Am I an Anarchist?

[The Grand Nudger]

On top of that, any law..fewer or more laws, are only as good as their enforcement. The us is just -thick- with laws, and yet......

A rational observer might conclude that we need to step up our inherent systemic violence program.

[Cherub786]

Now look, I’m not here to bash atheism or atheists. I’m only pointing out that in today’s world religious liberty is increasingly being curtailed. Atheists tend to be well off and privileged people. They either live in parts of the world that are relatively free (North America, Europe) or in other parts of the world where atheism is promoted by the state (China). Where exactly are they being mistreated on account of their atheism?

Yeah, gonna call shenanigans on that one.  That's exactly why you're here, lol.  I mean..it's okay, we get it all the time, this is only the billionth time we've heard your every complaint.

Coming back to the subject of libertarianism and individualism vs authoritarianism and collectivism, I feel that all of us, despite our religious and cultural differences, should unite in favor of libertarian and anarchist tendencies. A snake handler from Appalachia and a Haredi Jew in Brooklyn are culturally very different, but both of their religious liberty is threatened by rising political trends. Even atheists should support religious liberty for all and not just for themselves.

I'm not interested in supporting the "religious liberties" of people who think that their "religious liberty" is curtailing the liberties, religious and otherwise, of others. 

We have to start by smashing the foundation of the modern nation state, i.e., the concept of a single nationhood. We need to reject that we are a single nation but instead we are multiple nations coexisting in a single polity, and each of us need our own space and freedom to pursue our own destiny. We are all integrated into a single economic and political system, but that doesn’t mean we have to be forced to think of ourselves as a single nation. Let’s call for limiting the state and allow communities and populations greater autonomy to live the life they want.

You're talking to the wrong guy on that one.  I'm a patriot, and uninterested in weakening my country just because some nutbar thinks the religious have it tough somewhere else.  I'll note that my state has made it possible for greater numbers of people all ove the world to enjoy the freedom to pursue their own destinies than any other country and most definitely any religion in the history of the same.  It's not called the american century for nothin.  

You benefit from that framework, and now bite the hand that feeds... imagining that somalia is, somehow, freedom..because, something something something, hurr durr atheists china and russia...and the violence inherent in the system!  Why not try some murrican libertarianism?  A strong state wholly committed to preserving our individual liberty.  After all, in the absence of such a state, you only have as much liberty as I might allow you at the tip of my rifle..which won't be much.   You know, what with my inherent tendencies as an atheist, and all?

Your idea of why we "won" the cold war is as amatuerish as the rest of your remarks, but you be you, and be a good little boy for the state, of 1950's america, lol.  Meanwhile, I think that you should probably leave humanism up to the humanists, like anything else, you seem to know fuck all about it.

I’ve got to hand it to you, you’re writing style is pretty impressive and entertaining.

But the content is very disingenuous. I’m not interested in taking away anyone’s religious liberty. When the religious liberty of one group is taken away, all of our religious liberty is taken away. I have nothing to do with snake handlers from Appalachia, but if they are not allowed to handle venomous snakes as per their religion, my own religious liberty is assaulted. And my religious liberties are being jeopardized too, like infant circumcision, animal sacrifice, full veiling of women, and private religious education free of state curricula. When my religious liberties are being jeopardized, other groups should speak up as well. Remember the saying “first they came for the (fill in the blank) and I did not speak out...then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.” I want Mormons to be free to practice polygyny, Amish to be free to live in their own communes, Jehovah’s Witnesses free to not have to stand for the national anthem, orthodox Jews free to have their rabbinic courts, Muslim women free to cover their face, Sikhs free to wear turbans, and so on and so forth. Likewise, atheists are already free to not have to believe in any deity or practice any religion.
Now I never said Somalia is the ideal place to be, but I deliberately mentioned Somalia, which is generally regarded as a failed state and a disaster, and said even such a nightmarish hellhole is preferable to me than living in an Orwellian state.
Of course, the place in the world with the most freedom is hands down the USA. But you must realize that when people abandon the libertarian mindset your freedom being snatched away could happen in an instant. Never feel secure as long as there is an active agenda that wants to implement more statism and socialism.
Anyways, you are a patriot and I’m the opposite of a patriot. I’m a dissident and a rejectionist. I belong to the fringe and margin of society, where I belong naturally and feel most at ease. I am against nationalism, both ethnic and civic forms, and I am against state worship.

[WinterHold]

Pardon me, but you've go to limit the acronyms so I can understand what you're talking about.

I admit what you call "Cold War propaganda" does appeal to me and influence me a lot. But I've studied just how bad communism and collectivism are. As a religious person, I am naturally allergic to communism and Marxism.
There is a reason why the US prevailed and ultimately won the Cold War. The other side was indeed an evil empire, an Orwellian state whose vision was a boot permanently stomping on the human face.

I feel that humanists need to focus more on railing against authoritarianism and statism and less on religion. Religion isn't the threat to human liberty, but statism certainly is the greatest threat and always has been. If humanist are so concerned about humanity they should realize this before anything else.

If it wasn't for the "Wahhabi" religious institution represented in Saudi Arabia, the U.S couldn't had won the proxy war against the Soviet Union.
I don't exactly see somebody more evil than the hellish kingdom of the Sauds, that led thousands of Sunni Muslims into a proxy war in Afghanistan on behalf of the U.S, for a pure lie.

Moreover; we all know how that war led to the advent of "ISIS", "AL-Qaeda", "9/11", and so many terrible things.
The U.S and the Soviet Union are not evil; they are selfish. Unless the president at the time is a psychopath. One case of a "psychopath" is Trump. He brought more psychopaths into the white house. . the state is secular, and secular law has holes but it's not "evil". TBH, every regime in the Middle East has some evil complex to torture the people and kill the hell out of them.

Saudi Arabia IS EVIL. The regime enjoys killing. It took the role of the traitor gladly, back stabbed its youth and ended up being led by a madman who hacks people with chainsaws inside consulates.
How do you explain the massive massacres in Yemen?

I think you need to specify which religion is not a danger, because frankly there are many, and many are dangerous.
I would live between atheists over living in a Middle Eastern state dominated by "religion" today..just saying.

And it's not racism or self-hate. The west is turning into the Middle East slowly with the rise of populism. Don't forget that westerners just had an insane war that was literally a very big massacre that killed about 100 million people. They will have another. But for now; Muslim countries are a death sentence for freedom and human rights.

[The Grand Nudger]

I’ve got to hand it to you, you’re writing style is pretty impressive and entertaining.

But the content is very disingenuous. I’m not interested in taking away anyone’s religious liberty. When the religious liberty of one group is taken away, all of our religious liberty is taken away. I have nothing to do with snake handlers from Appalachia, but if they are not allowed to handle venomous snakes as per their religion, my own religious liberty is assaulted. And my religious liberties are being jeopardized too, like infant circumcision, animal sacrifice, full veiling of women, and private religious education free of state curricula. When my religious liberties are being jeopardized, other groups should speak up as well.

Waving rattlesnakes in a church full of kids, slicing off the tips of babies dicks, feeding blood to the bloodgod, wrapping women in trashbags, and intentionally mis-educating children.

This we'll defend?  Yeah, no..not interested.

Remember the saying “first they came for the (fill in the blank) and I did not speak out...then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.” I want Mormons to be free to practice polygyny, Amish to be free to live in their own communes, Jehovah’s Witnesses free to not have to stand for the national anthem, orthodox Jews free to have their rabbinic courts, Muslim women free to cover their face, Sikhs free to wear turbans, and so on and so forth. Likewise, atheists are already free to not have to believe in any deity or practice any religion.

Call me back when someones coming for you.  I'm not interested in defending your (or anyone else's) poor life choices and superstitions, but I'm down to the end on defending your actual person.  

Now I never said Somalia is the ideal place to be, but I deliberately mentioned Somalia, which is generally regarded as a failed state and a disaster, and said even such a nightmarish hellhole is preferable to me than living in an Orwellian state.

China.  Preferable to China.  There is no universe in which China is worse than Somalia.  Full stop.  

Of course, the place in the world with the most freedom is hands down the USA. But you must realize that when people abandon the libertarian mindset your freedom being snatched away could happen in an instant. Never feel secure as long as there is an active agenda that wants to implement more statism and socialism.
Anyways, you are a patriot and I’m the opposite of a patriot. I’m a dissident and a rejectionist. I belong to the fringe and margin of society, where I belong naturally and feel most at ease. I am against nationalism, both ethnic and civic forms, and I am against state worship.

-He said, from the warm bosom of the state, after having repeated cold war jingoism as truth.

[Cherub786]

If it wasn't for the "Wahhabi" religious institution represented in Saudi Arabia, the U.S couldn't had won the proxy war against the Soviet Union.
I don't exactly see somebody more evil than the hellish kingdom of the Sauds, that led thousands of Sunni Muslims into a proxy war in Afghanistan on behalf of the U.S, for a pure lie.

Moreover; we all know how that war led to the advent of "ISIS", "AL-Qaeda", "9/11", and so many terrible things.
The U.S and the Soviet Union are not evil; they are selfish. Unless the president at the time is a psychopath. One case of a "psychopath" is Trump. He brought more psychopaths into the white house. . the state is secular, and secular law has holes but it's not "evil". TBH, every regime in the Middle East has some evil complex to torture the people and kill the hell out of them.

Saudi Arabia IS EVIL. The regime enjoys killing.  It took the role of the traitor gladly, back stabbed its youth and ended up being led by a madman who hacks people with chainsaws inside consulates.
How do you explain the massive massacres in Yemen?

I think you need to specify which religion is not a danger, because frankly there are many, and many are dangerous.
I would live between atheists over living in a Middle Eastern state dominated by "religion" today..just saying.

And it's not racism or self-hate. The west is turning into the Middle East slowly with the rise of populism. Don't forget that westerners just had an insane war that was literally a very big massacre that killed about 100 million people. They will have another. But for now; Muslim countries are a death sentence for freedom and human rights.

The war to liberate Afghanistan from Soviet invasion was totally justified. And the Mujahidin were not all "Wahhabis". They represented every religious sect and ethnic group. Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbeks along with Sunnis, Shiites, Salafis and Sufis. All fought in that war to liberate their country from Soviet Union. The Soviets were desecrating mosques, defiling copies of the Quran, raping Afghan women, bombing defenseless villages, etc. You should watch the movie Charlie Wilson's War, it accurately depicts the horrors inflicted on Afghanistan by the Soviets.

I am no fan of Saudi Arabia, but to think that Saudi Arabia is worse than Kim Jong Un's North Korea is disingenuous. And for that matter, the worst places in the Middle East are not theocracies but secular fascist states that follow the Baathist ideology, like when Iraq was under Saddam and currently Syria under Assad who is using chemical weapons against children in his lust for power.

Btw, Saudi war on Yemen and its sudden turn toward authoritarianism and autocracy is under the leadership of its current crown prince MBS. MBS is actually against the Wahhabi clerics and wants to make Saudi Arabia more socially free but not politically free. He allows women to drive but will imprison and torture those same women if they speak out against the regime. The recent Khashoggi drama is a perfect example of how the most secular and supposedly liberal leaders in the Middle East are also the most depraved. General Sisi, Khalifa Haftar, Bouteflika, Assad are all Middle Eastern leaders that are secular and want to curtail religious liberty of their own people.

[The Grand Nudger]

You two are going to get along great.  You can both look at a state choking under islamism and think "secular".

[DodosAreDead]

OP, if there was no rule of law you'd have all the religious freedom you desire... until your neighbor comes and hacks you into a million pieces with a chainsaw because he didn't like you. Then you'd be dead. So good luck with that.

[Cherub786]

OP, if there was no rule of law you'd have all the religious freedom you desire... until your neighbor comes and hacks you into a million pieces with a chainsaw because he didn't like you. Then you'd be dead. So good luck with that.

A common but weak objection against anarchism and the idea of a stateless society. It presumes human beings wake up one day and say “hey, let me dice up my neighbor with my chainsaw just for the heck of it”. Society can theoretically function without a state. Our first human societies were stateless. They were organized around tribe. The modern nation state is just that - “modern”. Before that we had dynastic rule, but they were not as omnipresent as today’s modern states. There were no such thing as passports, visas, SIN, or even driver’s licences.

The problem with the rule of law is that that law is often not right.

[The Grand Nudger]

OP, if there was no rule of law you'd have all the religious freedom you desire... until your neighbor comes and hacks you into a million pieces with a chainsaw because he didn't like you. Then you'd be dead. So good luck with that.

A common but weak objection against anarchism and the idea of a stateless society. It presumes human beings wake up one day and say “hey, let me dice up my neighbor with my chainsaw just for the heck of it”. Society can theoretically function without a state. Our first human societies were stateless. They were organized around tribe. The modern nation state is just that - “modern”. Before that we had dynastic rule, but they were not as omnipresent as today’s modern states. There were no such thing as passports, visas, SIN, or even driver’s licences.

The problem with the rule of law is that that law is often not right.

It doesn't presume that at all.  It presumes that human beings have -always- found a reason to hack up their neighbors.  Yeah, sure, also..sometimes, just for the lelz. Presumes probably isn't the right word, more like observes. Yes, humans are genuinely good and decent. We're also murderous. Real hard core motherfuckers, look around you, there are very few animals that don't instinctively recognize us for what we are (and the ones that like us are just as murderous as we are..we have that in common with each other). Some people see that as a dichotomy. I don't. I note that the things that make us decent are very commonly the same things that make us murderous.

Last sentence is spot on.  Wouldn't the solution be to make the law more consistent with what is right, rather than get rid of laws or states? Ideally, and most of the time, we don't actually need their protection...but when we do.....

[Cherub786]

A common but weak objection against anarchism and the idea of a stateless society. It presumes human beings wake up one day and say “hey, let me dice up my neighbor with my chainsaw just for the heck of it”. Society can theoretically function without a state. Our first human societies were stateless. They were organized around tribe. The modern nation state is just that - “modern”. Before that we had dynastic rule, but they were not as omnipresent as today’s modern states. There were no such thing as passports, visas, SIN, or even driver’s licences.

The problem with the rule of law is that that law is often not right.

It doesn't presume that at all.  It presumes that human beings have -always- found a reason to hack up their neighbors.  Yeah, sure, also..sometimes, just for the lelz. Presumes probably isn't the right word, more like observes.  Yes, humans are genuinely good and decent.  We're also murderous.  Real  hard core motherfuckers, look around you, there are very few animals that don't instinctively recognize us for what we are (and the ones that like us are just as murderous as we are..we have that in common with each other).  Some people see that as a dichotomy.  I don't.  I note that the things that make us decent are very commonly the same things that make us murderous.  

Last sentence is spot on.  Wouldn't the solution be to make the law more consistent with what is right, rather than get rid of laws or states?  Ideally, and most of the time, we don't actually need their protection...but when we do.....

It is not practical to have a uniform legal code for everyone, given our fundamental philosophical differences. I advocate a fractured legal system, or multiple legal systems within a single polity to accommodate the various populations that inhabit it. What is a good law to someone is a catastrophe for someone else.

But really, the best solution is to simply have less laws and regulations. Law should be practical and not rigid. It is meant to serve the people not make life miserable for them. And from my experience, some of the most intrusive and illiberal laws are municipal by-laws and regulations.