Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 Nations of Anarchy Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful, or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations. Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations.There are many philosophical differences among anarchists concerning questions of ideology, values, and strategy. Ideas about how anarchist societies should work vary considerably, especially with respect to economics. There are also disagreements about how such a society might be brought about, with some anarchists being committed to a strategy of nonviolence, while others advocate armed struggle. Anarcho-capitalism vs Minarchism Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism are two distinct strains of libertarianism. Although anarcho-capitalists and minarchists agree on most political issues, they are sometimes hostile towards each other, particularly because most adherents of both philosophies support the non-aggression principle (NAP) and see the opposing philosophy as misrepresenting its political implications. Minarchists believe that it is the responsibility of the state to enforce NAP, while anarcho-capitalists see the state as a violation of NAP, and believe that all valuable services – including law and defense – are best provided in the marketplace. Agorism & Counter-Economics The goal of agorism is the agora. The society of the open marketplace as near to untainted by theft, assault, and fraud as can be humanly attained is as close to a free society as can be achieved. And a free society is the only one in which each and every one of us can satisfy his or her subjective values without crushing others’ values by violence and coercion. The concept of counter-economics is the most critical element of Agorism. It can be described as: The Counter-Economy is the sum of all non-aggressive Human Action which is forbidden by the State. Counter-economics is the study of the Counter-Economy and its practices. The Counter-Economy includes the free market, the Black Market, the “underground economy,” all acts of civil and social disobedience, all acts of forbidden association (sexual, racial, cross-religious), and anything else the State, at any place or time, chooses to prohibit, control, regulate, tax, or tariff. The Counter-Economy excludes all State-approved action (the “White Market”) and the Red Market (violence and theft not approved by the State). Libertarian socialists are anti-capitalist, and can thus be distinguished from right-wing libertarians. Whereas capitalist (and right-libertarian) principles concentrate economic power in the hands of those who own the most capital, libertarian socialism aims to distribute power more widely amongst members of society. A key difference between libertarian socialism and capitalist libertarianism is that advocates of the former generally believe that one's degree of freedom is affected by one's economic and social status, whereas advocates of the latter focus on freedom of choice within a capitalist framework. This is sometimes characterized as a desire to maximize "free creativity" in a society in preference to "free enterprise." Crypto-anarchism is a cyber-spatial realization of anarchism. Crypto-anarchists employ cryptographic software to evade prosecution and harassment while sending and receiving information over computer networks, in an effort to protect their privacy and political freedom. By using cryptographic software, the association between the identity of a certain user or organization and the pseudonym they use is made difficult to find, unless the user reveals the association. It is difficult to say which country's laws will be ignored, as even the location of a certain participant is unknown. However, participants may in theory voluntarily create new laws using smart contracts or, if the user is pseudonymous, depend on online reputation. Infoanarchism is an umbrella term for various groups of people who are opposed to forms of intellectual property, such as copyright and patents, and censorship in general. The term was coined in a TIME Magazine article called "The Infoanarchist" in July 2000. The article was about Ian Clarke, known as the original designer and lead developer of Freenet.[1] The anti-copyright movement includes a wide range of groups and views. Infoanarchists have emerged as part of the broader copyright social conflict and copyright debate. While crypto-anarchism is focused on confidential, untraceable communication between individuals, the term Infoanarchism focuses more on the public anonymous availability of informational resources. Christian libertarianism describes the synthesis of Christian beliefs concerning free will, human nature, and God-given inalienable rights with libertarian political philosophy. It is also an ideology to the extent its supporters promote their cause to others and join together as a movement. In contrast to the Christian left and the Christian right respectively, they believe that charity and enforcement of personal-level morality should be the purview of the (voluntary) church and not the state. The use of force is never justified to achieve purely political, social, or religious goals, but is reserved solely to uphold natural rights. Individual freedom of religion without state interference is absolutely supported regardless of one's beliefs. Nevertheless, a majority religion in a given locale could display its faith on government-owned property if it had the popular votes to do so. Public sector discrimination is strictly forbidden, while in the private sector, it is permitted, though discouraged. Christian libertarians believe these principles are supported by the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, which are recorded in the Bible, and His criticism of the laws (Halakha) observed by the Pharisees. He opposed the Pharisees due to their self-righteous, man-made regulations added to God's law, which they obeyed outwardly, but with the wrong inward motivation. Also, most Christians believe the ceremonial and civic laws found in the Old Testament have been superseded by the New Covenant. For these reasons, Christian libertarians may consider Jesus as the greatest libertarian in history. Non-Aggression Principle The non-aggression principle (or NAP, also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.[1] In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defense. The NAP is considered to be a defining principle of libertarianism, despite what minor differences of opinion some have regarding specific topics. Panarchism is a political philosophy emphasizing each individual's right to freely join and leave the jurisdiction of any governments they choose, without being forced to move from their current locale. The word "panarchy" was invented and the concept proposed by a Belgian political economist, Paul Émile de Puydt, in an article called "Panarchy" published in 1860. The word "panarchy" has since taken on additional, separate meanings, with the word "panarchism" referring to the original definition by de Puydt. De Puydt, a proponent of laissez-faire economics, wrote that "governmental competition" would allow "as many regularly competing governments as have ever been conceived and will ever be invented" to exist simultaneously and detailed how such a system would be implemented. As David M. Hart writes: "Governments would become political churches, only having jurisdiction over their congregations who had elected to become members." Panarchism has been embraced by some anarcho-capitalists and libertarian socialists, including some of those promoting secession from existing states and those advocating creation of new micronations. Max Nettlau in the early 1900s and John Zube in the latter part of the century wrote extensively on the concept Libertarians and Anarchists have more in common than we do different; we all just want to be free. Also we can be, we all have a god given rights to exercise our freedoms. Anyone who infringes upon those to try forcing you into something are in the wrong and should be overpowered. Together all the Libertarians, Anarchists, Minarchists, Christians, Outlaws & Rebels Against Tyranny have unlimited reach and can never be beaten, Only divided can the Tyrants have any success against us. We also welcome the The Three Percenters, who have many Libertarians and Anarchists in their ranks among among us, as well as the !%er Outlaws with their Anarchist Leanings. The Three Percenters (also styled "3%ers", "III%ers"; also "3 Percenters Club", "3 Percenters Movement") is a self-described patriot movement which pledges resistance against the United States government regarding any restriction of the United States Constitution. Outlaw Bikers Media and misconception is mostly to blame for blowing things out of proportion in relation to bikers in general and 1%ers as well. Just like any group of diverse individuals there will be criminal elements and bad apples, but they should not be representative of the whole. It seems to me that 1%ers are no different than the Minutemen of old or any other group of devout Liberty following individuals that ultimately wish to be left alone to do as they please. But they are not scared to confront any group of individuals however big and strong to secure their natural right to dress act and ride as they wish. They truly do encompass the idea "Don't Tread On Me." Originally the term was born out of a Press Release from the American Motorcycle Association that said "99% of Motorcyclists are law-abiding citizens." This implied the other 1% were outlaws and many motorcycle clubs were this as a badge of honor. I realize the vast differences among any of the groups of people I've brought attention to, but something they all have in common is mistrust of government and knowing to avoid the State; if you want to remain free. Our Enemy, the State is the best-known book by libertarian author Albert Jay Nock, serving as a fundamental influence for the modern libertarian and American conservatism movements. Initially presented as a series of lectures at Bard College, it was published in 1935, and attempts to analyze the origins of American freedom, as well as questioning the nature and legitimacy of authoritarian government. Nock differentiates between that, which he refers to as "the State" (as described by Franz Oppenheimer in his book The State) and legitimate government, including governing oneself or consensual delegation of decision-making to leaders one selects. Nock is not attacking government, per se, but "The State", authority that violates society itself, claiming to rule in the people's name but taking power away from the community. In his opening paragraphs, he states that the expansion of the state comes at the expense of social power, shrinking the role of community. Denying that the two are the same, he points out the historic origin of authoritarian government through conquering warlords and robber barons. This reflects the influence of Franz Oppenheimer on Nock, a key proponent of the conquest theory of the state. “ All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power...The positive testimony of history is that the State invariably had its origin in conquest and confiscation. No primitive State known to history originated in any other manner. ” Nock argues, further, that the Articles of Confederation that preceded the US Constitution were actually superior to it,[4] that the reasons given for its replacement were excuses by land speculators and creditors looking to enrich themselves. While he did laud the Founders for establishing a legitimate government, as opposed to state, that was intended to protect natural rights . The state, according to Nock, "turns every contingency into a resource for accumulating power in itself, always at the expense of social power". People become conditioned to accept their lost freedom and social power as normal, in each subsequent generation, and so the State continues to expand, and society to shrink. We the LPC understanding the problems with governments and those who try to control people using their positions in them, will do everything we can to protect Libertarianism. Those who subscribe to a different version of Libertarianism are welcome to join and we can debate which approach is best in maximizing freedom. A new era of prosperity for the LPC has arrived, true unity. Nations of Anarchy Government President: Anarch Vice President: ericsw LPC Triumvirate: Anarch, Sigrun Vapneir & Immortan Junka Sir Kindle has stepped aside to allow me to assist in making sure the LPC climbs to greater heights than ever before. I appreciate his service. o7 Sir Kindle Quote
Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2017 Author Report Posted January 14, 2017 Just now, Masterchief777 said: I like turtles. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles? Quote
Franz Ferdinand Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 That Anarch fellow sounds like a complete tool. Quote
General Gorgoth Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 Immortan Junka a member of LPC, what the hell happened o_O Quote
Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2017 Author Report Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, General Gorgoth said: Immortan Junka a member of LPC, what the hell happened o_O He joined the Triumvirate in my absence, but after talking it over with him; I think it will work out good. I think the Triumvirate is very balanced with me back in and letting him manage stuff I don't want to do deal with. The LPC is back, with its founder at the table and I think Junka can be helpful when he's not working against me. Even if I've already died once, I think the LPC will likely grow to even stronger heights than ever before now. Edited January 14, 2017 by Sephiroth Quote
General Gorgoth Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 Just now, Sephiroth said: He joined the Triumvirate in my absence, but after talking it over with him; I think it will work out good. I think the Triumvirate is very balanced with me back in and letting him manage stuff I don't want to do deal with can work out for the best. The LPC is back, with its founder at the table and I think Junka can be helpful when he's not working against me. Even if I've already died once, I think the LPC will likely grow to even stronger heights than ever before now. Sephiroth and Junka working together, the world is truly coming to an end XD Who are your enemies now Quote
Diadochi Von Seleucids Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 50 minutes ago, Franz Ferdinand said: That Anarch fellow sounds like a complete tool. Couldn't agree more Quote
Lord Hitchcock Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 Congrats on the establishment. Quote
Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2017 Author Report Posted January 14, 2017 5 minutes ago, Diadochi Von Seleucids said: Couldn't agree more Me and you must not use that word the same way. What is a tool to you? Quote
Lord Hitchcock Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Sephiroth said: Me and you must not use that word the same way. What is a tool to you? They are referring to a Swiss Army Knife... aka, you do it all! Edited January 14, 2017 by Lord Hitchcock Quote
Lucius Optimus Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 So long story short, you want to unite all libertarians into one group. Quote
General Gorgoth Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 7 minutes ago, Lucius Optimus said: So long story short, you want to unite all libertarians into one group. I thought that was always Methrage's plan Quote
Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2017 Author Report Posted January 14, 2017 6 minutes ago, Lucius Optimus said: So long story short, you want to unite all libertarians into one group. I think they should work together, all of them using the same AAs isn't needed. I think a lot of people should try to learn more about Libertarianism as well, because if they did many more would be Libertarians. So far we have aNiMaLz, Confederatio Aesir, Supernova X & Nations of Anarchy under the LPC Umbrella. There are countless libertarian nations in other alliances due to finding other homes first. I think discussions between anarcho-capatalists and LSF would make for a much more lively forum. Segregating based on the more minor differences doesn't help. You have less allies and members who you can actually have a debate with where both people tech the other new things or consider different possibilities. When everyone agrees completely there isn't much discussion, however when people have a similar enough basis for their beliefs, but both benefit when they end up disagreeing on specific points despite agreeing on much. Its always better to perfect your knowledge. Are abortions really murder? Can a really nice person forgive themselves for choosing to kill their baby before it had a shot at life? What about marriage? Why does the government even give marriage certificates to begin with? I think for a purity in an ideal world the government wouldn't think about stuff like that. Also is it possible for something to exist, which fills the void of a government while managing not to violate the Non-Aggression Principle? Could it even be called government it operates without taxing anyone or violating the NAP? Maybe of these minor distinctions I've had many page debates with hardcore believers in whats black and white. I enjoyed that, I think if libertarians united we could figure out how to get rid of most tyrants. Although Libertarians it can often be in their nature to go it alone, for someone not to pay any type of taxes would require a lot of isolation. Libertarians are the closest to the truth on how our society should function, humanity wasn't ready when Jesus tried to show people the way. Although speaking with other people with good political ideas are the most interesting. Quote
General Gorgoth Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 2 minutes ago, Sephiroth said: Are abortions really murder? Can a really nice person forgive themselves for choosing to kill their baby before it had a shot at life? What about marriage? Why does the government even give marriage certificates to begin with? I think for a purity in an ideal world the government wouldn't think about stuff like that. Did you really bring abortion and marriage rights into this discussion because those are some heavy topics for this thread. Oh and for the record abortion isn't murder any more than cutting your toenails. Until the brain activity starts they are not alive and any abortions after that are for absolute medical necessity usually because the life of the mother is in danger. As for marriage, there are legal reasons for marriage records and state recognition such as changing the last name, tax purposes and as long as it's with two consenting adults then I have no problem with it. Quote
Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2017 Author Report Posted January 14, 2017 14 minutes ago, General Gorgoth said: Did you really bring abortion and marriage rights into this discussion because those are some heavy topics for this thread. Oh and for the record abortion isn't murder any more than cutting your toenails. Until the brain activity starts they are not alive and any abortions after that are for absolute medical necessity usually because the life of the mother is in danger. As for marriage, there are legal reasons for marriage records and state recognition such as changing the last name, tax purposes and as long as it's with two consenting adults then I have no problem with it. I just brought it up because its one of the few issues there is no clear cut answer Libertarians agree on. I wasn't taking a position on it, just pointing its those types of discussions which tend to make libertarian forum's lively. Even if they agree on all the big stuff, they'll always find oen thing they disagree on and both think they are right. Quote
General Gorgoth Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 Don't worry I'm just saying it's quite a jump from cybernations politics to abortion and marriage rights and then in case anyone's curious I posted up my views because when those topics are usually mentioned if you make any comment people usually seem to expect you to state your views And yeah debate is what keeps politics interesting. Those particular topics though shouldn't really be up for debate though, they're basic human rights issues and the main proponents of opposition are almost all religious or religiously motivated factions. The political status of Bir Tawil is a far funner topic Quote
Lord Hitchcock Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, General Gorgoth said: Don't worry I'm just saying it's quite a jump from cybernations politics to abortion and marriage rights and then in case anyone's curious I posted up my views because when those topics are usually mentioned if you make any comment people usually seem to expect you to state your views And yeah debate is what keeps politics interesting. Those particular topics though shouldn't really be up for debate though, they're basic human rights issues and the main proponents of opposition are almost all religious or religiously motivated factions. The political status of Bir Tawil is a far funner topic You wanna see a debate, put OsRaven and Schatteman in the same room. Edited January 14, 2017 by Lord Hitchcock Quote
General Gorgoth Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 Just now, Lord Hitchcock said: You wanna see a debate, put OsRaven and Schatteman in the same room. Fairly sure that'd involve kidnap, I leave that stuff to M. Inc Quote
Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2017 Author Report Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, General Gorgoth said: Don't worry I'm just saying it's quite a jump from cybernations politics to abortion and marriage rights and then in case anyone's curious I posted up my views because when those topics are usually mentioned if you make any comment people usually seem to expect you to state your views And yeah debate is what keeps politics interesting. Those particular topics though shouldn't really be up for debate though, they're basic human rights issues and the main proponents of opposition are almost all religious or religiously motivated factions. The political status of Bir Tawil is a far funner topic If a kid is old enough he could survive outside his mother's body; then it gets iffy. Also even if not criminal, I think a negative perception forms about someone who regularly kills her unborn children. That can't be healthy mentally. So I'm not in favor of banning abortions, but I'm not in favor of them either and see ethical problems with late term abortions. The law isn't what really determines right/wrong. Edited January 14, 2017 by Sephiroth Quote
General Gorgoth Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 3 minutes ago, Sephiroth said: If a kid is old enough he could survive outside his mother's body; then it gets iffy. Also even if not criminal, I think a negative perception forms about someone who regularly kills her unborn children. That can't be healthy mentally. So I'm not in favor of banning abortions, but I'm not in favor of them either and see ethical problems with late term abortions. The law isn't what really determines right/wrong. You'd be surprised. Late term abortions are really rare. They usually only happen when the fetus poses a direct threat to the life of the mother or would no be viable i.e. would die shortly after leaving the womb, which would cause far more distress for everyone involved. If a child can survive outside of the mother's body then they will usually try to save it anyway and use C section so as I say late term abortions are extremely rare we're talking less that 1% of abortions Quote
SirWilliam Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 The $%&@ you guys going on about. Quote
General Gorgoth Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 The topic of abortion from conflicting libertarian standpoints I believe. Quote
Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2017 Author Report Posted January 14, 2017 Also if we can get a motivated Libertarian or Anarchist to join; who is good at recruiting more Libertarian/Anarchists; there could be aid and/or tech rewards involved for each good member. I also need to decide between phpbb or SMF when I create a forum tomorrow.. So anyone who is libertarian minded and interested taking on an important roll in helping maintain the forum; we might recruit. Quote
Lord Hitchcock Posted January 14, 2017 Report Posted January 14, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Sephiroth said: Also if we can get a motivated Libertarian or Anarchist to join; who is good at recruiting more Libertarian/Anarchists; there could be aid and/or tech rewards involved for each good member. I nominate SirWilliam, I have always sensed a libertarian sparkle in his eye. Edited January 14, 2017 by Lord Hitchcock Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.