Craig's sophist remarks about "Anarchists"
For years now Craig made it a personal deal to lash out against anarchists, especially ancaps. Interestingly, he never argued face to face with an ancap, let alone a Misesian expert, about the rather stupid idea to try to counter an exaggerated dystopia of "the law of the strongest" by freaking institutionalizing it. Think about that next time you call anarchists naive or feel the urge to make up some mad max scenario, that in no way reflects the reality of society, but rather the incabability of your critical thinking and your lack of historical knowledge or interpretation skills.
No government = no law? Government = violated rights, rather The state acts as a diametrical opposite to conventional rights. The "state of law" adornes itself with violently stolen plumes. Not one right was created by the state. And rules were not invented by government. In fact, the state defines itself exactly in defying the basic principle of equality before the law. At best you get a state granted privilege to maybe utilize your basic rights, if your overlords feel that way that decade. Of course, others get even bigger privileges and are allowed to do things, that would put you in jail. All that naturally, while themselves having the biggest privileges and immunities of them all. It just so happens, hmkay? And even though it's a bad thing, we are forced to uphold this system, otherwise we would literally eat each others brains, hmkay? Laws and rules are enforcable without a corrupt shitty government. It is that easy. It's not naive. It's not herecy. It's simply a statement and pretty true at that. Hell, the majority of laws derived from ancient roman private laws, anyway. There was no government or state to grant anyone any rights or even enforce them the first. All the things were handled by people for the people, just as many other things in society. Another example was money. It's not naive to think the government shouldn't have a monopoly on the creation of money. And yet we have to argue with so many high-nosed fools about this. It's as rational to think, that courts of arbitration will (and in fact today already) do a better job than the government counterpart. It's that easy. The only one, that is naive, is the guy who disregards thousands of years of history and 100 years of liberal theory, because "I've watched Mad Max". The emperor has no clothes. There is NO justification. It is simply not naive, to think equality before the law is an important pillar of a moral society and no institution, no matter how good willing or how honest of an "representative" it is, it just shouldn't be "more equal" than the other. Man, that's so obvious, I feel stupid for having to point that out, really. This is also not a matter of interpretation or opinion. What I just told you is logically and factual. The state as we know it today is an attack on all the important things, that makes a society moral and just in the first place. From basic rights, over equality before the law, to free markets and free contracts. You want to inherit someone your house and made a contract? Well, we'll nullify it, because we want our share of that. The State is built upon violating your basic rights and has the audacity to claim, that it is for your own good. The state and its mouthpieces over the century, just like craig, DO NOT HAVE ANY ARGUMENT BASED IN REALITY, that would justify any of this. There is literally no argument ever made, that doesn't eat its own dick somewhere down the road and debunks itself. The only reason, why all of you think, there is a justification, is literally because of ignorant fools listening to mouthpieces perpetuating this claim, that somehow all of these violations are necessary and make sense. Literally to save you from violations of your rights. Fuck, this is stupid. I could go on an on about so many aspects as to why anarchy is both morally and effectively superior. But most of state advocates don't care for arguments from the anarchist side. Historical facts won't be looked up and logical conclusions are simply deflected with shortsighted assertions about humans and society, that have no place in a debate about real humans. You cannot just make shit up, because you were force fed other peoples made up bullshit. Get yourself together and look up the argument of anarchists, before you make your case or stfu. It's a waste of time to explain things, that have been either debunked already or out of question for anyone, who knows about it. Example: CSW in his latest interview made an argument, that Mises was not an anarchist (...DUH) and that he thought them to be "dull and naive". Just as his shitty halftrue argument about marxism having overlaps to anarchocapitalist philosophy, the reality of his arguments completely squashes any conclusion you would make from his halftrue assertions. http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/08/was-mises-an-anarchist/ I literally took the first article I found, without even reading it. I want to show you, just to make clear, how sure I am, that Mises wasn't aiming this at anything close to anarchist-capitalists and that there obviously is a far more interesting, ommitted aspect to Mises statism. One, that would at least explain, how so many Misesians after him expanded his work by going into radical anarchy. Craig the sophist doesn't even stop to think about that. So many Misesian libertarians are neither naive, nor is their work dull. But up until now, ALL your arguments against anarchism surely were. I am way to lazy to debunk every single one of your shitty points you made up to this point in text. But I am free to discuss this face to face with you or anyone else, who dares to say, that Craigs arguments are anything but sophist in this regard. Craigs not well thought out arguments at a glance: - ancaps are basically marxists, thus they suck (ommitted details plus an absolute unrelated conclusion, as if overlap to original marxist thought, that noone even gets right, is somehow proof of ancaps being naive lefties) - Anarchists actually are totalitarians and want control over you (This argument is so much beneath me and anyone, who needs this argument to be debunked by someone else: simply #GoFuckYourself) - Mises was no anarchists and he thought anarchists were naive (ommitted details seen in the link above and absolutely irrelevant, given Mises could've simply been wrong, even if he thought this way.) - There is no historical anarchist society or none of them lasted for long (absolute rubbish. There were and they lasted longer as any nation state will ever do. There are plenty of examples from free cities, the Hansa and hubs living inbetween kingdoms and next to empires without any problems, as well as the majority of the asian continent once being governed in a defacto anarchist fashion. There is so much history from the US, over Ireland, to Italy, to Thailand, that saying there were none or they "failed" is simply evidence for ones ignorance, rather than a historically accurate statement.
- " Bitcoin was designed to allow corporations and people to engage with sound government — not to remove government."
DUH... Point is, it does that exactly by being anarchist. This has nothing to do with the ideological background of the user and his anarchist hopes. It does however have a lot to do with creating our governance/rulings/enforcment on a voluntary basis, with free contract-creation and no coercion. He doesn't understand that Misesian right to secede and opt-out is all we need, to achieve a defacto anarchist society. Craig can have his fascist state, if he loves to suck trumps or obamas dick, for that matter. I don't care. But he definitely needs to shut the fuck up about how I shouldn't have the right to secede from the madness, that he tries to justify merely by strawmaning anarchists. Especially, when he quotes Mises to make a case against Ancaps. I won't search out links and I won't even go over typos or formats. The bias is strong in our divided camps. And even stronger, when it comes to Statism. I don't care, how some of you guys will think about this article and in which creative ways you guys deflect the information being laid out here. I realized, there is no need for great formatting, respectful wording and a detailed explanation, when the other one isn't open minded. Any open minded person, who is solution oriented and wants to understand the truth, will simply go over this post and start to think critically about this. Anyone, who wants to argue about these matters has to start doing research. Incredible how arrogant some people are, that never even researched for once, what ancaps are actually about. All that, while making snarky comments about how naive they are. Incredible. Why I take my time to write about all this? This is no matter of taste or opinion. It's a matter of facts. And blatant arrogant ignorance. I once respected Craigs work and words, then I tolerated it. Now I think this guy is making cheap shots and creating a narrative, that gets him the most support. No matter how far from the truth what he says is. I know a shitty institution, that does it just like Craig. It's called government.
1 of 1 reviewers say it's worth paying for
0 of 1 reviewers say it's not worth paying for