subscribe or follow us:                    

I don't sound like an Anarchist, I am an Anarchist

8 comments

Posted by PunkJohnnyCash on Apr 27, 2010 in immigration, Libertarianism, Police State, video | 8 comments

I keep getting one argument on the immigration issue and it seems to be one I did not really expect. I had assumed that previous articles and the issues would have made my stance clear, but here goes again. You constantly bring up the “law” and then many say I sound like an anarchist. For all you utilitarian tyrants out there brace yourself:

I don’t sound like an Anarchist, I am an Anarchist.

Perhaps you don’t understand what this means. I do not promote chaos. I do promote a world of order. I do present options and alternatives outside of the state to order society. This is why the tag line on the top of the page says “Think Outside of Government.” Not outside of Obama or Democrats, like you conservative statists believe, but government as a whole. I strive for a stateless society. I oppose your military and your police. Why you think the government is good only when it’s shooting people I will never know.  That seems to be one of the most ignorant concepts I have ever heard.  Do you not see that the “Welfare State” that you so despise only exists because of the aggressive force presented by the Warfare State you condone. Without that coercive government would cease to exist and we could live in a voluntary society.

Now, on to your constant “It is the Law” argument.  It is not from the law of natural rights, but it is from the law of a state. The state only has any percieved authority because unlike other businesses it maintains it’s monopolies by force.  For you Glenn Beck conservative and constitutional “libertarians” or small government conservatives, many of you need to learn a thing or two about libertarianism.  Let me introduce you to Murray Rothbard:

The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonagression axiom/” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.

– Murray Rothbard

Now, taken to the logical conclusion, the state has really no authority, since everything a state does relies on this threat of force. Essentially this is the belief that crime is not relative. If you have the title “Police” or the title “Bum” you are equally accountable for your aggressions against another.  As you begin to realize how many crimes and aggressions the state seems to get away with you begin to see it for what it is.  The state is nothing more than the largest of criminal syndicates.  It participates in mass murder it renames war.  It is guilty of extortion and theft it calls taxation.  It also is guilty of kidnapping it calls justice.  The list goes on and on.

So, when you claim the criminal organization has right to lock up people, and do as they please I assert that you are the criminals not the poor individual who is looking for work in a land that is occupied by a totalitarian empire.  Migrants are not criminals. They are the victims. This is the mindset of the abuser. Blame the victim.  It is easy.  You just beat your wife and say they had it coming, or that she shouldn’t have done the thing that made you lash out and lock her in a closet.  It’s the exact same damn thing we are doing to migrants.  They are “Illegal” you say, then state this somehow makes it ethical for you to use aggressive force against those people.

This video is for those who do not understand rights, or might think your state gives or protects your rights:

Just because you can write on paper that you want someone to hurt the brown people does not make it right or does not excuse your sins against humanity, or that person’s natural rights.

QuickBooks and more at PNC site go to website how to use photoshop

Post-Tribune (IN) July 15, 2007 THIS ELECTRONIC VERSION MAY DIFFER SLIGHTLY FROM PRINTED VERSION Several programs will be offered soon at PNC — Porter County, 600 Vale Park Road. * Intermediate QuickBooks meets from 6 to 8 p.m. Mondays, July 16 to 30. The fee is $79 in addition to a book fee.

* Digital Darkroom meets from 6 to 8:40 p.m. Tuesdays, July 17 to 31. The fee is $139. The recommended book is $26. Students will learn how to use Photoshop CS2 to manipulate and improve digital photos, change colors, eliminate red eye and other functions. web site how to use photoshop

* A resume and cover letter workshop will meet from 6 to 8 p.m. Mondays, July 16 to 30. The fee is $99.

* Beyond the Basics of Microsoft Excel runs from 6 to 8 p.m. Thursdays, July 19 through Aug. 2. The fee is $79. The recommended book is $26.

* Expanding the Basics Computer Class meets from 9 to 11 a.m. Tuesdays, July 24 through Aug. 7. The fee is $79. The recommended book is $26.

To register, call 531-4200, Ext. 4207. Persons with disabilities requiring accommodations should call Ext. 5343.

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

  • http://twitter.com/daverag David R.

    I think it's probably not a law but a statute too.

  • http://twitter.com/daverag David R.

    I think it’s probably not a law but a statute too.

  • Anonymous

    When you have time, please comeback and fill in the rest of the story, such as that at the current time, in the real world, we are not in a truly free society (context) and that in the real world as it currently exists, the state desperately wants more constituents/ patrons that will align themselves with the state in order to receive it's re-distributed wealth. The state wants to increase the rolls of those who will consume and demand more it's seemingly endless supply of goodies. Of course, those goodies were taken from someone else, or stolen through currency debasement.

    For now, your beloved liberty will facilitate even more wealth theft and re-distribution and a gross bolstering of the states power as exercised through our supposed "democracy".

    I would love to re-visit this discussion when Rothbard's intended context truly exists. For now, the argument put forth by the writer is conspicuously lacking the real world situation of the state apparatus that we are living under. It is either a tremendously shoddy or fundamentally dishonest oversight on the authors part.

    Worse yet, the implication of racism made in the piece wreaks of the current agenda used by the open border statists crowd. Among others read some Hans Hermann Hoppe, you'll find that there are very, very legitimate arguments made by other Libertarians who are opposed to the open borders agenda as it exists in the real, here and now world.

    Your prescription will only radically grow the power of the states power and legitimacy through welfare, ethnic politics, and through wealth confiscation. As it is, the state takes enough of my money and gives it to those who have broken into this country, among so many others. Given that I live on a border state with the highest levels of illegal immigration in the country, it is far worse and unimaginable to someone who lives in, say New Hampshire. Furthermore, I'm relegated to second class citizenship through the seemingly endless rights, giveaways and preferences based on ethnicity and race.

    Let's have this conversation again when liberty has been established, the welfare state has been abolished and property rights are the law of the land both in statutes and general understanding among the populace.

    Until then your suggestion will do nothing more than be a growth hormone for the state. I have to think that as brilliant as Rothbard was, he had the intellectual honesty to conduct this discussion with reality as it's context.

    In all due respect, that is lacking in your treatise.

    • Mhstahl

      "Worse yet, the implication of racism made in the piece wreaks of the current agenda used by the open border statists crowd. Among others read some Hans Hermann Hoppe, you'll find that there are very, very legitimate arguments made by other Libertarians who are opposed to the open borders agenda as it exists in the real, here and now world."

      Did YOU read Hoppe's argument? His LRC article on the subject ends thus:

      "It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias. "

      No idea where the charge of racism comes from….

      Startpage 'Hoppe immigration'-it's the second hit. I'm sure Dr. Hoppe has more formal academic material available on the subject, where he doubtless manages to avoid describing human beings as 'trash'.

      The logic applied by Hoppe and others at Mises is brutally tortured on this subject-sadly, since it detracts from otherwise stellar work.

      If you think that 'immigrants' will somehow function as a homogeneous voting block, you are quite deluded, and frankly unjustly stereotyping huge swathes of people to serve YOUR political agenda. First, Hispanic immigrants are largely Catholic(not known as big fans of abortion), and last I checked one of the most biting insults among Mexican men is to be called homosexual….i fail to see how they would be any more politically homogeneous than, say, ethnic Germans-for instance, I'm not a racist.

      And, if I'm not mistaken, La Raza actually has a goal of severing the Southwest from Mordor…I mean Washington…

      I'm on a border too….I'm so glad that all those armed agents of the federal government are patrolling the streets keeping the state from growing….

      You might not be a racist, I've no idea, but the argument you offer is based in racism-step back and look at it honestly.

      All due respect.

  • indyelephant

    When you have time, please comeback and fill in the rest of the story, such as that at the current time, in the real world, we are not in a truly free society (context) and that in the real world as it currently exists, the state desperately wants more constituents/ patrons that will align themselves with the state in order to receive it's re-distributed wealth. The state wants to increase the rolls of those who will consume and demand more it's seemingly endless supply of goodies. Of course, those goodies were taken from someone else, or stolen through currency debasement.For now, your beloved liberty will facilitate even more wealth theft and re-distribution and a gross bolstering of the states power as exercised through our supposed "democracy".I would love to re-visit this discussion when Rothbard's intended context truly exists. For now, the argument put forth by the writer is conspicuously lacking the real world situation of the state apparatus that we are living under. It is either a tremendously shoddy or fundamentally dishonest oversight on the authors part. Worse yet, the implication of racism made in the piece wreaks of the current agenda used by the open border statists crowd. Among others read some Hans Hermann Hoppe, you'll find that there are very, very legitimate arguments made by other Libertarians who are opposed to the open borders agenda as it exists in the real, here and now world.Your prescription will only radically grow the power of the states power and legitimacy through welfare, ethnic politics, and through wealth confiscation. As it is, the state takes enough of my money and gives it to those who have broken into this country, among so many others. Given that I live on a border state with the highest levels of illegal immigration in the country, it is far worse and unimaginable to someone who lives in, say New Hampshire. Furthermore, I'm relegated to second class citizenship through the seemingly endless rights, giveaways and preferences based on ethnicity and race.Let's have this conversation again when liberty has been established, the welfare state has been abolished and property rights are the law of the land both in statutes and general understanding among the populace. Until then your suggestion will do nothing more than be a growth hormone for the state. I have to think that as brilliant as Rothbard was, he had the intellectual honesty to conduct this discussion with reality as it's context.In all due respect, that is lacking in your treatise.

  • http://irislibertyforum.org Bambam

    I personally dont see any practical function to a government accept for keeping the Normans at bay.

  • http://irislibertyforum.org Bambam

    I personally dont see any practical function to a government accept for keeping the Normans at bay.

  • Mhstahl

    "Worse yet, the implication of racism made in the piece wreaks of the current agenda used by the open border statists crowd. Among others read some Hans Hermann Hoppe, you'll find that there are very, very legitimate arguments made by other Libertarians who are opposed to the open borders agenda as it exists in the real, here and now world."Did YOU read Hoppe's argument? His LRC article on the subject ends thus:"It implies requiring an existing employment contract with a resident citizen; moreover, for both categories but especially that of citizenship, it implies that all immigrants must demonstrate through tests not only (English) language proficiency, but all-around superior (above-average) intellectual performance and character structure as well as a compatible system of values – with the predictable result of a systematic pro-European immigration bias. "No idea where the charge of racism comes from….Startpage 'Hoppe immigration'-it's the second hit. I'm sure Dr. Hoppe has more formal academic material available on the subject, where he doubtless manages to avoid describing human beings as 'trash'. The logic applied by Hoppe and others at Mises is brutally tortured on this subject-sadly, since it detracts from otherwise stellar work. If you think that 'immigrants' will somehow function as a homogeneous voting block, you are quite deluded, and frankly unjustly stereotyping huge swathes of people to serve YOUR political agenda. First, Hispanic immigrants are largely Catholic(not known as big fans of abortion), and last I checked one of the most biting insults among Mexican men is to be called homosexual….i fail to see how they would be any more politically homogeneous than, say, ethnic Germans-for instance, I'm not a racist. And, if I'm not mistaken, La Raza actually has a goal of severing the Southwest from Mordor…I mean Washington…I'm on a border too….I'm so glad that all those armed agents of the federal government are patrolling the streets keeping the state from growing….You might not be a racist, I've no idea, but the argument you offer is based in racism-step back and look at it honestly. All due respect.