More Indiana anarchism brewing?

[Kirk Freeman]

Didn't see anytweets or FB likes for this so-called 765 Anarchists.

Isn't it funny how evidence of Jerad Miller's anarchism does not exist. It's completely hidden by being right in the open. That's the last place INGO will look for it.

"According to police, Bradbury claimed affiliation with the same anarchist group that Jerad and Amanda Miller, the shooters in the Las Vegas killing spree, belonged to, the '765 Anarchists.'
Both Bradbury and the Millers are from Indiana.


In YouTube ramblings, Jerad Miller called the Tippecanoe County Courthouse 'a beautiful building' but referred to it as 'a monument to authoritarianism.'"




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...reats-kill-police-blow-courthouse-pieces.html

If you want to hide anything concerning Ron Paul or Anarchists from INGO, just put it in plain sight on the Internet. It will be ignored.

 

[mrjarrell]

Isn't it funny how evidence of Jerad Miller's anarchism does not exist. It's completely hidden by being right in the open. That's the last place INGO will look for it.

"According to police, Bradbury claimed affiliation with the same anarchist group that Jerad and Amanda Miller, the shooters in the Las Vegas killing spree, belonged to, the '765 Anarchists.'
Both Bradbury and the Millers are from Indiana.


In YouTube ramblings, Jerad Miller called the Tippecanoe County Courthouse 'a beautiful building' but referred to it as 'a monument to authoritarianism.'"




Las Vegas cop killer sympathizer arrested in Indiana after threats | Mail Online

If you want to hide anything concerning Ron Paul or Anarchists from INGO, just put it in plain sight on the Internet. It will be ignored.

He had Ron and Rand, both republicans, on his Like list, too. No 765 Anarchists, though. (And you're putting a link to the Fail up? That's Englands National Enquirer. Might as well put up News of the World.

You're equating one group of "anarchists" with all anarchists and you know that's wrong. If not all cops are bad cops then it follows that not all anarchists are bad anarchists and you need to put you brush away and point solely to this supposed anarchist group (have we heard from them?). Why yes, we have. Their supposed leader is in custody and no other members have come forward.

Facebook death threats 'satire,' defendant claims

 

[Kirk Freeman]

And you're putting a link to the Fail up? That's Englands National Enquirer. Might as well put up News of the World.

The Fail is far more accurate than the U.S. media. Heck, go to the source if you want to know about the anarchists: Facebook death threats 'satire,' defendant claims

You're equating one group of "anarchists" with all anarchists and you know that's wrong.

I am pointing out that they are anarchists and INGO is trying to run away from the label.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is proving to be an interesting discussion.

1. The only requirement to be an anarchist is to philosophically disagree with the establishment of an organized government. I find this laughable given that any time two or more humans have occupied the same general area, there has been some system of order and in its very brief absence chaos. I don't see that changing any time soon, but still, being an anarchist does not make a person dangerous or violent.

2. Anyone could call himself anything. I could declare myself an Imperial citizen loyal to Emperor Palpatine if I chose. I will grant you that the only net result would be encouraging you to question my sanity, but the fact stands. Likewise, just because a person calls himself an anarchist, that does not mean that he is, or has anything in common with the anarchist up the street aside from ostensibly not believing in the existence of organized government.

3. I have to wonder how many self-described anarchists truly support anarchy and how many simply don't like the particular brand of 'archy' that we presently have.

4. I wonder how many people describe themselves as [practitioners of political philosophy of your choice] without have any good idea of what one actually is. An anarchist who identifies with an anarchist group (which seems self-contradictory enough in itself) and publicly supports GOP politicians would make me suspect he doesn't know what the hell he believes other than that he wishes to be a rabble-rouser--and not all rabble-rousers are anarchists as the Kenyan has demonstrated.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The only requirement to be an anarchist is to philosophically disagree with the establishment of an organized government.

Well, that and to, you know, call yourself an anarchist or have others admit that you are an anarchist.

Likewise, just because a person calls himself an anarchist, that does not mean that he is,

Man these Political Purity tests are tougher than Ivory soap.

I have to wonder how many self-described anarchists truly support anarchy and how many simply don't like the particular brand of 'archy' that we presently have.

It's the anarchy of hating to be told that you have to brush your teeth and go to bed--on target for Jerad.

People have mom and dad issues and it spills into their worldview.

I wonder how many people describe themselves as [practitioners of political philosophy of your choice] without have any good idea of what one actually is.

Likely a large plurality.

Publicly "supporting" the GOP politicians so you can comment on their pages does not seem a useful gauge of any sort of "support".

 

[poptab]

Man these Political Purity tests are tougher than Ivory soap.

Publicly "supporting" the GOP politicians so you can comment on their pages does not seem a useful gauge of any sort of "support".

Orly?

 

[buckstopshere]

Isn't there someplace between anarchist and statist?????

Minarchism is a political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.


Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly of force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez-faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Minarchism is a political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts. In the broadest sense, it also includes fire departments, prisons, the executive, and legislatures as legitimate government functions.[1][2][3] Such states are generally called night-watchman states.


Minarchists argue that the state has no authority to use its monopoly of force to interfere with free transactions between people, and see the state's sole responsibility as ensuring that contracts between private individuals and property are protected, through a system of law courts and enforcement. Minarchists generally believe a laissez-faire approach to the economy is most likely to lead to economic prosperity.

Sounds pretty much like what a handful of guy who met in Philadelphia one summer came up with!

 

[poptab]

This is proving to be an interesting discussion.

1. The only requirement to be an anarchist is to philosophically disagree with the establishment of an organized government. I find this laughable given that any time two or more humans have occupied the same general area, there has been some system of order and in its very brief absence chaos. I don't see that changing any time soon, but still, being an anarchist does not make a person dangerous or violent.

2. Anyone could call himself anything. I could declare myself an Imperial citizen loyal to Emperor Palpatine if I chose. I will grant you that the only net result would be encouraging you to question my sanity, but the fact stands. Likewise, just because a person calls himself an anarchist, that does not mean that he is, or has anything in common with the anarchist up the street aside from ostensibly not believing in the existence of organized government.

3. I have to wonder how many self-described anarchists truly support anarchy and how many simply don't like the particular brand of 'archy' that we presently have.

4. I wonder how many people describe themselves as [practitioners of political philosophy of your choice] without have any good idea of what one actually is. An anarchist who identifies with an anarchist group (which seems self-contradictory enough in itself) and publicly supports GOP politicians would make me suspect he doesn't know what the hell he believes other than that he wishes to be a rabble-rouser--and not all rabble-rousers are anarchists as the Kenyan has demonstrated.

Don't confuse society with government. The existence of order doesn't depend on the existence of government.

I often wonder to myself, the more I read about history... We would be better off without any government. The more I learn the more I tend to answer yes.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Don't confuse society with government. The existence of order doesn't depend on the existence of government.

I often wonder to myself, the more I read about history... We would be better off without any government. The more I learn the more I tend to answer yes.

While I understand your point, if you study it out, I believe you will find that the line between the two gets very amorphous when you try to define it. It would seem entirely possible to have a de facto government without having a de jure government. Tribal societies stand as a good example. While they did not have government in the sense we ordinarily consider it, they did have a system of authority and persons in positions of authority/leadership. In the end, I believe that this will devolve into an argument much like the restoration-movement Christian churches swearing up and down that they are not a denomination although they get their ministers from the same system of schools and subscribe to the same doctrines just because they don't have a top-down heirarchy governing the associated churches. In my reckoning, the same schools and same doctrines are sufficient to establish them as a denomination. The society/government issue is basically the same thing in politics rather than religion. If you have a group of people who accept a certain body of standards you will have a structure that may not appear to be a government in its smaller and more informal manifestations, but becomes more so on a sliding gray scale as it and the society it represents becomes larger and more formal with no definite point at which it becomes a 'government' according to readily measurable objective standards.

As for my views of right and proper, our Constitution seems to be the best plan in history. It is a crying shame it is routinely ignored these days. I also find it telling that to the best of my knowledge, anarchy has never settled in as a stable condition in any society.

 

[cobber]

Anyone care to rearrange deck chairs? That iceberg made an awful mess!!

 

[buckstopshere]

Sounds pretty much like what a handful of guy who met in Philadelphia one summer came up with!

Ikr? I never know if I should laugh or cry when I'm mocked for being a minarchist. I guess mostly I just don't give a damn.

 

[wagyu52]

I work with a relative of this idiot. He lived at home with mom and dad, no job, no license and got him self a DUI and weed possession in Tippy County, so thats his beef with them.
They lived some where over by Harrison High School and decided to move to Pine village as maybe that would help him, turns out it didn't.
I don't know much more, except it would be best if they kept him for a while, if anything for his own welfare, his kin are pretty upset with him.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ikr? I never know if I should laugh or cry when I'm mocked for being a minarchist. I guess mostly I just don't give a damn.

No mocking here! I agree completely. The slam was on those responsible for the present trend of largely ignoring the Constitution which was deliberately designed to be the most minimal workable government after the Articles of Confederation were found inadequate to support a working government.

 

[88GT]

Ikr? I never know if I should laugh or cry when I'm mocked for being a minarchist. I guess mostly I just don't give a damn.

Well, if it helps, you (along with others) have made at least one convert. So perhaps you can smile smugly and know that the ranks are growing, even if slowly.

 

[buckstopshere]

No mocking here! I agree completely. The slam was on those responsible for the present trend of largely ignoring the Constitution which was deliberately designed to be the most minimal workable government after the Articles of Confederation were found inadequate to support a working government.

Please don't misunderstand, I know you were not mocking.

I meet a lot of different people all over the country. The ones I really get to know inevitably leads to political ideological discussions. If they're a R, we rail on the Ds (and vice versa) but then I'll start pointing out the hypocrisy of their pet party specific to current issues important to them. Once I'm asked who I vote for, etc....I explain my position on minarchism. It's usually mocked, laughed at or or viewed as realistic as Santa.

I appreciate your posts and candor. Your passion for freedom keeps me reading your posts.

Well, if it helps, you (along with others) have made at least one convert. So perhaps you can smile smugly and know that the ranks are growing, even if slowly.

That's great to hear and it hasn't gone unnoticed!

You're a 3rd degree black belt in word spat-fu. The team is lucky to have you.

 

[88GT]

You're a 3rd degree black belt in word spat-fu. The team is lucky to have you.

Well, thank you. And I'm stealing that for my sig.

I've pulled Mr88GT along too, kickin' and screamin' at times, but he's here.

 

[buckstopshere]

Well, thank you. And I'm stealing that for my sig.

I've pulled Mr88GT along too, kickin' and screamin' at times, but he's here.

Tell mr88gt I feel as if I'm in good company since it was doestopshere that showed me the path in 2008!

 

[steveh_131]

Tell mr88gt I feel as if I'm in good company since it was doestopshere that showed me the path in 2008!

is this thread like a minarchist support group now?

hi I'm steve and I am a minarchist.

 

[Henry]

Well, if it helps, you (along with others) have made at least one convert. So perhaps you can smile smugly and know that the ranks are growing, even if slowly.

So is it still so that anything other than a vote for R is a vote for D?