Mary,
As always, your thoughts are truly insightful. Besides realizing
that our founding fathers were regarded as anarchists, what an
insight that they thought of themselves as such! Of course it
makes total sense, but why have I not heard this before? Of
course I am not extremely well read, but you would think this
angle would have been better exploited in these circles - I've
NEVER heard it before. I think it would be great if this specific
information would be better publicized. Where could I find some
quotes?
-Mark
************
{American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
"not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
unjust lawsuits.
See www.fija.org
[Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
_____
Dear Mark: I think the question you are asking is exactly the
one Thomas Jefferson, et. al., were asking themselves when
creating the US Constitution. They ended up "enforcing"
anarchy--after a fashion--by declaring that the government "shall
not" do this, and "may not" do that" and "is barred from" doing
the other. They created what was probably the world's first
antigovernment government.
That is, just as you put it: They wanted to outlaw law; they
wanted to enforce non-force.
As people have pointed out since, this government may readily
trip over its own feet when it is trying to do something (such as
form and direct a national police force) which other governments
do easily. Of course, it is DESIGNED to fail in such an
endeavor).
The international community of their own time identified the US
founding fathers as "anarchists." They often referred them as
"anarchists." They saw great irony in a bunch of anarchists
engrossed in creation of a government, and so do I.
Most Conservatives are appalled at the idea that the founding
fathers were anarchists, DESPITE THE FACT THE FOUNDING FATHERS,
THEMSELVES, TENDED TO APPLY THE TERM TO THEMSELVES.
You very well know what was the fate of the antigovernment
government. As long as, and insofar as, it was understood--which
is to say, at first--it was a great improvement over what had
been & was a great success, benefitting people as never before.
By now, though, virtually everyone has forgotten about the
"antigovernment" part, & the USA is no better a government under
which to live than that of Canada or Great Britain, or .... It
is just a government.
These are my thoughts.
mark robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hope this isn't off topic ("immigration" / "anarchism"?), but I
was just thinking.
Since technically anarchism (by the NAP ["good"?] definition /
"anarcho-capitalism"?), cannot enFORCE itself (or be enforced) in
societal terms, it can not ever have been "installed" or
"legislated" or "employed" or "practiced" universally (as a
system) by any large group of people anywhere. That's my comment
on the world history of anarchism.
But its history also seems to suggest something similar about its
future. In terms of a formal political system, it doesn't seem
logical - as "formal" and "political" implies universal
enforcement. It doesn't seem like it can ever be anything more
than individual decisions and informal agreements.
It's a conundrum: How do you outlaw law? Or the inverse: How do
you force non-force?
Of course that doesn't necessarily say anything negative about
its ethical merits. Nor does it say anything negative about the
eventual possibility of all individuals making those decisions
and agreements. I suspect that, as history has shown, technology
will further the autonomy of the individual and therefore the
feasibility of good anarchy. Technology has always been the
underestimated factor in the development of civilization and
individualism. But it still begs the question: At what
theoretical point do you, as a society, officially have
anarchism? What if 999 out of 1000 members of a society make the
informal agreement to observe the NAP, to the extent of
eliminating govt?
Does the one dissenter/aggressor disqualify the label? Or even
more analytical: What if all 1000 agreed, but then a violation
occurred? At that point in time, is the anarchy dissolved.
I'm not sure whether I am trying to restrict the definition of
anarchy down to near absolute zero, or I am just trying to define
it for myself. TLP, I'm sure you, and others, can comment.
Thanks.
-Mark
_____
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
