosshairs. I do not want my first kill to be one who I still consider to be my friend, even though we would be at opposite sides of this coming conflict.

I regret it, too. I don't want to pull the trigger on you anymore than you would on me. And, as I've read several Civil War books recently, I do apologize for the admittedly flamboyant way I wrote that. However, I still support a government, and godly laws and states' rights/states' autonomy (not to the point of AoC). You can call me either or, by the way.

Huh. I'm gonna spend time researching this. Something to keep me occupied in my post. :pinkiehappy:

It's not so easy a game. You actually not only have to glue the tiny metal figures (like between 1-2 inches in height), but you also have to PAINT them. :applejackconfused: Not easy to do when the figures are so small. The ship and plane version (Dystopian Wars, as opposed to Dystopian Legions, which is the infantry game in the same universe) might be easier to set up, but you still have to paint them.

Every service, including police, courts, roads, can be done voluntarily and without the use of aggression.

That might work... if people were willing to do that. But as Tom Paine writes;

"For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least."

Man has trouble obeying the simplest of rules and laws (or else we'd probably all still be living the Garden of Eden). Please forgive me (and I mean this in honest respect) for doubting that people might willingly do these things without a government to enforce the laws. I do agree that government should be as limited as possible without constraining its ability to protect and serve, so that it's original mission might be kept as pure as possible.

Hmm. I do not have a counter-argument to this. But if I remember correctly, different nations eventually sprung in Europe and there was no unified Europe, no?

Well, it's true that multiple nations sprung up. Charlemagne looked for a while like he might unite the west, but it kept splitting up after his death, I think due to gavelkind succession.

:applejackconfused: What do you mean it "seems" I thought my argument was clear.

Okay, you got me there. You were clear about it. I was preoccupied with Romans 13, if you didn't get that (and I think you did and do).

Valid point. As long as the state relies on public opinion and legitimacy from the governed, your point is valid.

Okay.

I do not fault the classical liberals in this school of thought. The whole American experiment was a noble experiment, an experiment that failed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "failed." If you mean the government became full of corrupt politicians and more centralized than it should be, then probably yes (though I think that can be fixed, with enough elbow grease). As one wit put it, "The problem with political jokes is they get elected."

But as functioning state, with ideals that are still held in the hearts, if not heads, of millions, and with a legacy that shines on in our history and cause, I think not.

I do not think there is a universal consensus on this passage and it's interpretation. I would strongly encourage see this video by a dedicated Christian who dedicates his youtube to channel strictly to the Bible. On this very topic of Romans 13, he offers a perspectives I never considered.

Well, it's probably true that it's interpretation is... contested by scholars and people everywhere. I must note, though, that there are no qualifiers that Paul places in his writing in this chapter, no clause that says, "obey the government, unless it becomes tyrannical, then overthrow it." As popular as that latter idea is to most Americans (you and me included), I can't help but feel... uncomfortable every so often when thinking about the Revolution and its justification (some criminal activities were performed by the Americans, after all, like the Boston Tea Party; spin it how you like, it was destroying someone's private property, and the "Boston Massacre" was instigated by a mob spoiling for trouble).

I'll try watching the video sometime. Can't say just when; got stuff to do and places to go tomorrow. I'll try and watch some of it tomorrow.

Speaking of tomorrow, I'm up too late as it is. Gotta go to bed. God bless, and good night :twilightsmile:

Login or register to comment