If you’re going to address me as “[M]an,” at least capitalize it correctly.

I can’t blame you.

Lindsay, I don’t get it either.  Anon, that message got old already.  But thank you.

I primarily associate “classical liberalism” with social contract theorists and people believing in a “minimal State.”  I don’t believe a social contract, or a State, are compatible with a free market or maximum liberty, justice or equality.

I don’t really consider “free market liberalism” the same as “classical liberalism.”  But I’m certain we share an agreement on the word “liberal.”  However, I haven’t decided how far I’d go to “reclaim” a word.  

That would be great.  I don’t have either of your phone numbers.  If you could submit one to me through another ask, that would be great.  You don’t have your “ask” feature turned on, btw.  Anyway, anytime would work well.  I need to pick up my bike from outside of Red Feather sometime.  Maybe I’ll take a walk there and ride over to Camo’s.

I’m an anarchist because people’s lives are not games.  No one should have the monopolistic legal authority to dictate how people live, where people live, or when their lives end, especially when it’s unnecessary for the security and advancement of both individuals through their own efforts and society through the actions of the many individuals making it up.  

But really, as I learn more I tend to find myself having different reasons for being an anarchist.  I mean, it isn’t necessarily that I drop my original views (such as: regardless of whether or not the State is indeed beneficial to society and the individuals under its supposed jurisdiction, it still must first exist by an unethical means—compulsory confiscation of representations of labor or value, regardless of the intentions of the owners of said goods).  But I tend to adopt new understandings and further my reasoning for holding my view.  

Most recently I’ve found myself very intrigued by a Nockean theory that with an increase in State power there comes a decrease in social power.  And this is evidenced greatly by the diminution of cooperatives, fraternal societies and confraternities in the western world up through the early 20th century, even today.  When there’s an involuntary involvement of a third party that claims it has an interest in arbitrating the dispute it takes the power away from the individuals who have a direct interest in the arbitration.  Because of that, their power is diminished and they resort to relying on that entity.  That reliance leads to a decrease in interaction between the individuals which correlates with an increase in distrust of one another, since neither perceive each other to be capable of dispute-resolution to the same extent as the entity that claims authority in the arbitration.  With distrust comes less voluntary cooperation, less mutually-beneficial transactions and less social assistance.

So the existence of the entity itself is problematic and not beneficial to the moral-development of individuals, to their ability to care for one another and voluntarily assist one another.

But then again, the arguments against these assertions are that, regardless of whether or not the State is an immoral institution, it must exist in order to protect people from the inherent evils of human nature.  I’m not going to get into the whole “human nature isn’t evil but rather incentive-driven” argument.  Rather, let’s take that notion at face value: “human nature is evil; the state is necessary to restrict evil actions.”  If that truly is the case and humanity is evil then would it also make sense that the laws created by evil-natured humans are for the benefit of those evil-natured humans?  Or is that an absurd assertion?  Secondly, the State having the monopolistic authority over legislation within a given region would incentivize more evil-natured humans to seek out positions that would be most beneficial to them.  And as it is a “legal” monopoly, it is the only entity capable within the region (in the eyes of the “law of the land”) of doing such things.  So those who are primarily attracted to such positions are those who are among the least ethical people in society, having a greater degree of an evil human nature than the others.  Those are “our” legislators. 

Then another argument for its defense is that the “market” cannot provide some goods and services adequately (ie. roads, security, international commerce, money).  For arguments in response to those assertions I recommend reading Anarchy & The Law, The Voluntary City and Denationalisation of Money.  I can go on, but need to finish cleaning.

That’s a very deep question.  And my answer can be summarized as this:  I’m an anarchist because I acknowledge a more moral and individually, as well as socially, beneficial form of human interaction.

Thanks.  I’m glad you’re not Nate or Al.  (I imagine they wouldn’t be too fun to drink with, just between you and me.)  I don’t know how I feel about you being anonymous either.  It’s kind of sketchy, you know?

But I guess I must just have to accept your anonymity … even if it is cowardly.  I must say, though, it greatly decreases the likelihood of having a drink with you.

As for the pictures:  I’ll continue the same amount of sporadic picture-posting as I have been doing already.  :) 

Potayto Potahto.

Is this Nate or Al?  Oh my, guys.  Stop playing tricks on me.  You’re the only two blogs who I know for sure are in Florida.

If this is serious though, I’ll probably have to decline as I am not educated enough to teach this topic without miseducating people.  Also I tend to shy away from the title “libertarian,” as I do most titles.  But if I were to go to Florida, I’d be down for having a drink with you and discussing economic and political philosophy.  I tend to enjoy that activity. 

I don’t see a link.  In all fairness though, links aren’t “allowed” in messages.

Also, since the magical creation of the State of Israel, more and more land has been allocated for Israelis from the Palestinian people.  Regardless of whether or not the land was “purchased” to have “legitimate” ownership, I still hold a view that States are violators of human rights and, beyond that, real estate ownership is not legitimate.

However, in regards to the claim that the people weren’t sovereign because they were under the Ottoman Empire:  I hadn’t done research into the history of the Palestinian State, nor had I done research into the Israeli—I read something written by someone that I agree with the notion of, as I don’t agree with using force or oppression on people through systems of governance, or restricting individual’s ability to achieve their goals self-sufficiently, as I’ve read Israel does to the Palestinians, and historically the Palestinians have done to the Israelis.  So really, I don’t agree with a Palestinian State or an Israeli State—or any State for that matter.

Beyond that though, simply because the Palestinians were under the Ottoman Empire is not justification to remove them from being under the Ottoman Empire and place them under the State of Israel and its laws.  I don’t know if you are using that logic.  But if that’s the case, I think it needs to be rethought. 

[EDIT:  Also, that was a quote from Dustin.  If you’d like to discuss it further with him, feel free to.  He’s much more in-tune with that topic than I am.]

This picture.  That’s priceless.  Thank you for sharing :)

It’s not quite as intriguing as yours.  Matt took yours too, right?  You look so sophisticated and introspective.

Stephen, you’re very attractive too.