Libertarians Pick Barr as Presidential Nominee

[lew]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Whatever his personal views - and even you said he's no neo nazi - his voting record does not reflect racism or neo-nazi crap.

Exactly.


I don't care what the personal views of a Presidential candidate is, as long as politically they are a (anti)federalist.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by lew

ok.

But I don't understand why seeking anarchists is a bad thing. Paul proudly speaks about Spooner, Rothbard, and Rockwell, all anarchists.


I can understand why some think seeking racists is a bad thing, but I don't see it with the anarchist thing.

Personally I have a problem voting for a presidential candidate who solicits the ideology of otherthrowing our government. To each his own I suppose.

[Ardentfrost]

Anarchism = overthrowing our government?

You need to study up on anarchy methinks

[motivez]

Originally Posted by lew

ok.

But I don't understand why seeking anarchists is a bad thing. Paul proudly speaks about Spooner, Rothbard, and Rockwell, all anarchists.


I can understand why some think seeking racists is a bad thing, but I don't see it with the anarchist thing.

Because your definition of what an anarchist is isn't the same as the definition the rest of the country uses.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Anarchism = overthrowing our government?

You need to study up on anarchy methinks

Anarchism (from Greek ἀν (without) + ἄρχειν (to rule) + ισμός (from stem -ιζειν), "without archons," "without rulers")[1] is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which reject compulsory government[2][3] (the state) and support its elimination,[4][5] often due to a wider rejection of involuntary or permanent authority.[6] Anarchism is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics as "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state."[7]


Main Entry:
anarchism
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups 2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Main Entry: anarchist
1: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power2: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
— anarchist or an·ar·chis·tic Listen to the pronunciation of anarchistic \ˌa-nər-ˈkis-tik, -(ˌ)när-\ adjective


Am I missing something here? I've always taken anarchists to be people who want to do away with a permanent government (often by force) and let people fend for themselves.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Anarchism (from Greek ἀν (without) + ἄρχειν (to rule) + ισμός (from stem -ιζειν), "without archons," "without rulers")[1] is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which reject compulsory government[2][3] (the state) and support its elimination,[4][5] often due to a wider rejection of involuntary or permanent authority.[6] Anarchism is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics as "the view that society can and should be organized without a coercive state."[7]


Main Entry:
anarchism
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups 2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Main Entry: anarchist
1: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power2: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order
— anarchist or an·ar·chis·tic Listen to the pronunciation of anarchistic \ˌa-nər-ˈkis-tik, -(ˌ)när-\ adjective


Am I missing something here? I've always taken anarchists to be people who want to do away with a permanent government (often by force) and let people fend for themselves.

Out of all those words you posted, violence is mentioned ONCE... and using google "define anarchism" gives quite a few examples, none mentioning violence.

But despite whatever supposed "textbook" definition you have found, anarchy is NOT inherently violent (though an essentialist definition may contain that due to misinformation and a propagation of ignorance).

Anarchy JUST means a society with no government involvement. However, that isn't to say that a government cannot coexist with an anarchist society.

People say "anarchist" and think shit like the Anarchist Cookbook and shit. Individuals can be violent and blow shit up and claim it's to perpetuate their anarchist ideals, but anarchy itself lacks the ability to be violent because it's just a simple concept.

I'm surprised YOU are trying to claim anarchy is violent with as many anarchists that are on these boards. We've had many convos about the very subject.

[lew]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Am I missing something here? I've always taken anarchists to be people who want to do away with a permanent government (often by force) and let people fend for themselves.

Very few anarchists are violent.


Of the ones that are, IIRC, every single one has been of the Leftist end of the spectrum.


Right anarchists have never been violent (and most Left anarchists aren't either).


They would like to see the abolition of the current State, but they are not militants / terrorists that want to slaughter innocents, blow up buildings, etc.

[JaJae]

So wait, you guys are offended by the term "overthrow"? Is that what his is all about? That's pretty absurd. How about you pick one of these words instead:

Main Entry: overthrow
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: To bring about the downfall of.
Synonyms: bring down, overturn, subvert, topple, tumble, unhorse

Main Entry: overthrow
Part of Speech: verb
Synonyms: confound, conquer, defeat, demolish, depose, destroy, destruction, dethrone, discomfit, dislodge, dismiss, downfall, exterminate, fell, foil, oust, overcome, overpower, overturn, overwhelm, prostrate, raze, rebellion, remove, rout, ruin, subvert, topple, tumble, undermine, unhorse, unseat, upset, vanquish

Is an anarchist not someone who wants to start to start an effort to remove the authority of the government over our lives? We're just nit picking semantics and verbage here to help us sleep better at night..

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So wait, you guys are offended by the term "overthrow"? Is that what his is all about? That's pretty absurd. How about you pick one of these words instead:

Main Entry: overthrow
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: To bring about the downfall of.
Synonyms: bring down, overturn, subvert, topple, tumble, unhorse

Main Entry: overthrow
Part of Speech: verb
Synonyms: confound, conquer, defeat, demolish, depose, destroy, destruction, dethrone, discomfit, dislodge, dismiss, downfall, exterminate, fell, foil, oust, overcome, overpower, overturn, overwhelm, prostrate, raze, rebellion, remove, rout, ruin, subvert, topple, tumble, undermine, unhorse, unseat, upset, vanquish

Is an anarchist not someone who wants to start to start an effort to remove the authority of the government over our lives? We're just nit picking semantics and verbage here to help us sleep better at night..

We won't get rid of the prejudices for the word "anarchy" if we use words with other prejudices associated with them.

And really anarchy isn't about overthrowing anything. It is a political stance, just as republicanism or libertarianism. Neither of those terms are used with the word "overthrow" in reference to the status quo, although using the direct definition of the term as you outlined, it certainly applies.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

We won't get rid of the prejudices for the word "anarchy" if we use words with other prejudices associated with them.

And really anarchy isn't about overthrowing anything. It is a political stance, just as republicanism or libertarianism. Neither of those terms are used with the word "overthrow" in reference to the status quo, although using the direct definition of the term as you outlined, it certainly applies.

I'm not going to use indirect definitions to soften its meaning. The purpose and intent of anarchism is to greatly reduce or remove the authority of the government over its citizens. The only way that is possible is to overthrow a sitting government. You can take overthrow as being violent or not, but that is what anarchists promote. How about "a political movement that wants to unseat a sitting government?" I didn't now people were so touchy about this stuff... No matter how we slice it, anarchism is a radical belief. Using relative terms to the political ideology isn't going to change. I understand libertarianism and anarchism are similar in many ways, but if you subscribe to the idea there's no reason to get all bent out of shape when someone describes it for what it is and doesn't use terms to soften it.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I'm not going to use indirect definitions to soften its meaning. The purpose and intent of anarchism is to greatly reduce or remove the authority of the government over its citizens. The only way that is possible is to overthrow a sitting government. You can take overthrow as being violent or not, but that is what anarchists promote. How about "a political movement that wants to unseat a sitting government?" I didn't now people were so touchy about this stuff... No matter how we slice it, anarchism is a radical belief. Using relative terms to the political ideology isn't going to change. I understand libertarianism and anarchism are similar in many ways, but if you subscribe to the idea there's no reason to get all bent out of shape when someone describes it for what it is and doesn't use terms to soften it.

Not true. A lot of people are out there trying to use the existing system to reduce the impact of the government.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Not true. A lot of people are out there trying to use the existing system to reduce the impact of the government.

They're called libertarians. In order to be an anarchist their underlying intentions has to be to remove the power of the US government. Or in other words they are using the legal system to make babysteps to meet the end result of overthrowing our government. In any event, no matter how nice we describe it, anarchism promotes the ideology and ultimate goal of doing away with, overthrowing, ousting, (pick one that seems nicest), etc the government.

I honestly didn't now there were people who would debate the definition of anarchism. This thread taught me something. I thought most anarchists were proud of their ideology and openly admitted their goals. I guess with the rise of libertarianism the two ideologies have become intermixed to some degree? Would this be correct?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by JaJae

They're called libertarians. In order to be an anarchist their underlying intentions has to be to remove the power of the US government. Or in other words they are using the legal system to make babysteps to meet the end result of overthrowing our government. In any event, no matter how nice we describe it, anarchism promotes the ideology and ultimate goal of doing away with, overthrowing, ousting, (pick one that seems nicest), etc the government.

I honestly didn't now there were people who would debate the definition of anarchism. This thread taught me something. I thought most anarchists were proud of their ideology and openly admitted their goals. I guess with the rise of libertarianism the two ideologies have become intermixed to some degree? Would this be correct?

I want to remove just enough power from the federal government to return it to Constitutional levels.

Does that make me an Anarchist? I don't believe so, because I don't want anarchy. I want rule of law, I just want the government to be limited in what laws it can make.

[lew]

As I've stated before, the right / rothbardian wing of anarchism ideology does believe in some sort of justice system with juries and some form of a constitutional / social contract. Most Rothbardian "anarchists" that supported Paul's candidacy actually would be just fine with most of the aspects of colonial post-Revolution America. They are not left-wing Socialist Anarchists that seek to overthrow all order, both king and priest.

Were some supporters of Paul violent anarchists? I'm sure. Were a lot of Paul supporters dumbasses? Absolutely.


But the vast majority of "anarchists" that supported Paul are the much more peaceful, Rothbardian genre, that would be quite happy to live under a minimal, Constitutional government.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by lew

As I've stated before, the right / rothbardian wing of anarchism ideology does believe in some sort of justice system with juries and some form of a constitutional / social contract. Most Rothbardian "anarchists" that supported Paul's candidacy actually would be just fine with most of the aspects of colonial post-Revolution America. They are not left-wing Socialist Anarchists that seek to overthrow all order, both king and priest.

Were some supporters of Paul violent anarchists? I'm sure. Were a lot of Paul supporters dumbasses? Absolutely.


But the vast majority of "anarchists" that supported Paul are the much more peaceful, Rothbardian genre, that would be quite happy to live under a minimal, Constitutional government.

There's different wings of communism as well... Trotskyism, for example. It doesn't change the fact that they are communists by nature and within a capitalist/democratic society their ideology wouldn't be favored by the majority of Americans.

I still stand by my initial point. Ron Paul in part built his political career soliciting and catering his message to the ideology of racists and people who wanted to overthrow the United States government. That is a huge handicap for any candidate running for president. Even if you start discussing different branches of anarchism, it's still anarchy and the end goal of such endeavors is to eliminate government. The same as if I were to start naming different branches of communism, the simple fact is the end result of the ideology is virtually the same and equally as unpopular in our society. The ideas are quite frankly radical by nature and not supported by the majority of Americans. The reality is anarchy is essentially the anti-Christ of communism. Most people in America are somewhere in between and don't subscribe to such radical and extremist ideologies in comparison to our current system of government. And having a presidential candidate cater his message to these people as well as racists is going to be shunned upon by people who don't subscribe to those unpopular ideologies.

[motivez]

Did you guys catch Barr on The Colbert Report last week?

Bob Barr 2008 › Bob Barr on the Colbert Report

[motivez]

A formal definition is only meaningful if it doesn't differ from the popular meaning in the American vernacular.

When most Americans think of Anarchists, this is who they think of: