New to FSW and looking to move

[MamaLiberty]

Self - government = self control. Voluntary association of those who self govern. I see no inconsistency here at all. People all over the planet live this way every single day and always have. Not everyone, of course, and not always.

Or do you require someone to FORCE you to brush your teeth?

[Don Wills]

Ah semantics.

  "government"    Does that bring to mind the idea of an individual?  Not to me.  How about jack booted thugs?  Yep - that's what I think of when the word "government" is used.

  "self government"  Yep, that phrase brings up the idea of an individual being able to control one's impulses.

The point is that the phrase "self government" has very little connection to the word "government" as the word was used in the first several posts of this thread, that is until ML changed the discussion.

Bottom line:  I'm all for self-government, as are anarchists.  But that's not what we were talking about.  The discussion was about whether or not FSWers think there should be "no government", which is obviously a reference to the governments that control us - the government named the United States of America and the government named the State of Wyoming.  And yes, there are many FSWers who do talk about and hope for a Wyoming with no government.

[PatriotAR15]

Don't think anyone here is talking about "no government." Most of us want voluntary self government (voluntary association and cooperation) rather than tyranny. I don't see the present government doing a whole lot to prevent poverty, crime (them being the greatest criminals) or constant warfare. Which "government" do you see preventing all this, AR?

And Somalia has problems because the ordinary people are unarmed and unable to defend themselves, not because they have no "government." I'm sure they are quite able to govern their own families, tribes and land if so many outside GOVERNMENTS were not fighting tooth and nail to enslave them.

"Voluntary self government" and "Self government". Yes... no government outside of the individual.  That's still "NO GOVERNMENT" in the practical sense. Your just playing around with meaningless semantics.

Murderers, Rapists, and Child molestors aren't suddenly going to spring up into productive members of society and turn away from their evil behaviour, simply because a government doesn't exist. When the government goes away, leaving only "self government", they aren't going to suddenly start regulating themselves. If anything, they will most likely become WORSE...

As for alternatives to government, like local militias, warlords, and private insurance company/security firm conglomerates? If you don't think any of those things will eventually evolve into a government, you have a very VERY poor understanding of history.

[PatriotAR15]

Don't think anyone here is talking about "no government." Most of us want voluntary self government (voluntary association and cooperation) rather than tyranny. I don't see the present government doing a whole lot to prevent poverty, crime (them being the greatest criminals) or constant warfare. Which "government" do you see preventing all this, AR?

And Somalia has problems because the ordinary people are unarmed and unable to defend themselves, not because they have no "government." I'm sure they are quite able to govern their own families, tribes and land if so many outside GOVERNMENTS were not fighting tooth and nail to enslave them.

Government doesn't eliminate ALL crime, ALL poverty, and ALL warfare... it only mitigates it to a manageable level. What your arguing, that since the government doesn't eliminate ALL Crime, then it's useless. That's a ridiculous argument.

Owning guns isn't some kind of "protective amulet against evil". It's a tool. Sure it ups your chances, but there are MANY circumstances where a gun simply can't help you... We all need to sleep, and we are all human so we can't be on guard 100% of the time. So just because guns aren't 100% effective in preventing crimes being committed against us... does that mean we should just give up firearms ownership because it doesn't protect us ALL The time?

[PatriotAR15]

Self - government = self control. Voluntary association of those who self govern. I see no inconsistency here at all. People all over the planet live this way every single day and always have. Not everyone, of course, and not always.

Or do you require someone to FORCE you to brush your teeth?

Wow what a jump!

From a government simply policing the streets for predators and thugs and throwing them in prison... to a government forcing us to brush our teeth at night.

[PatriotAR15]

Ah semantics.

  "government"    Does that bring to mind the idea of an individual?  Not to me.  How about jack booted thugs?  Yep - that's what I think of when the word "government" is used.

  "self government"  Yep, that phrase brings up the idea of an individual being able to control one's impulses.

The point is that the phrase "self government" has very little connection to the word "government" as the word was used in the first several posts of this thread, that is until ML changed the discussion.

Bottom line:  I'm all for self-government, as are anarchists.  But that's not what we were talking about.  The discussion was about whether or not FSWers think there should be "no government", which is obviously a reference to the governments that control us - the government named the United States of America and the government named the State of Wyoming.  And yes, there are many FSWers who do talk about and hope for a Wyoming with no government.

And the things that they plan to replace government with, will eventually turn into the defacto government.... so you'll be back at square one. Since anarchy will ultimately result in a state forming up again, why not skip the whole anarchy stage and the obvious (to sane people) problems that occur with it.... and simply push for a more restricted government?

[Dodd]

America being like Somalia

The thing is, you are comparing apples and oranges. Somalies are millions of years behind the curve in evolution! They've never so much as invented a language or the wheel. They must sort themselves out through warfare. A lot of it. And that doesn't mean it will work before they go extinct. I've comtemplated what it would take to fix Oakland for instance. If you armed them and they organized to fight the criminals and drug gangs they would only rise so far as...Mogadishu. Warlords would rule.

The reason that we have race problems here in America or anywhere is that life is inherintly a struggle. Can't be avoided. People are tribal. And sophisticated warlords have banded together and been named Bilderbergers or whatever, and they figured out that you can destabilize an area by diversifying it. The people naturally do what people do. These rascals use these means to upset the country that is in the way or whose resources they covet. A crises has been created and eventually, a nation divided against itself can be destroyed, looted, ruled over. It's patriots who just want freedom under their old constitution can be declared terrorists and eliminated, because look! They are rascists. Or extremists. Or intolerant. Or you name it. And then the have-nots can say "Yeah! It's the white male's fault that we never rose above Mogadishu!"

I say that if you don't like being manipulated by government then you have to stop taking their lies as truth. And since many are so invested in these lies or too cowardly to question them, we have a real problem. A problem that can only be sorted out through very unpleasent means.

Or some sort of separation. And the cycle begins again. If folks don't like the socialist hell they are fleeing by going to Wyoming, they had better be prepared to look at some hard truths. Or our children will have to sort it out. Just like we now have to make the choices we face. With what's on the horizon I figure that if I survive the next two decades it's all gravy anyway. But hey! Life is still good. I've found friends and cammeraderie that I haven't seen since the Marine Corps. I'm excited. Whatever the future holds I pledge to stand by your side and face it. Grim? Only if you've no plan, or friends, or grit. Now God help me when I hit Post. I have a feeling some folks will be horrified.

[MamaLiberty]

Some seem to want a "government" with at least some monopoly on force, from which (I gather) nobody will be allowed to withdraw or opt out. And they seem to think they can control this thing and keep it limited.

Has never happened in the history of the world, that I know of.

It will be interesting to see how you work that.

[Don Wills]

Some seem to want a "government" with at least some monopoly on force, from which (I gather) nobody will be allowed to withdraw or opt out. And they seem to think they can control this thing and keep it limited.

Has never happened in the history of the world, that I know of.

True.  But there is one special feature of the USA that is also unique in history.  The basic idea that our governments' powers are those powers that individuals possess (either having been granted by God or by our own humanity, whichever belief system one embraces), having been delegated to the states, some powers of which were then delegated to the feds, is what is unique in the history of mankind.  It may be that such uniqueness in the sovereignty aspect of government is what will save us from being yet another government that ends in tyranny.  I'm old enough so I'll probably not see an answer to that question in my lifetime, but I'm hoping that our unique ability to alter our government through non-violent means saves us from the slippery slope to tyranny.  That's the assumption I'm working on when I spend much of the time of my remaining years focused advancing liberty through the electoral process.  It would make me sad to find out that ML is right.   

[Dennis Wilson]

Back in April of this year, in a wonderfully friendly discussion thread, I posted a couple of articles that addressed some of the “anarchy” concerns. Rather than repeat them, here are the links: (they are all in the same discussion thread, scroll to the top for the full context):

http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php?topic=8428.msg99186#msg99186
“Anarchy doesn't mean no rules, it means no rulers.”

Then in response to Danl posting at
http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php?topic=8428.msg99248#msg99248

I posted Security and Justice without government

http://www.fundamentalsoffreedom.com/fswforum/index.php?topic=8428.msg99301#msg99301

Perhaps they can shed a different light on the issue, or at least address some points that are often overlooked.

Best regards
Dennis

[Paul Bonneau]

So yes, anarchists here at the FSW forums, and in person, do talk about and hope for a Wyoming with "no government", notwithstanding the fact that it is completely unrealistic.  To pretend otherwise is less than honest.

I don't recall actually hearing anyone say or write anything like this (not to say it didn't happen, just that I don't remember it). Perhaps you can give a citation, Don?

Most anarchists, myself included, do not really have plans for Wyoming government. We'd just be happy if they decide (for whatever reason) to leave us alone.

So, also, this is an answer to PatriotAR15. See, we have no aims with regard to the government YOU wish to live under. We don't even bother to vote, or run for office, or campaign, so how could we affect that? All we are concerned with is people using aggression against ourselves. We don't like it, and wish to escape it. You write,

The fact is, without some sort of government,...all your liberties will simply be robbed away by extreme poverty, rampant crime, constant warfare, and the occasional warlord who suddenly wants to fill the "power vacuum".

Why should that concern you at all? Other than having the joy of saying "I told you so" if it turns out to work that way? You should have no problem with letting anarchists try anarchy, as it is really none of your business - in exactly the same way the government you live under is none of ours (if it does in fact leave us alone).

[Don Wills]

So yes, anarchists here at the FSW forums, and in person, do talk about and hope for a Wyoming with "no government", notwithstanding the fact that it is completely unrealistic.  To pretend otherwise is less than honest.

I don't recall actually hearing anyone say or write anything like this (not to say it didn't happen, just that I don't remember it). Perhaps you can give a citation, Don?

Search the forums for the word "anarchist" and you get 7 pages of results.  Search the forums for the word "anarchism" and you get another 2 pages of results.

Most anarchists, myself included, do not really have plans for Wyoming government. We'd just be happy if they decide (for whatever reason) to leave us alone.

Hah!  Ain't gonna happen.

...
You should have no problem with letting anarchists try anarchy, as it is really none of your business...

Go for it!  ...  And how exactly do you propose to get from here to there???
Please, dear reader, do not for one minute believe that folks who are not anarchists are therefore supporters of government.  Some might be, but not me.  I don't like government, and I wish I lived in some alternate universe where there was only "self government".  But that's not reality.  The reality is government exists.  So, IMO, the question becomes how can government be controlled so as to limit its damage to individuals' liberty.  You can either help in the effort to limit government, or you can decide to stay completely out of the fight.  Each must decide what is best for himself, and I respect those who just want to be left alone and don't want to lift a finger to help fight against tyranny.  However, we who are fighting the fight to try to limit government sure could use some help.

[Dennis Wilson]

Each must decide what is best for himself, and I respect those who just want to be left alone and don't want to lift a finger to help fight against tyranny.  However, we who are fighting the fight to try to limit government sure could use some help.

Perhaps the best way to "fight" government is to let it bankrupt itself (clearly underway right now) and to give it no reason to exist. As long as government can point to enemies, it can "justify" taking whatever measures it deems necessary to fight them and "protect" all of its sheep. Without identifiable enemies, government programs become the source of ridicule and discontent, even among the sheep. Go to any airport for evidence. http://tinyurl.com/American-Sheep


Étienne de La Boétie addressed that issue in his essay Ending Tyranny Without Violence  Link: http://tinyurl.com/LaBoetie

• Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.

Ayn Rand addressed the same issue in Atlas Shrugged.

Shades of Atlas Shrugging-->A similar approach is taken by An Open Conspiracy: The Bartleby Project   

• An everyday application of Étienne de La Boétie: Ending Tyranny Without Violence
  "I would prefer not to take your test."
  The principle has applicability far beyond mere test taking...

Jefferson Mack had some interesting advice in DON'T RUN FOR THE HILLS TO FIGHT FOR FREEDOM*  Link: http://tinyurl.com/2b46tl7

• Frankly, freedom fighters in the hills haven’t been very successful at winning liberty in [the 20th] century.
  Never forget that invisible resistance to tyranny is not a strategy for taking over the government.

    *Excerpted from pp.89-92, Invisible Resistance to Tyranny: How to Lead a Secret Life of Insurgency in an Increasingly Unfree World, by Jefferson Mack, Paladin Press, 2002.

And last (for this brief list) but not least,
 
Personal Secession – The Way to Freedom

• PRIMACY OF THE RIGHT TO SECEDE
  Personal secession allows for multiple visions of life and living.

Instead of condemning us for not "lifting a finger" and pleading that you "could use some help", perhaps you should consider that WE are waiting for YOU to read some history and the essays above and wake up to the futility and counter-productivity of your aggressive methodology.

Best regards,
Dennis

[Don Wills]

Each must decide what is best for himself, and I respect those who just want to be left alone and don't want to lift a finger to help fight against tyranny.  However, we who are fighting the fight to try to limit government sure could use some help.

Perhaps the best way to "fight" government is to let it bankrupt itself (clearly underway right now) and to give it no reason to exist.

I can guarantee you that, if the dollar ceases to have value, the successor government that governs the lands of Wyoming will be far less amenable to individual liberty than that which exists now.

That said, in a previous post I posed the question about how to get to a government-less society

Go for it!  ...  And how exactly do you propose to get from here to there???

and I take it that your answer to my question is  (ta-da)  DO NOTHING!  If that's your preferred solution to stopping the slide to tyranny, we're all toast.

[Paul Bonneau]

See, you think we are doing nothing. Just like Gandi did nothing. 

Well, we have two different prescriptions for dealing with the problem. Neither one has historically been completely successful, and both have had some partial success. I don't necessarily think its a bad thing to have two separate approaches. All it takes is for those who "control" government, including you Don when you finally manage it (good luck, and I mean that sincerely) to leave us anarchists alone.

Hah!  Ain't gonna happen.

I could say the same about your campaign to control government. We shall see.

Government is not some alien monster, but just people who face incentives to do things and refrain from doing other things. Perhaps some day the set of incentives they face will include those of not messing with anarchist communities, because it hurts too much, one way or another, when they try. This is more a problem of concentrating anarchists in a community, than anything else.

Search the forums for the word "anarchist" and you get 7 pages of results.

Yes, there are anarchists here. That's not what I was saying. You claimed anarchists 'talk about and hope for a Wyoming with "no government"', as if we want to take over the state and eliminate all government in it. Perhaps there is some talk about generally wanting a place in Wyoming with no government, but I doubt you can find anarchists wanting to eliminate all government from Wyoming, mostly because it makes little sense and is not really anarchist to do so (as we cannot force people who want government to not have it). Since you made the claim, it seems you should be the one to search through those 7 pages to prove what you said.