Omegahero09

This is true, but I highly doubt that Washington would really engage in open warfare against their "own people." I think they'd lose all of their support if they did so, and even so I don't think states acting in self-defense is all together a bad or immoral thing. It may escalate to that if, if the practice Obama has put into place of firing key military personnel for undoubtedly nefarious reasons, continues with future presidents. Not to mention, the military is full of well-intentioned people, I don't think they are as cold as the old sociopathic Nazi soldiers.

I've been thinking about this for awhile, and I tend to think that Adam Kokesh has the right idea- along with many others. Dissolve the government slowly over time, using the system and informing people via the political soapbox. However I disagree with him in practice, as Kokesh is running for president in the next election. I think States dissolving from the union is a much more plausible solution. Let the states break down into minarchy before breaking down their structures into the stateless societies. Say a state like Texas succeeds from the union, and lifts non-violent crimes from it's enforcement quotas. After an enormous unprecedented economic boon, I'm sure other states would follow suit, and dissolve from Washington.

Perhaps not the accepted social custom... But you could argue that the Serentity's crew in Firefly were unrealized anarchists, as the situation in The Walking Dead too.

Does anyone know of a thread here, or a video where Stef talks about property and determining ownership?While we know that the government's "ownership" of the land is invalid morally, how would we go about splitting it up peacefully? Who defines property and how can we define it beyond our bodies and the labor of our bodies?

No, no, no. You are thinking that the only way to solve the problem is with the barrel of a gun.Free societies could and will have more tools than guns to resolve issues. Check your premises.

Don't forget Game of Thronneeessss

I really think the way anarchists would get things done is just to come together in a community inviting business entrepreneurs and standing with their arms crossed at statists who come to try to stir shit up- waiting to use defensive force, or to happily trade.

Totally dude. It really wasn't as bad for me, the awareness and moral awakening brought a refreshing new light to everything- and especially film. I think people base their realities more on film though than morality, and I only say this from personal observations. When you think of war- you typically think of how it's portrayed in movies. Same goes for businesses, the cops, bank robberies, romances, drugs, even reality tv and survival shows. It's kind of scary, but really isn't shocking by any means.

What I think you mean to say is that everyone is naturally inherently free

Actually this is where I think the brilliance of DRO's and dispute insurance agencies comes into play. You can pick for yourself the monetary values of evil.

This was their attitude from the get-go. They reacted very violently to my statements, though I was being as open and as friendly as I knew how to be. They were absolutely fixed on the idea that evil people will rise to some sort of power always and that in order to keep that from happening the solution is to lay down the law. When I pointed out that all that evil they are talking about exists already both in and out of the government they squirmed and became progressively more passionate and irate.

Immensely important. How many people make judgements based on what they know from movies and television?Also I've thought about anarchism in D&D, the typical adventuring party is anarchic inherently because they don't want to be bound by nations or serfdoms, they want to be free to adventure and keep their spoils. Also keep in mind- the realms of fantasy have literal evil creatures and races sooo... fantasy morality is really interesting and different from our real life moralities and ethics.

These are all awesome...I also just realized that what the government says according to them and real life is this:"I own the land you are standing on. Obey my will, leave, or die." Ownership of land does not give you just reason to take immoral actions. Clarification on C The example they used specifically was this: "An evil man walks into your 'utopia dreamland anarchist state,' or whatever, and according to your definitions of self-ownership and self defense, knows that he will be attacked on sight and therefore- decides to attack those he sees on sight- therefore both the evil man and the "not evil" civilized people are in the right according to the NAP. So I don't see how your system is just- or works. You need law to determine who has the rights to self defense and who doesn't."So basically because DRO's are after the massmurderer, the DRO's violate the NAP against the massmurderer and so you have conflicts between evil people and DRO's constantly.

Statist friends brought these arguments to the table, and I'm still hashing them out in my brain. a) All state force and coercion are voluntary because we are free to leave the country. Because we are free to leave and find a new place to live all violence is acceptable. If you choose to live in the United States you are choosing to live in the violence and coercion- therefore freedom. b) Morality within war and disputes between parties are irrelevant because the moralities and belief systems are just in their own views. c) Violence for the sake of self-defense is self defeating because suspecting that you are in danger doesn't always include objective truth/reality therefore self-defense doesn't work. d) Government owns the land. Therefore they can initiate force even if you don't agree to their property rules- vehicle tags, prohibition, taxation etc. This is the same for getting trespassers off your property, and workers working for you, operating your equipment under your rules and wages. They actually state that statism is a necessary evil and is the most efficient way to deal with several issues. They agree with most of my moralities but give exceptions to the government for the above reasons.

Additionally, if it were immoral to have children, then you would have to agree that the best course of action for the human race is to cease to exist- in order to avoid harm as you stamp the originator of the immoral action to the parents.

Hold on, Are you talking about structural violence? Is that what this is about?

This is I think where it gets interesting... Animals might be registered as property through veterinary services and DRO's, but wild ones... seems like a gray area to me.I agree with the above- I wouldn't trade or interact with Abuser Bob.

Or one-shot call in shows

So he used to play. Does anyone still play? Also how cool would it be to play with Stef? Goblins and anarchist clerics and paladins o.O

I think I agree with you. Communities would actually exist in the anarchist world, and if Abuser Bob really was like that, I don't think the community would really mind if evidence was found for his abuse. Think of the DRO letters, and agent visits to their house to speak with the wife, offering divorce settlements, and service plans to get her out of her situation, that is if Abuser Bob really doesn't have a DRO as we have established.

Say I saw the same guy beating his wife from my window too, and I had heard that this guy was a rabblerouser and was an abuser to his wife. In our anarchist society what consequences would I have for filming him in his own house from my house- abusing his wife? Would that be considered a breach in privacy or would the evidence be worth more in the situation than the breach?

Was it a lucid dream? Did you have complete awareness and perhaps some control?

Well the lack of "needs" as you say doesn't factor over everything either, at least I'm not convinced by it-I've had the misfortune to meet and know a couple people who were raised in well-intentioned, non-violent homes, and turned out as thieves, liars, cheaters, and ones who were prone to violence, with no honor, values, or virtue at all. Also I agree with xelent- NAP I think has more of a use as a problem solving pragmatical tool, than a philosophic lens if you will.

Ah I see, what you're saying is that most violations of the NAP come from what I call "Aladdin Thieves," which are good people who violate the NAP by stealing and other means to feed themselves and their family because they are depraved. I will acknowledge that there are people out there who are in tough situations, however I disagree whole-heartedly that the solution is as simple as you say "addressed and altered beneficially." I sincerely hope you aren't suggesting some kind of altruistic scheme lol