Are You A Hypocrite?

If you believe that it is wrong to take that which does not belong to you by threats or by force, you must necessarily be an anarchist or a hypocrite.

If you believe that it is wrong to use violence against people who have harmed no one or damaged anyone else's property, you must necessarily be an anarchist or a hypocrite.

If you believe that the only justifiable use of force is in self-defense or in defense of one's property, you must necessarily be an anarchist or a hypocrite.

If you believe people are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor, you must necessarily be an anarchist or a hypocrite.

If you believe in equal justice for all and that ALL men are equals, no matter their position, rank, or title, then you must necessarily be an anarchist or a hypocrite.

Those statements are absolute.

Of course, most people don't think about the fact that their internal logic MUST be flawed if they agree with those statements yet still want a coercively funded government.

Hypocrisy is there to alert us that our internal logic is wrong. That our core beliefs need to be adjusted until the hypocrisy is removed from our thinking.

Anarcho-capitalism is the only socio-economic system that is not hypocritical or internally self-contradictory. If you believe in private property and you believe in the principles of non-aggression, then there is only one socio-economic system you can agree with that does not make you a hypocrite.

Contrary to popular opinion, anarchy does not mean lawlessness. It means being devoid of the State. As far as the law is concerned, the law must necessarily be administered by private institutions, because private institutions are not above the law.

If you believe all men are created equal, then you believe all men have a right to stop other men from harming others or damaging other people's property. Police in a statist system are above the law. They get to carry arms, while the common man does not. They get to arrest people, while the common man can not. They get to use force against the innocent, while the common man can not. This necessarily means the police have more rights than the common citizen. This violates the principles of equality in a society.

It is impossible to have a just and free society if some men are more equal than others.

Hans Hoppe discusses the foundations of a private law society and the principles of liberty.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Looks like 3 people have the courage to say no more violence.

reply to post by mnemeth1



You predicate something without proving its validity. You state as truths your personal beliefs. Opinions are only ever opinions - nothing more, nothing less.

Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You predicate something without proving its validity. You state as truths your personal beliefs. Opinions are only ever opinions - nothing more, nothing less.

In what way am I predicating something without proving its validity?

Those statements are called axioms.

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

I have been passive all my life, despite the police and gov making up anything they want in uk, to get me to do something. The police just need to hear rubbish about a person, and everything they believe.

Best way. Amazing thing is being a victim like me, people can just make it all up, and pretend your doing something wrong.

Amazing.

reply to post by andy1033


I am friends with a libertarian cop.

He was moved into IT because he refused to arrest people for non-violent crimes where no property was damaged.

He tells me the altering of evidence to garner convictions is a regular occurrence among police departments.

Is limited government an oxymoron?

Is voluntary government possible?

reply to post by mnemeth1


You would not believe what uk police and gov did to me.

They absolutely where intent of getting me to do something for 18 years, and did everything to bring that about.

There is not any crime in my life, as shown by the fact that the uk has techs to go through your memories, and this proved me right.

Man when the police target you, just based on someone making up stuff, man they will never stop.

Like for instance i have never ever had anything to do with weapons ever, not knifes or guns or what ever. But someone went to the polcie i did, and the police beleived every word, as gospel. They set out for my life like there is no tomorrow.

I am just fortunate, that before i started out in life i knew the police would start after my life, as i knew certain things about society, and how it worked.

I have to say thx to uk police, thx for wasting my life. These peopel must be absolutely scum.

Not talking about your friend, who you said quit, but why oh why do they act the way they do.

reply to post by andy1033


I believe the UK is one of the worst nation on the planet for this.

i KNOW i'm a hypocrite. its because i'm an idealist but also human.

Originally posted by tonypazzohome
i KNOW i'm a hypocrite. its because i'm an idealist but also human.

Being an idealist would be pushing for a non-violent society.

If you are in favor of the status quo, then you aren't an idealist.

On the Inner Contradictions of Limited Government

by Murray Rothbard; read by Jeff Riggenbach

The story of your enslavement.

Stefan Molyneux's greatest work on the nature of government and the voluntary alternative.

I'm not a hypocrite - but I'm not an anarchist, either. I believe that people with the power to make things happen are the only ones who have the right to decide what happens. This is the natural order of things. Violence is not always preferable, but is a valid way to eliminate a problem. This, again, is the natural order of things.

I have power because I can make a wide range of things happen - be them by my own endeavors or through the guidance and trust of others. Other people have power because I agree to let them decide, or they are capable of making things happen, as well.

Anything else is idealism - anarchy doesn't work - man was never intended to be an island, and that is all pure anarchy can exist within. Adding in tenants of a functional and productive society would turn one into a 'hypocrite' against anarchist principles. Therefor I claim to be neither a hypocrite or an anarchist, but a functionalist.

People need to eat. People need to drink. People need shelter, goals/dreams/reasons for living, and people need each other. My loyalties are to the people I care about - well above my loyalties to abstract concepts and ideals. I have strong predatory instincts - my sense of servitude will find itself most comfortable among the thrill of the hunt. I am well aware of this, and the potential problems it can cause.

I believe in the people I know, love, and care about. I don't buy into these ideologies of "all for one" or "every man for himself" - the reality is that I have people I care about and I dream of the day I can tear apart something that threatens them. The reality is that everything I know and everything I learn is what I wish to pass on to those I care about - particularly the younger generations. The reality is that, while I am open to the idea of caring about people I do not presently know; I really don't care much about those I do not know, nor will I pretend to through application of abstract ideals.

reply to post by Aim64C

I believe that people with the power to make things happen are the only ones who have the right to decide what happens.

Is another way of saying "Might Makes Right"

Which is another way of saying you support tyranny and violence against the innocent.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Aim64C

 

I believe that people with the power to make things happen are the only ones who have the right to decide what happens.

Is another way of saying "Might Makes Right"

Which is another way of saying you support tyranny and violence against the innocent.

edit on 17-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

It's my way of saying that I see people I will defend to my death, and people I am not opposed to killing.

You cannot claim to be innocent anymore than I can. I don't claim to be virtuous or to protect anyone other than those who matter to me.

I don't believe in subjugation. The people I care about are free to live as they please. So are people who are not those I care about. However, if any group or groups threatens those I care about - they are not to be subjugated but destroyed. I don't care to rule over people. I don't care to force people into something they don't want to do.

However, if they desire something that conflicts with those I care about - then that desire will not be permitted, or result in their destruction - simple as that. You may think it's tyranny - you can believe I'm a tyrant all you want. Just know your place.

reply to post by Aim64C


That's not what you said.

I explicitly said in the OP that violence in defense of self and property is justified, to include other people as well goes without saying.

The point being, that if you believe violence is only justified in self-defense, then you must necessarily be an anarchist.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If you believe that it is wrong to take that which does not belong to you by threats or by force, you must necessarily be an anarchist or a hypocrite.

anarchy is absence of governing body. as such it doesnt necessarily imply mayhem, chaos, violence etc. it`s possible to live in an anarchy state while adhering to the rule "dont do to others what you dont others do to you". in other words life in peace without any supervisors. of course humans are not that evolved yet, but we are talking definitions here, right?
if i am an anarchist and pretend to be something different i might be called a hypocrite. but if i eat, shyt and breathe anarchy and dont pretend to be anything other i am not a hypocrite, although an anarchist.

reply to post by mnemeth1


What happens when there are no laws?



Let's look at human nature we are friendly and nice as long as everything is going smooth. What would happens when it doesn't. Only the strongest would survive so say goodbye to grandma. This is what anarchy really is the strongest fighting to stay alive one more day. I notice it is usually idealistic young people who embrace this idea I believe it is mix of stupidity and ignorance.




Anarchy is worse then fascism because in fascism the weak at least stand a chance.