The puppets in the mainstream media have ignored advocates of actual freedom for as long as they could. But the idea of a free society has spread anyway, enough that now they have to resort to demonizing and scoffing at such a notion. As far as the well-trained talking heads are concerned, you’re allowed to be “right-leaning” or “left-leaning” as long as you’re an authoritarian collectivist, but if you oppose both flavors of tyranny then you’re just some crazy kook with silly, utopian ideas. (In case you haven’t heard, refraining from trying to violently control everyone else is now “utopian.”) Most attempts by those in the mainstream to refute libertarianism or anarchism fit the same basic template, which usually goes something like this:
“Well gee, it would be nice if we could all be free and stuff, but can we trust people? Do we really want to leave things up to the market? What if people are greedy and mean? People are short-sighted and selfish and would get nothing done if not for a centralized government making society work! We neeeeeeeed government controlling things and making things fair!”
The spewers of such bullpoop hope that people will wonder and worry about an unfamiliar concept—society without a ruling class—and run back to good old familiar “government.” But the statists who want everyone scared of freedom are never clear, generally or specifically, about what they are actually advocating. So as a public service, allow me to help them out by elaborating on what they must be proposing.
Some people talk about “the market” doing this or that, as if it’s some mystical, magical force, and then ask if we should trust “the market” to do this or that. But all the term “the market” means is the cumulative total of people trading voluntarily, people freely interacting without the interference of the state. So what statists are actually asking is, “Can we allow people to trade voluntarily?” If not, what’s the alternative? What would non-market options look like? If you understand anything, then you already guessed it: FORCED AUTHORITARIAN CONTROL. So when statists bitch about “the market,” they're telling you that people being allowed to spend their own money is a horrible threat to humanity … but that the violent domination of mankind isn’t.
Yes, in a free society some people will still choose to be deceptive, dishonest, nasty, even violent. And statists want everyone so scared of uncertainty and the unknown that they eagerly embrace the only alternative: subservience and slavery. Because if free people might make bad choices, then obviously freedom is bad! Of course, statists never phrase it that way; they are never honest about the alternative they are proposing when they ask if we should trust “the market.” But logic dictates that there is only one alternative to voluntary trade, and that is involuntary trade.
And that brings me to how silly it is for anyone to complain about voluntaryism. Whatever their concerns and complaints, it is self-evident that to oppose a purely voluntary society necessarily means advocating that some things be involuntary. There is another word for involuntary actions. That word is “violence.” To be pro-government is to be pro-violence. Likewise, whenever anyone, for whatever reason, objects to the non-aggression principle, then at least in some cases they must, by definition, be pushing the pro-aggression principle. And once again, that means violence.
So when some talking head is expressing his concerns about whether “the market” should be allowed to handle this or that, or about libertarianism being too simple and utopian to apply to real life, or when he complains that a stateless, voluntary society would never work, keep in mind that that person is condoning the initiation of violence against many millions of people he doesn’t even know. Including you.
If you want to reveal what statists are trying to hide, to expose the true nature of what they are condoning, it can be both useful and entertaining to make the discussion direct and personal.
“Since you’re scared of how ‘the market’ might handle things, and since you don’t like the idea of society being based on the non-aggression principle or purely voluntary interaction, then I have to ask, which involuntary stuff do you want forcibly imposed upon ME? In which cases should I not be allowed to spend my own money? Which trades and decisions would you force me to make, instead of letting me choose for myself? In which scenarios do you want ME to be violently controlled when I haven’t threatened or harmed anyone?”
But don’t hold your breath waiting for an actual answer. You won’t get one. Statists will never be direct, open and honest with you about what they believe and what they support; only about one in a hundred are even honest with themselves about it.
It always kills me to hear people say that they don't like or accept the non-aggression principle. Now, typically, it is opposed because they reject the definition of aggression - or what they believe is a lack of a definition of aggression, despite the principle defining it. You'll often hear them say, "Sometimes aggression is necessary." And if they say that while fully comprehending the definition and principle, that's your cue to avoid them.
What really gets me is when self-identifying anarchists reject the principle because they believe it may be necessary to use violence to stop someone who may potentially harm someone else, which is their best Minority Report-esque (violent statist) solution for dealing with thought crimes. Such arguments make me chuckle, but only to mask the sadness that I truly feel for them.
I completely agree except for the use of the word "violence" instead of "force". Force can be non-violent (threats), and violence can be non-force (storms). Even when someone threatens you with a gun, it's not necessarily violent until the gun is fired, but it's force all along.
First Upvote :) . Didn''t read it complete but Love the memes, Most of all GTA 5 meme(Trevor). Keep sharing @larkenrose
Yeah how does that curation award thing work, i thought that was about being a early upvoter for good content.. i upvoted adam kokesh' first post as 4th person while it was still 0.00 dollar i've never gotten any curation rewards.
often also larken rose or dollar vigilante posts when they were only 20 dollars or so.
You need a bunch of steem power before you get paid for curation.
In my opinion, one of the biggest failings here is that exposure = $teem. Nothing gains any exposure without the whales.
I'll grant that it's interesting that the whales are incentivized to provide exposure, but, right now, everything is controlled in a very top-down manner.
Most of "the market" is controlled by forces I don't feel have my best interests at heart. Corporations, local, state and federal governments all have a hand in "the market" as it reaches me. It's being manipulated every step of the way and it's never going to work for any of us under present circumstances. Individuals have little or no control over "the market" except for handing over their money...supply and demand is controlled and dictated by someone else besides me.
Governments have control over the economy. By definition, they do NOT have control over "the market," since that term means people trading WITHOUT governmental interference. What we have now is not "the market." It's a warped and mangled corporate/fascist abomination. But of course, everything bad about it gets blamed on what FREEDOM still remains.
It's becoming harder and harder to trade in free markets. if you mean buying directly for cash or other forms of compensation. Here locally in Nebraska there used to be tons of farmers markets to buy directly from the growers for whatever you could barter them to accept. The governments put an end to that in an effort to protect Wal-Marts monopoly here locally.
Please vote for me, thank you.
Https://steemit.com/life/@dabaisha/haha-guess-which-one-is-my-girlfriend-all-very-beautiful
Great post & points.
@larkenrose Another GOOD post ! Another attempt to wake the "Sheeple". Adding to your post, I would like to remind (Shee)people that "The behavior that you CONDONE is the behavior YOU ARE PROMOTING".
Yes YOU are Murdering, Stealing, Robbing and Raping ! Your Vote condones and promotes and your taxes YOU are so willing to pay for "Your roads" make it all possible !
I would like to start hearing Anarchist calling a spade a spade ... The TRUTH IS ... That people, (Statist or Government) is not: bad, a shame, unfortunate, so sad .. It IS EVIL !!!! yes the word for this is EVIL !!!
The 1/100 that are honest with themselves about it are no more. They are now voluntaryists too. The FORCE (cognitive dissonance) is too strong within the other 99. I think The Mirror will cut through cognitive dissonance like a light saber. ;)
Related: https://mises.org/library/market-doesnt-solve-problems-people-do
The basic malfunction in your argumentation: just because you think we ought to be free from state interference, doesn't make it so. They are maintaining their power over the people by means of force.
You can't have a nice liberty-loving argument with somebody pointing a loaded gun your way and ordering you what to do.
But the vast majority are supporting "legal" violence because they think that when violence is done via "law" and "government," that makes it legitimate. I used to believe that. It IS possible to convince a lot of people to stop condoning that violence, by showing them that it is wrong.
People don't even know what the market is. Next time you're in a debate with somebody about the market and they're making no sense, ask them what the market actually is and watch them dig a hole.
Wouldn't warlords take over? No. To do so they need willing participants or to use force against others to make them participate.
Non compliance works wonders. Oh and the new warlords followers wouldn't be benefitting from some insane notion of legitimacy. As without the state the lie of legitimacy is broken and either through persuasion or coercion can you get someone to submit to your will.
Will everything be perfect nope, that's not even what's advocated. It would be moral, ethical and result in less death and destruction from people who blindly believe obedience is a virtue.
I want the government to forcibly impose non-violence on you. To prevent you from gathering a bunch of thugs, forming a militia and forcing me into a dictatorship.
Make no mistake, all your cries about "freedom" are really an attempt to control the world and force everyone else to live the way you believe is best.
I can't tell if that was serious, or if you're a voluntaryist making fun of how statists argue. Because they sound exactly the same. Your last sentence is especially ridiculous, unless you're just an anarchist trolling the comments section.
Because dismantling the government isn't forcing your view on everyone else somehow? The millions of people who see the good in government now have to start finding their own personal defense contractors, no matter how poor they are, because @larkenrose convinced enough people that voluntaryism works!
And hey, I get it. you would never form a militia and take over. But someone would. That's the point, anarchists utterly ignore history and human nature. Militias will form, and someone will take over. There is no such thing as anarchy except in the imagination.
You can join whatever government you'd like. Live by their dictates. Be ruled by them. I'm not stopping you. Just don't force me to join it.
I didn't. No one did. You choose to stay with your current government.
Yes, someone would form a militia and take over. YOU. YOU would. It's what you are advocating, right here, right now. But you're too indoctrinated to even notice.
But you're utterly avoiding the point in favor of accusing me of being a statist. Is your only argument ad hominem?
OK, let's say it was me. Government disappears tomorrow, and on Monday I start gathering troops and training them so I can carve out a territory.
What stops me?
there is no point in arguing with telos. i tried to say that children are the product of their parents labor, until they can cogently advocate for themselves, and as parents they have the right to refuse to inject vaccines , of unpredictable origin , into their children, and telos accused me of wanting to kill children. so, while i admire your seemingly unquenchable desire to educate, even the most unwilling, i have debated with this guy at length and finally decided that some need to unlearn their indoctrination their own way. my efforts at least i'll no longer waste on the willing slaves. i hope to encourage you to move on. however you seem to be better at this than i . should you choose to continue, i applaud you, have at it.
"Because stopping a rapist isn't forcing your view on someone else?" Good grief. "If you're not getting robbed, people might have to pay for what they want! You evil oppressor!"
Literally nothing to do with what I've said. You'd think such a famous champion of anarchy could do better.
"someone would?". Are you the second coming of the Prophet or something? You claim you can predict something that you can't even point to an example of ever happening before, since that would be pretty important to backing up your argument. "Oh, back in the days of some king or something, some guy came along, set up a voluntary system of distributed governance, and immediately people started eating babies and raping each other".
Have a look into how the Icelanders ran precisely this kind of voluntary, distributed governance system in the middle ages, until the Catholic Church came along and used its power to violently enforce the tithe, and undid all the good of their system, which ran for 300 years with very little violence or bloodshed.
Also, have a look at the Bible. 1 Samuel 8 is a very good example to give you a hint about the fact that prior to the first king of the Jews, David, in fact, jewish society was precisely a voluntary, decentralised system of meritocratic, competitive governance. The archaeological evidence of the ancient city of Jericho, shows that this system must have existed for some 9000 years, no kings, no government, just a loose network of religious scholars who were vested with the privilege of making judgements in cases of law and prescribing remedies... These competing lawgivers kept warlords from rising up within their ranks, while they were just little upstart common criminals. It was probably this also why it was a very sad day for judaism when finally Jericho fell.
You conveniently cherry picked that article for the things that supported your argument, and left out the entire first half of the article, which described how it worked for that 290 years. For example:
and still more, that I think is very important, that you have misrepresented through omission:
And this article did not mention the part played by the catholic church as they moved in and manipulated things with their money from Rome. This was how the monopoly developed.
Sure, they didn't have a defence against this outside party funding a breakup of their legal system, but 290 years of greatly reduced warfare and violent crime still needs to be accounted for.
As stated above, can't tell if serious or being ironic. If its the latter, well played!...If its the former, well frankly, thats even funnier!
wow, he was serious ... The "Sheep-O-Thon" continues ... And really, nothing funny about it (imho) ..
Please get me out of this "Dysfunction Junction" called the USSA ..
Seems to me, the only people talking like this are the ones that (As of YET)have not been kidnapped and thrown in a cage. Absolutely no sympathy, and certainly no empathy, all that will change because YOUR turn (to be caged) IS coming ! (Sheeple)
As the man said "You aint seen bad yet, BUT IT'S COMING"
I have been arrested. Twice actually.
Again, none of you are telling me why militias won't spring up and take over your area forming dictatorships.
But no, please do go on with your ad hominems rather than actually thinking.
A "militia" already has sprung up and taken over my area. They watch me all the time, monitoring my internet use, my phone conversations, and who I associate with. If I do something they don't like, they'll come in the middle of the night, dressed in black, with machine guns, to kidnap me and take me away somewhere.
It calls itself the government of the United States of America.
If you try to control and rule over millions of people by brute force alone, you get shot. That's why modern sociopaths know that first you have to dupe your subjects into thinking you are "protecting" them, and thinking your domination of them is legitimate and "legal." If you want an example of what it looks like when someone falls for that, look in the mirror.
By the way, congrats on being able to spell "ad hominem." However, now you need to learn what it means. It doesn't just mean any response you don't like. (P.S. The term "statist" refers to anyone who advocates the existence of a state.)
@larkenrose: Yeah, those dictators... Always getting shot by their own people. Oh... Wait.
Calling me a sheep certainly qualifies as ad hominem, and as for statist:
Statism: a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.
I have advocated for nothing more than the realization that without government controlled national defense you'd be fighting off militias left and right. So calling me a statist is innaccurate, and given your disdain for statists, absolutely an ad hominem. You only finally triedto address my point after I called you out on that.
Nice try though.
Hi @telos, here's an extract from a speech which might help answer your question:
Have a good one
@churdtzu: I responded in a new post thanks to terrible comment depth limits: https://steemit.com/anarchy/@telos/response-wouldn-t-warlords-take-over
From what I can tell telos is one of a handful of leftist trolls who like to come onto libertarian articles and re-state every statist fallacy we've ever crushed a million times before...boring fellow...
So it is violent to stop violence? Please do go on, I am curious to see the mental gymnastics you need to justify this.
telos, why do you want me dead if I disagree with you. you are evil and immoral for wanting the state to point a gun at me to steal my property.
I don't want you dead. Why can't anarchists ever address what was actually said instead of making up hyperbolic bullshit?