How to get to Peace and Freedom
- Thread starter Thread starter Captain Red Eye
- Start date Start date
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
Thanks for your input, but I think you are mistaken.
I disagree that Anarchism leads to a religious controlled society or that real "anarchists" want that to happen. The people that want that to happen by definition are not anarchists, even if they call themselves that. Any person that wants a ruler or rulers (forcible democracies or forced religion etc.) are by definition NOT anarchists.
The people that want religious control over ALL the other people are just another type of control freak.
I think the terms libertarian and anarchist have lost some clear meaning in popular speech these days and are now words that should be defined better when people use them.
For instance, when I originally identified as a libertarian years ago. it was understood amongst other libertarians that when the word "libertarian" was being used with a lowercase L, "libertarian" was an indication of being an Anarchist and not supportive of any coercion-based government.
An uppercase L. "Libertarian" meant that person supported a small or very small government as acceptable. These people are not opposed to political action and often populate the Libertarian Party. Sometimes they are referred to as "minarchist", because they support "just a little coercion in government" etc.
The term "Anarchist" is like that too. The etymology of the word means "an" (without) an "archon" (king or ruler)
Therefore an Anarchist isn't a definition that defines every aspect of persons life, it just means that person doesn't want there to be rulers. Freely chosen leaders are okay, but imposed rulers are not. The meaning of Anarchist has been co-opted these days into lots of other things it really isn't.
These days, I identify as a Voluntaryist Panarchist.
As a Voluntaryist, I believe human relations are best when interacting human beings are engaging on a peaceful and consensual basis. Coercion and the initiation of force is wrong. It's a philosophical position, not a political one. It pretty much says be peaceful, don't initiate aggression against other people or take their stuff or support groups or systems that do.
As a Panarchist, I don't have the right to impose my "master plan" on other people. I don't have a right to prevent people from choosing or participating in politics for THEMSELVES.
Reciprocably, I have the right to peacefully opt of others choices over me.
If what other people choose for themselves also places their choice "over" me, they are in error and are being a rights violator.
Also, a Panarchist doesn't think political territorial monopolies are a good idea and that you could peacefully live next to a person who willingly places themselves in political situations. There is much more to it than that, which I will likely expound on in a future post in this thread.
Last edited:
i was using rhetorical language, they don't LITERALLY DESIRE to have a fundie christian nationalist nation, but by making it a point to abstain... they're handing the fundies that win
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
Thanks for clarifying you were being rhetorical.
I'm still not sure how what you are saying relates to "anarchists" though?
Are you referring to anarchists that don't vote somehow being responsible for what you consider even worse political outcomes? "If they had only voted for the person you want...things would be better"?
Most anarchists don't vote, because voting is incompatible with "no rulers". Voting perpetuates a system of rulers. Anarchists don't want rulers. Why would they vote?
Again, the terminology has gotten out of hand.
An Anarchist is a person that doesn't think there should be "archons" (kings, rulers etc.)
The present political system might not have a single king, it certainly has a multitude of rulers though.
What else would you call a President, Congress, Senate, Judges, unelected bureaucrats empowered somehow to make demands of people ?
Last edited:
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
@Captain Red Eye
according to my skimming, that dude konkin you showed me... his agorism sounds like a specific case of anarchy (or minarchy) but with emphasis on abstaining from the vote.
i cannot buy for one second that handing the christian nationalists our country is gonna get us closer to minarchy or anarchy.
according to my skimming, that dude konkin you showed me... his agorism sounds like a specific case of anarchy (or minarchy) but with emphasis on abstaining from the vote.
i cannot buy for one second that handing the christian nationalists our country is gonna get us closer to minarchy or anarchy.
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
You keep mentioning christian nationalists.
Are you talking about "conservatives" / "the right" presently in power in today's political plantation management structure?
I recognize for some people WHO the masters are is matter of great concern.
To me, it's an item of interest and some concern but my bigger concern is that there will be a master or set of masters.
I don't intend nor want to "fix" the plantation or get the correct people in power. All yours.
I want people to be free to make their own choices, but not force others choices.
A kinder master is not my goal.
I thought you were for freedom and an abolitionist?
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
There's an old saying amongst government malcontents. "First they break your legs, then they hand you crutches".
how can you get any of those things if you let christian nationalists win?I don't intend nor want to "fix" the plantation or get the correct people in power. All yours.
I want people to be free to make their own choices, but not force others choices.
A kinder master is not my goal.
I thought you were for freedom and an abolitionist?
they vote like their place in heaven depends on it.
i'm not talking about conservatives in general. i'm talking about ppl who are trying to turn us into a religious hellscape. ppl like traitor justice roberts.
stop voting and you hand them the keys to our home.
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
I appreciate your concern.
By voting you empower the system they use.
You're actually pointing out one of the flaws of the system. Your individual vote and individual preference don't matter to them and have an extremely minute chance of influencing the outcome. I let that shit go years ago and am glad I did.
You ARE being victimized because your choices are removed not expanded by that system. The only recourse they offer you is to get enough people to align with you, so you can then victimize other people who don't want what you would impose should your side win next time.
It's a great tool for them to keep people distracted so nothing ever really changes.
Justice Roberts? He's an actor. I strongly suspect somebody owns him. Somebody like the people Epstein type people work for.
Also, I'm not harshing on you. but to refer to him as a "justice" is extremely ironic. All government judges primary job is to rule on laws not on whether the law itself is just. It's a farce buoyed up by co-opting the language and calling a person that rules on things that are none of their business, "Justice Roberts".
The lower courts main job is to fine people and gain revenue for the State.
I don't stand for judges or people that are part of enforcing and judging victimless crime laws.
No victim - no crime! (more on that concept later)
i need another option, cause letting the christian nationalists win is not one.
(btw i called him justice roberts cause i forgot his toiletty first name... i agree that he represents nothing of justice, but not for the same reasons)
i agree, except we are regressing. it changes in the bad direction.
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
I am of the opinion for some changes to occur, people must stop believing in things that aren't true but commonly thought to be so. Sometimes that can take time for people to evolve their thinking or to even consider the possibilities especially if there are forces trying to prevent people from considering alternatives. (there's that forcible monopoly again)
Old school Slavery for instance lasted for thousands of years and now "everyone knows" it's wrong.
Voting is like jacking off, it only feels good for a minute then you have to clean up the mess and there are no real titties in the situation.
Have you watched any of the videos? Do they make sense?
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
Edited double post.
Last edited:
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
Things to think about.
Is voting an expression of consent for what follows?
Or is it a futile attempt to use one of the only things people are "allowed" to use to try effect some real change?
Does change ever really happen by voting?
Sometimes, if you want some superficial changes to how "the plantation operates" or doles out privileges and punishments.
No, if you don't want there to BE a plantation or perpetuate a system that is literally designed to funnel people into supporting at least some things they don't really support. For instance, most people don't want to support bombing babies "over there", and know despite their wishes, bombing babies over there won't stop no matter "which side" wins. Why is that, SHOULD then become the question.
Below is the perspective of one of the great minds of the 19th century, abolitionist LYSANDER SPOONER, on why people vote. Emphasis or bolding added by me. I think the bolded section is relevant and true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot---which is a mere substitute for a bullet---because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.
Therefore, a man’s voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to be disturbed or injured by others.
Is voting an expression of consent for what follows?
Or is it a futile attempt to use one of the only things people are "allowed" to use to try effect some real change?
Does change ever really happen by voting?
Sometimes, if you want some superficial changes to how "the plantation operates" or doles out privileges and punishments.
No, if you don't want there to BE a plantation or perpetuate a system that is literally designed to funnel people into supporting at least some things they don't really support. For instance, most people don't want to support bombing babies "over there", and know despite their wishes, bombing babies over there won't stop no matter "which side" wins. Why is that, SHOULD then become the question.
Below is the perspective of one of the great minds of the 19th century, abolitionist LYSANDER SPOONER, on why people vote. Emphasis or bolding added by me. I think the bolded section is relevant and true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot---which is a mere substitute for a bullet---because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.
Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.
Therefore, a man’s voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to be disturbed or injured by others.
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
Gabbard creates task force to probe intelligence community
by Lauren Irwin 04/08/25 09:07 PM ETI ran across the title of an article (see above) while perusing the "normal people" news online. Didn't bother to read the article, just thought the title was indicative of some double speak.
I chuckled at the subtle indoctrinative (made that word up) assumptions baked into the title.
Tulsi Gabbard is the head of the various spy agencies the USA government uses for foreign and domestic spying. Yet "they" cutely refer to her as being the head of "The Intelligence Community".
Community? Lol.
Article titles like this are one method States benefit from to accrue even more power. They attempt to normalize and inch things forward that previous generations would have strongly objected to.
"You need us to forcibly control you, to keep you safe from people that might try to forcibly control you"
Another example is naming things with a moniker that do the opposite of what they imply.
"Patriot act"
Where we spy on you, but we call it Patriot act so flag wavers can jack off to the awesome freedom that being spied on gives them. The Patriot act was sold as "temporary", "we were attacked and these are extraordinary times!" Temporary....let that sink in.
I got stuck on
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
Captain Red Eye
Well-known member
Saturday morning ? Time for some cartoons!
