I am writing my reply now, but it is so long, I think I will have to post it on my blog. The response will deal with the various historical issues addressed in this discussion.

I will let you know when the post is up, but right now I am not able to complete it — it is getting late.

Talk to you then.

You are not a slave in the United States. You can L-E-A-V-E. So you whine that “they took my passport away.” Well, that’s an aberration… MOST people haven’t! Your pal at your blog said you anarchists were going to take down the government. That’s treason!

You CAN own land! You just RENT it from the government, lol. You are the ones making assumptions about me. I see many problems, too. Sheesh! But for you, it’s like… if I am not bobbing my head in devoted agreement and hanging on your every word as wonderful freedom and truth, I’m a “coward” and a “statist.”

So anyway… just because you pay taxes does not make you a slave. By the way, in the olden days, property taxes were paid by the White Guys, not the slaves. The issue of income tax is relatively new in American history. If you knew your history as well as you boast, I suspect you’d know this. But paying income tax doesn’t make you a slave, either.

The American West WAS filled with bloodshed– for example, my own ancestor was killed in a saloon trying to uphold order and catch a thief. This stuff happened all the time, because there was no law and order. No “goodness” of man to make everything so glorious out there! The territories ASKED to become states and therefore to submit under the Union and the Constitution. No federal army forced law on any of these territories. I am not saying every law or lawful order is perfect, but it’s much better than complete disorder! Before official law and order, it was every man for himself, and the weak and vulnerable suffered. It was chaos! Anarchy is always chaos.

Anarchism makes no sense. Even whether you “feel” you are a slave or not. Social groups MUST have a system of rules within a social order; this is not only necessary, it is inherent in mankind. Self-rule is a delusion, because at some point, one person’s self-rule is going to infringe on another person’s self-rule. You keep saying there are numerous examples of perfect self-rule, and you threw Somalia around… you say you know Somalia is practically living in self-rule bliss– where’s your proof? My sources tell me people in Somalia ARE living under government, a transitional government, and various groups of “self-rule” are infringing on others’ “self-rule,” and it is plagued by Civil War. But where are all these countries with this glorious self-rule you talk about? And why aren’t we all running over there to them– especially you anarchists?

As for the Constitution, I can go on and on about it, but perhaps The Historian can find some time to respond, as she is much more articulate and this is all fresh in her mind from her continual studies. I will say that it seems your daunting accusations about the Declaration and Constitution providing equal rights for only white guys is something you were taught, not something you inferred from the documents or from common sense.

See you in Somalia?

Congratulations. I have studied law and government, as well as history and philosophy for decades as well. I also know what I’m talking about. I’ve read and reread the Federalist papers and other documents of America’s founders and found them to be full of the same pro-state arguments that you are making. The voices I agree with were drowned out or compromised away by those in favor of tyranny as the Constitution clearly shows.

And you’re simply WRONG about history proving that “without government, arbitrary tyranny commences which leads to chaos and bloodshed.” The American West, for example, did not become a bloody battleground until the government came in with the military. Pirate ships were run without either government or guillotine. Somalia has existed without for government for nearly two decades now without chaos, is improving faster than most African nations, and the primary bloodshed is amongst those tribes trying to be recognized (by outsiders) as the government. History shows a much larger percentage of time that warfare happened under governments than under anarchy.

Should you decide to return to either conversation may I suggest starting with answering some of the questions you’ve been asked instead of submitting one liners, insults and self-congratulations.

And no, there are no hard feelings. You’ve lasted longer than many before devolving your arguments to “because I say so” and “you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong”.

You accuse me of making assumptions of who you are, yet you are not open to discussion to find the truth of the matter, but to “better debate” your opinions. Since we don’t know each other, I understand that you naturally question my statements, but do understand that I studied law and government for decades and I do know what I am talking about.

I was not assuming that YOU are attempting rule by guillotine. However, history has PROVEN that without government, arbitrary tyranny commences which leads to chaos and bloodshed. I seriously doubt that you are as open-minded as you claim to be. Your arguments about the Constitution have been hashed over again and again. I do not have the time or the space to give you ten year’s worth of lessons on Constitutional law or philosophy… I can only direct you to the Federalist papers and the Annals of Congress for your specific questions. I, too, had such questions, and years of research has led me to the point I am now.

Perhaps I will write more, later.. but right now I have to go! Thanks again for your comments. No hard feelings, I hope.

And just because the French revolution failed does not mean all anarchistic states fail either. Somalia has no government as defined anywhere I have read. It has free people entering into (and exiting) agreements at will. Of course, I have no way of knowing if this fits your personal defintion of government, because you still refuse to provide one.

Absolutely we’ve strayed from the Constitution. Getting back to it would be an excellent step in the right direction. That’s why I support Ron Paul. But it’s not the end of the path to freedom, just a pitstop along the way. The fact that we can vote does not mean we’re not slaves. Is that all the word “slave” means in your world? Someone who can’t vote?

We are forced to do what politicians dictate regardless of how we vote. We are slaves. I did not have an opportunity to vote on the vast majority of laws that are imposed upon me, nor did you. Even if we were, it’s still the tyranny of the majority.

Our government may be called a representative government, but there is not a single person in office representing my desires – to live free and allow others to do the same. Every so-called representative is just sitting around imposing their will on the people – exactly like a slave master.

No one at Philaahzophy is suggesting either the rule of the guillotine or the rule of the jungle. Those are YOUR assumptions. Why do you fail to see the other options?

And you have no idea how I interpret either the Declaration or the Constitution. But feel free to enlighten me as to how Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution is anything but tyrannical. Or how Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 supports freedom in any way.

As for the Declaration it was, in and of itself, a tyrannical act. For it presumed to speak for all colonists, including those who enjoyed living under the King. You, yourself, argued the tyranny of such a presumption on my blog.

We obviously share common ground on many issues. I think the difference is that you continually make assumptions about who I am and what I believe and refuse to answer straightforward questions that would aid in mutual understanding. Meanwhile I’m just trying to understand your point of view so as to better debate the issue itself instead of the terms used.