Anarchy and THR

[Chainsaw]

I have surfed many gun related BB's since becoming interent able.

www.accuratereloading is where I spent most of my time, with one year as forum leader of the politics forum. There was no cencorship or deletions or moving of posts. I eventually stepped down as I was tired of debating anti's who just happened to own firearms, but that is another story. That board is owned by a gracious man from the United Arab Emirates who strongly believes in no cencorship. He thinks the internet is a model for people policing themselves.

When "moderating" at the Accurate board we had no posts in the moderators forum. Posters ignored threads they disliked etc. Things at times got somewhat crude but things were allowed to work out by themselves.

When at TFL at first, my cyber friend was tossed off the boards for responding to a "militia type" thread for posting that one way to disable a helicopter would be to kill the pilot. We were both newbies at the time and quite frankly there were worse posts on the same thread by regulars. He left and I stayed because I garnered some of the best semi-auto info from TFL that was available, but I mainly stayed out of the discussion/opinion type forums.

With THR now not having a moderators forum, are you now going to run this place as an anarchistic type board as several of the moderators from my other anarchy thread seem to lean towards that life philosophy? Can one be for anarchy and still be for cencorship if it doesn't hurt anyone? This has me wondering if most people have this thirst for control and banning of certain items/lifestyles.

Can you be for the 2nd Amendment and advocate banning of cell phones and cigarettes? I see it on a daily basis. We have the cigarette police, the thought police, the Big Mac police, the list goes on and on. Can we ever attain a total freedom with this narrow mindedness concerning our neighbor?

How many of you can live side-by-side with your neighbor without all these rules and regulations that have encumbered our society?
Your responces will be interesting.-------------Chainsaw

 

[Derek Zeanah]

With THR now not having a moderators forum, are you now going to run this place as an anarchistic type board as several of the moderators from my other anarchy thread seem to lean towards that life philosophy?

Actually, we do have staff areas -- they just aren't visible.

Some moderation does go on, but that moderation is designed to make the board a more useful internet community. This isn't the place for Smith Act violations, and it is very possible to discuss heated topics without resorting to profanity, or attacks on other members, or overtly bigoted behavior.

Beyond that, things are fairly loose.

Can one be for anarchy and still be for cencorship if it doesn't hurt anyone? This has me wondering if most people have this thirst for control and banning of certain items/lifestyles.

I believe that most people believe in their freedoms, but are unwilling to extend those same freedoms to those they disagree with. Freedom of speech, so long as it's not offensive. Freedom of religion, as long as it's their religion. Freedom to keep and bear arms, so long as they're particular arms and certain people (felons who've served their time, foreigners, those in other socio-economic groups) are reasonably disarmed.

I believe all these people mean well, and that they're applying the concept of "freedom" as best they know how. Arms? But what about anti-aircraft rockets? We can't possible mean those. Religion sure, but not witches and devil worshippers and those moslem heathens who want to blow us all up.

You get the idea.

Can you be for the 2nd Amendment and advocate banning of cell phones and cigarettes? I see it on a daily basis. We have the cigarette police, the thought police, the Big Mac police, the list goes on and on. Can we ever attain a total freedom with this narrow mindedness concerning our neighbor?

Good questions, and questions that are asked here frequently.

You'll note that many moderators are close to libertarian (small l) in perspective, and some even define themselves as anarchists of one sort or another. We've got others that are closer to "conservative" in the modern sense, and another who calls himself a liberal.

All are welcome. Hopefully the discussions that happen here can have a positive influence on the issues you're beinging up.

 

[MitchSchaft]

If you don't like this board's rules, leave. This board doesn't have anarchistic roots, so move along.

 

[Chainsaw]

Mitch where did I say I didn't like the rules?
Why should I move along?


I am tying to ascertain members philosophy here. I responded to another thread where people indicated they were anarchists. I thought I was probably one also. This got me to thinking so I posted that thread. Now I'm trying to understand what makes up the members philosophy here as it pertains to our freedom also.

Derek, Thanks for the inciteful post.

To characterize my thinking, here is an example. My state doesn't have a CCW law. I would probably not help Monekyleg fight for passage of it. I commend him for doing what he feels is right, but I believe I already have the RKBA as a birthright without all this legal mumbo-jumbo and positioning going on. When my CCL friend was approached at gun point for a routine traffic stop by law enforcement simply because he did carry under his permit and it came up on the squad computer, I even wondered further if I would ever want that permit if I were to be treated in this respect. Kinda like leaving your Colt on the outskirts of Dodge before entering. Hopefully some will understand my thinking here.

 

[Soap]

I think that there is a huge misunderstanding here with anarchy and chaos. Market and rational anarchism respects the ownership of private property and the rights that go along with that ownership. Private property is at the core of market anarchism. This board is private property, therefore the moderators can make what ever rules they see fit. For example, if they turned the board into a Swahili-only language board, we would have to abide or get the boot.

 

[Blackhawk]

Arachnids and THR? You're talking about Runt!

As for anarchy, I'm not a fan of free for alls. They're never free for anybody. I'm glad THR has rules and competent mods.

 

[Chainsaw]

Daniel, I agree with free market capitalism, and have no problem with how this board is run. I think the internet is one area where government absence has proven to be a blessing.

My quest is to better understand the people that want to cencor/ban thoughts items. We say we are for the constitution but wish to control others. In words the grand kids use, "What up with that?

I had a conversation with a "genuine" anti several years back and this lady left no thought unsaid. She thought that "profanity was a picture of child holding a gun." She swore in most every sentence and was unphased by whatever anyone threw at her. Short of killing, she indicated she would stop at nothing to get her way. We parted in total disagreement but I respected her as a person cause she was total in her dedication and did point out she would eventually win as she indicated that 95% of those on "my side" agreed with many of the principles she espoused. That is when I took a long look at "my side" and had to agree with her.

 

[cordex]

if they turned the board into a Swahili-only language board, we would have to abide or get the boot.

Bunduki ni njema.

 

[Tamara]

Chainsaw,

With THR now not having a moderators forum, are you now going to run this place as an anarchistic type board as several of the moderators from my other anarchy thread seem to lean towards that life philosophy?

Does "anarchy" mean that you would allow someone to defecate in the middle of your living room floor? No? You'd throw them out of your house?

This is Oleg's "house". He posted rules at the door. Everyone who comes in agrees to abide by them. Most anarchists I know tend to frown on the breach of voluntary contracts, as the whole basis of anarchism depends on folks keeping the sanctity of their promises.

 

[Kingcreek]

I am tying to ascertain members philosophy here.

...as in some kind of homogenized group mentality???

come on, you've got a couple thousand or more philosophies here. pretty mature and well mannered also (for the most part)

 

[Chainsaw]

Tamara

With everyone having a different understanding of just what Anarchy is (or isn't in this case) would it not cause one to wonder just where like in society today my rights begin and others end and vice versa.

I have tried to understand here just what others think and have posted a few examples of my thoughts. I am now getting feedback from members here. That is all I wanted. I am aware of the rules afore mentioned when I joined this forum. I was looking for philosophy. I realize no one has rights here. past what Oleg determines.

It seems that people get on edge when even having to discuss certain philosophys and how they pertain to everyday life. Maybe I should stick with the rifle and semi-auto forums like in the past. I just can't help trying to determine how people think about certain subjects.

 

[Tamara]

Chainsaw,

I wasn't trying to come across as "on edge"... (although I will admit to getting a bee in my bonnet whenever someone invokes the First Amendment in an inapplicable manner, which of course you did not do...)

 

[Gordon]

What is the Smith act? Is this what prohibits me from posting on how to prepare for unconstitutional government raids in specific tactics to practice?

 

[HS/LD]

Tamara: (although I will admit to getting a bee in my bonnet whenever someone invokes the First Amendment in an inapplicable manner, which of course you did not do...)

As opposed to invoking the 2nd Amendment in an inapplicable manner right?



HS/LD

 

[Justin]

Can you be for the 2nd Amendment and advocate banning of cell phones and cigarettes? I see it on a daily basis. We have the cigarette police, the thought police, the Big Mac police, the list goes on and on.

Not without being
1)Amazingly hypocritical
and
2)Resorting to a mindset rife with doublethink and cognitive disonance.

 

[Sven]

Smith Act info:

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/jerome/smithact.htm

SMITH ACT TRIALS, 1949. The Alien and Registration Act of 1940 was proposed by Congressman Howard Smith of Virginia, a poll tax supporter and a leader of the anti-labor bloc in Congress, and is generally referred to as the Smith Act. Signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt, it was the first statute since the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to make mere advocacy of ideas a federal crime.

-

BTW, this was the first result I found searching for "Smith Act" in Google.

-s

 

[Derek Zeanah]

SMITH ACT:

The Alien Registration Act of 1940, usually called the Smith Act because the antisedition section was authored by Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia, was adopted at 54 Statutes at Large 670-671 (1940). The Act has been amended several times and can now be found at 18 U.S. Code § 2385 (2000).

§ 2385. Advocating Overthrow of Government.

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof--

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

First Amendment? "But it's the same thing the founding fathers said!"?

Smith Act.

 

[Gordon]

I'm guilty, guilty, guilty of this unconstitutional , New Dealing socialist crap law. Sounds like it was an impotent attempt to restrain the commies while the state department was full of KGB moles! However I won't be doing it anymore.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Pure anarchy and pure communism are, in theory, WONDERFUL things.

Probably the closest thing to pure communist/anarchist societies that have ever been seen are the religious societies that sprang up in England and the United States in the 1700s through the early 1900s -- Shakers, the Harmonists under Father George Rapp, Oneida, Amana, etc.

Even those societies, though, suffered from internal power struggles and all sorts of things that you'd never expect of a society with its stated aims.

Unfortunately, pure anarcy and pure communism don't exist, because of the abuse of people who convert the system to their own means and ends.

That's why anarchy and communism have become pejorative, instead of positive, conceptions, and that's why we have what we have now.

I'll come back with what I've always come back with.

Even the Founding Fathers didn't believe that rights are absolute.

 

[Art Eatman]

IIRC, the Smith Act sez, "Thou shalt not take that sweet young thang across no state lines for immoral purposes."

Chainsaw, your comment about "...this lady left no thought unsaid." is sadly flawed. First off, with the language she used she proved she's no lady. Next, never forget that sincerity creates neither reasoned thought nor factual correctness--and vehemently being wrong is no cause to give respect. Courtesy, possibly, but certainly not respect.

As a moderator back at TFL and now here, my only real "rule" is, "Thy speech shall not offend my Grammaw." I do note a relatively minor sin I label "Inciting to riot", but it's venal rather than egregious.

As far as life itsownself, Hank Williams long ago commented that, "If you mind your own business, you won't be minding mine." As usual, that's a two-way street. Otherwise, nothing ever said by Heinlein or Cooper ever particularly offended me.

, Art

 

[Ed Brunner]

The MANN ACT

somehow applies to thangs?

 

[Tamara]

Mike Irwin,

Unfortunately, pure anarcy and pure communism don't exist, because of the abuse of people who convert the system...

Out of curiosity, Mike, in an anarchistic society, what "system" would they be converting?

 

[Don Gwinn]

In order for an entire society to be anarchic, there'd have to be a widespread decision of some sort to pursue anarchy. That makes it a system. "The greatest art is to have no art." Similarly, if you have no system, that in itself is a system.

Mr. Chainsaw, Anarchy as I understand it means that you must not assert control over that which you do not own or over other people. It does not mean that you don't control that which you do own. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Either way, I don't believe Oleg is an anarchist (we discussed this with a lady who thought anarchy had much to offer one morning) and I know I'm not one.

 

[Chainsaw]

Mr. Gwinn, If I understand your posting correctly, you might believe that anarchy is a non system, or not identifiable because it means nothing or nada. But because it is no system it is a system? You lost me there.

Art Eatman, Your comment of the about the women that I met that was the "genuine" anti is true in most respects. I should have conveyed my thoughts on her differently. I respected her dedication to getting what she wanted. I wished more on my side would possess this type of dedication. I have encountered way too many lukewarm gunowners. Those that think we can compromise with people/entities that have nothing to give up in return. Those that are in favor of some form of gun control. Those that favor limiting others freedoms in areas different than RKBA issues.

So what rules do we need in a society to be functional yet not a total debacle like we have now? A non system would not be without faults, but I would take my chances compared to what we now have.----------Chainsaw

 

[Preacherman]

Chainsaw, I'm late to this debate (only got off work at 10 tonight!), but I'd like to pick up on an earlier post you made.

When my CCL friend was approached at gun point for a routine traffic stop by law enforcement simply because he did carry under his permit and it came up on the squad computer, I even wondered further if I would ever want that permit if I were to be treated in this respect.

Do I understand you correctly here? Are you saying that your friend was approached at gunpoint only because he was registered on the police computer as having a CCW permit? If this is the case, why were no charges filed by him against the police for violation of his 4th Amendment rights? Their conduct appears to be totally unreasonable and indefensible, whether under official policies or in a court of law. Are you sure there was no other factor that might have influenced the officers' approach to him? I'd be grateful for some more details, if you can provide them.