Where I fall on the political spectrum.

The Lonely Libertarian has a pointless chart up that defines the political spectrum in a meaningless way.  Some of her commenters claim to be anarchists.

I am reposting my comment here, because it is some pretty good writing.

I’m a libertarian Calvinist. I want all people to manage their own affairs, but I recognize that all men are depraved and some are depraved enough that they need to be stopped from managing their own affairs.. I am satisfied with the current system of adjudicating the boundary between the two, though not always satisfied with the results of that adjudication.

Unless you are one of those rare individualists in history with a middle name like “Grizzly”, you are sharing my lifeboat and we are going to have to come to some sort of accommodation. Anarchy is not on the menu and you should thank God it isn’t, because I am way better at it that most people and without the civilizing influences of Jesus Christ, society, law enforcement, and custom, few of you would survive.


About No One

I am totally non-threatening
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Where I fall on the political spectrum.

  1. anonymous says:

    Me thinks you misunderstand anarchy. It is not necessarily a situation where it is every man for himself. There are many flavors of anarchy but the one thing that is common amongst them is voluntary association.

    Now you maybe one bad dude who could jack me up if we were in a lifeboat together, but an anarchist system doesn’t mean a band of folks could not voluntarily associate to deal with matters of mutual defense.


  2. anonymous says:

    I never stated that anarchism is a system without rules. Some forms, perhaps. Generally it is a system without rulers. Rulers being those who make laws or standards that do not have consent of those bound by them.

    I tend to understand that most of them are voluntary associations where the rules are consented to by those who live within that organization. A true social contract.

    If you think that a group creating a mutual defense pact to stop aggressive violence is telling you how to live because they will not tolerate force being used against them then you must have some strange views on liberty.


  3. Og says:

    Anarchy is always and will always be rule over the weak by the strong. Most anarchists would not survive the first day of anarchy.


  4. anonymous says:

    Funny that you mention that, the institution of the state appears to me as the strong lording over weak with a mask of civility to conceal the unmitigated force that will be brought to bear if you don’t comply.

    But don’t take my word, just ask LaVoy Finicum.

    Oh wait….


  5. Og says:

    Oh. I’m sorry, of course you must be correct because you made an ignorant and totally unrelated point.

    Only the emotionally stunted are ignorant enough to think anarchy is any different than the worst political systems ever. But some eventually grow out of the stupid.


  6. Og says:

    Lol. You do get some fun trolls.


  7. Og says:

    Sorry about not letting your daughter take a picture, btw. I never let anyone take my picture.


  8. Og says:

    Plus. She’s probably still trying to forget.


  9. anonymous says:

    Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies with voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies,[1][2][3][4] but several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.[5][6][7][8] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[9][10] While anti-statism is central,[11] anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.[6][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

    Anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy.[19] There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.[20] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[10] Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.[21][22] Anarchism is usually considered a radical left-wing ideology,[23][24] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics.[25]

    From the Wikipedia page on anarchism. Agree or disagree on that definition? And does it clash with the way I described it with plenty of loose qualifiers because there is a nearly unlimited amount of wiggle room for the human mind to toggle it so long as it is voluntary.

    I have read your blog for a bit, No One, and you seem a small government conservative or libertarian who seems somewhat displeased with creeping tyranny. Do I misunderstand you? Or are you happy with the status quo? I am not being rhetorical, I genuinely want to know.

    Now, what I wonder is why if as Og contends that anarchism in any form is worse than any form of government and that if the state is a beneficent body, why is it that nearly ever inch of planet earth is carved up as some sovereign states holding to control and tax as it sees fit. Are y’all ok with that? Do you enjoy being taxed to support all kinds of garbage programs that transfer your wealth and energy to things you fundamentally disagree with? Or to use the vernacular do you like being Uncle Sam’s bitch or tax donkey?

    I’d like to see an experiment of something different. If it was a great step forward in human civility and progress to create limited government that amounted to more freedom for mankind isn’t anarchism another logical step forward in that march?

    While I think the Constitution of the United States was a great step forward in human society is leaves much to be desired. Look around. I stand with Spooner on this one.

    But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
    Lysander Spooner

    If we don’t question these things and push boundaries we make no movement towards greater things. Could have kept the king after all.

    Troll? Not hardly, Og. I haven’t called anyone names just tried to engage in a legitimate conversation on the values of stateless society.


  10. Og says:

    There is no legitimate conversation possible where one of the parties cannot shake belief in an impossible fantasy.


  11. anonymous says:

    And man will never fly, Og.

    Come on, man. This is how the endarkenment begins. People give up.

    Science freezes when people sit back and conclude there is nothing left to do. We know it all, no more questions to ask. Applies to social situations as well. Do you believe that the constitution is the pinnacle of human achievement with no superior advancements to be made? If so enjoy the descent. Because if you choose to rest upon that, that is what we will get.


  12. Og says:

    Oh, awesome, I was waiting for you to equate an ignorant impossible fantasy to a law of nature. Now please, do go on about how I have “Given up” and what I believe. Since you don’t know jack shit about me, I’m anxious to listen to what bullshit your fevered imagination is going to concoct about me. Wait, no, I’m not. because it’s always the same tired ignorant bullshit from infantile morons. Put down the bong and grow up.,


  13. anonymous says:

    And I am a troll?

    Sorry, Og. I at least brought points to discuss in good faith. You simply use ad hominem to insult me. You offer nothing besides for rebuttal. Have it how you will then.


  14. Og says:

    Lol. What points? You brought ignorant fantasies. When the hominid in question is in fact the problem, ad hominem is perfectly appropriate. You have no valid discussion, therefore no valid discussion can be pursued.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s