Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren't Nice to You - Christopher Cantwell

Yup, the Celts did not have any state but they did have a government. It's also interesting to note the gifts and what we would call welfare came directly out of the pockets of the leaders and not the people.

All authority is always assumed.

Everybody knows that it's huge.

Nobody outside of the occasional rain forest thinks of 21st century government as being embryonic.

Well, to continue with the nature of man, authority is most often assumed, but it is often due to a void.

With people, there will always be leaders who inspire and followers who actually want leaders to follow.

Authority is not always assumed, sometimes it is requested and given by consent.

And they get the rope a lot quicker.

Ignorant comment of the day.

They sure don't ask the vigilantes of Montana.

nah,...it's bought.

Want more authority,...get more money.

Anarchy is not a vacuum unless you think a state is an absolute necessity.

How so?

Absolutely!!!!

Authority can be had without money or coercion.

Read the conversation that I'm having with Bristoe.

Authority can be bestowed or even assigned as in the case of the celts that you so enjoy pointing out. It's not always assumed.

http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

Other things have helped change my mind. R.J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii calculates that in the twentieth century alone, states murdered about 162,000,000 million of their own subjects. This figure doesn�t include the tens of millions of foreigners they killed in war. How, then, can we speak of states �protecting� their people? No amount of private crime could have claimed such a toll. As for warfare, Paul Fussell�s book Wartime portrays battle with such horrifying vividness that, although this wasn�t its intention, I came to doubt whether any war could be justified
_______________________________________

For most people, anarchy is a disturbing word, suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism � things they hope the state can control or prevent. The term state, despite its bloody history, doesn�t disturb them. Yet it�s the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can�t assert a plausible right to rule. Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do that. This is what legitimacy means. Anarchists obviously need a more seductive label.

�But what would you replace the state with?� The question reveals an inability to imagine human society without the state. Yet it would seem that an institution that can take 200,000,000 lives within a century hardly needs to be �replaced.�

I've yet to see an Anarchist argument on how to address aggression. The whole premise of anarchy is based upon nonagression, which is not in the nature of man.

With anarchy, the main purveyor of aggression wouldn't exist.

That right there is funny. A bunch of dorks who read political theory and talk about it on the internet for fun scare you? F'real?




What thread have you been reading? I haven't seen anyone suggesting the utopian dreams of a totalitarian. Maybe of a flower child?

You think there is a sleeper cell of "legalize marijuana" activists who are gonna get violent and plan a coup to overthrow the gov't?

We might overthrow YOU... If you have a Mountain Dew and a bag of Doritos...



Wait are you saying that thugs don't love the state we have now? There is more than a little irony here.

Which is the major area where those with your line of argumentation falls short. It's circular. You say gov't is absolutely necessary to protect us when arguing against anarchists, while in other threads you'll argue against Liberals saying that that the number one thing we need protection from these days is the gov't.

Which is it?

I am not an anarchist, but I sure do recognize the logic of their argument.

Oh yes we would.

Haven't you heard about "micro aggressions"?

lol,...