Center of the violent RNCC protests: U of M

posted at 12:05 pm on September 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Minnesotans may want to have the legislature investigate this report from the Examiner about University of Minnesota staff involvement in violent anti-Republican protests during the convention in Saint Paul.  According to Ray Robinson, key meetings were held on the U of M’s Twin Cities campus, and involved staff from both the university and union leaders of the AFSCME local that represents them:

University of Minnesota staff were key coordinators of the recent violent protests at the Republican National Convention (RNC). The university employees are also members of the local clerical union of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees. The AFSCME is part of the AFL-CIO union.

Protests turned violent at the 2008 RNC located in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Police have arrested hundreds of demonstrators for violent attacks on police officers and bystanders and other more nuisance crimes. The Saint Paul Police have identified an anarchist group called the RNC Welcoming Committee as being at the center of the violence. …

The website ProtestRNC2008.org carries a press release which sheds light on the activities of the RNC Welcoming Committee. The online notification posted June 8th, 2007 by a woman named Jessica Sundin calls for a meeting at the University of Minnesota Student Union Center co-hosted by the RNC Welcoming Committee. Sundin is a clerk at the University of Minnesota. Another press release was posted by Sundin in the name of the RNC Welcoming Committee after the convention began.

The Examiner has speeched by both Sundin and AFSCME/AFL-CIO leader Phyllis Walker addressing the groups that comprised the RNC Welcoming Committee.  Sundin in particular appears to have had extensive coordination with anarchists, who turned the protests violent in St. Paul.  Her U of M website has paeans to terrorist groups like FARC and the Islamic Jihad Army, a group in Iraq targeting and killing American troops at the time.  Sundin also commented in a separate interview that she used as a model the anarchist attacks on the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle, which were particularly violent.

Minnesota’s law enforcement agencies did a marvelous job in keeping the convention safe while protecting the right to peaceful protest.  None of us inside the River Center ever felt under siege or even particularly inconvenienced, even though we knew that radicals had pledged to disrupt the convention through any means at their disposal.  Police and state troopers from all over Minnesota came to provide security, as well as members of Minnesota’s National Guard, and they deserve our thanks and appreciation for their fine work.

However, they are owed something else as well — a probe into how state resources were used to undermine their work.  If the U of M hosted a conference in which people openly conspired to break the law, then the school has to be held accountable for it.  If Sundin and others used university resources instead of their own time and money to coordinate political action, they should be fired regardless of their connection to anarchist violence.  The legislature should ask for an investigation immediately.

Joe Repya has more on the failure of the RNC Welcoming Committee and the triumph of St. Paul and Minnesota law enforcement — and free speech for all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Coldwarrior..

Thanks.. after reading all the posts, that was the nearest literary example I could think of..

As for the modern day version of anarchy.. the Mad Max movies would be a good example of the bad anarchy..

:)

DaveC on September 8, 2008 at 2:29 PM

Come on, Ed. I bet this was an extra-credit course at the U of MA

drjohn on September 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM

DaveC on September 8, 2008 at 2:29 PM –

Mad Max – Anarchy on steroids?

Certainly not anarchy, not even bad anarchy.

In the Mad max example, there is “government” in the form of the various gangs, gang leaders and their enforcers.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM

U of M

sorry

drjohn on September 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM

To use an old libertarian phrase.

Utopia is not an option.

No matter what form of govt we choose, there are going to be problems with it.

The goal is not to pick of form of govt that is perfect, but rather the one that has the fewest problems.

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 2:37 PM

I see that you insist on believing that anarchy is a creature of the left.

Please try to learn a little about the subjects on which you post.

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 1:59 PM

Have it your way but I’m telling you that your beloved “anarchy” is repackaged utopianism and unworkable. It’s unworkable because of something called human nature which is inherently evil and will cause murder, theft, and every kind of strife to be the norm without an ordered society.

What you advocate is Marxism whether you realized it or not. We all know that Communism’s ostensive goal is this same peaceful wonderland you call “anarchy,” but throughout all history it has been true Republics that have come close to that goal and never socialist/collectivist regimes.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 2:40 PM

Is there any evidence of a successful anarchist civilization?

BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 2:40 PM

the anarchy talk was in theory.. if you add in human nature, that throws of mix just a TAD.. :)

DaveC on September 8, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Is there any evidence of a successful anarchist civilization?

BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Answer that question for yourself. Where has there ever in all recorded history been a group of people that lived in peace an harmony, for any substantial length of time with no form of government in place?

Only in La La Land, which exist exclusively in the minds of the average liberal.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM

In the Mad max example, there is “government” in the form of the various gangs, gang leaders and their enforcers.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM

Mad Max is freakish ultra-violent feudalism…..and a work of sloppy fiction to boot ;)

Not the sort of thing I’m going to be using as a test model.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 2:51 PM

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 2:40 PM

I see that you are going to continue to believe what you want to believe, and you aren’t going to let anything as trivial as fact and reason disuade you.

I and several others have explained to you patiently, with several long posts, why you are wrong. The best you can do is keep coming back with the claim that anarchism equals marxism, based on nothing more than the fact that a few people who falsely claim to be anarchists, are also marxist.

Sad, really, really sad what public schools are doing to children these days.

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Is there any evidence of a successful anarchist civilization?

BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 2:42 PM

Iceland was anarchist for several hundred years back during the middle ages.

There have been others that where minarchist that managed to stay stable for many years.

On the other hand, no country with a government has ever been successfull in keeping that government from growing to gargantuan proportions and eventually destroying all freedom.

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Only in La La Land, which exist exclusively in the minds of the average liberal.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM

man, you really do revel in displaying your ignorance

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM

human nature which is inherently evil

Mankind has an evil feevah and the only cure is government regulation? No sale. That’s an indefensible religious assertion.

I would argue that mankind has the capacity for evil, but has the free will and intellect to choose a different path – and we do, by and large. The vast majority of humans are docile with no seething desire to murder or steal. We just want to live comfortable lives.

What you advocate is Marxism …. blah blah blah …Communism….blah blah blah

Nonsense. I don’t know what you’re reading to make such statements. These institutions bear no resemblance to an anarchic society.

Where has there ever in all recorded history been a group of people that lived in peace an harmony, for any substantial length of time with no form of government in place?

Again, this depends on what you’re defining as a ‘form of government’. Even in an anarchic society there will still be a ‘form of government’ in my house, within my community, perhaps between communities spanning entire states and even the nation.

The absence of ‘government’ is not the defining characteristic of anarchy. It is the imposition of an authoritative hierarchy that is illegitimate. Free people remain at liberty to voluntarily create agencies that ‘govern’ specific areas of responsibility – but they do so consensually.

This whole conversation is going to be pretty damned blind until you get your head around what anarchy actually is, not what anarchy is propagandized as being.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 2:40 PM –

Certainly, human nature factors large. But one has a choice of appealing to the good in human nature or appealing to the evil in human nature.

I have no “beloved anarchy” nor do I subscribe to such.

I do have a stong tendency toward governance that appeals to the good in human nature and I reject governance that appeals to the evil in human nature.

Anarchy appeals to the good in human nature. The evils are threats to anarchy. The good sustains it.

Fascism and totalitarianism, extensions of liberalism, have no room for the good in human nature, they depend on the evil in human nature to exist, both as a reason and as a means.

Now, if as a matter of personal belief, as you stated, “…because of something called human nature which is inherently evil and will cause murder, theft, and every kind of strife to be the norm without an ordered society,” then you are heading up a wrong path.

Demanding an ordered society, because human nature is inherently evil, that is the basis for fascism and totalitarianism. Schopenhauer and Giovanni Gentile would be on your reading list before Ayn Rand, I can presume?It is all about Ordnung. The individual must be controlled by the state because the individual is anathema to the state. Big Brother is born. Compliance is mandatory. Offenders are eliminated or re-educated. The individual has no rights. The state owns everything and everyone.

What I have spoken of regarding anarchy is in no way Marxist nor Communist. Not even close.

Read your Rand. Then read your Plato.

Given the two parties which represent most of our common population, which party appeals to the good in human nature, and which appeals to the bad in human nature?

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Some would argue that since man has an evil nature, we need govt to control us. But who is going to run that govt if not these same evil men that govt was supposed to protect us against.

If man is truely evil by nature, the best solution is to ensure that nobody has much power over his fellow man.

How to do that is of course the $64 million dollar question.

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 3:17 PM

Limey,

It works like this.

Some people who claim to be anarchists, are in reality marxist.

Therefore all anarchists are really marxist.

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 3:18 PM

If man is truly evil by nature, the best solution is to ensure that nobody has much power over his fellow man.

How to do that is of course the $64 million dollar question.

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 3:17 PM

Vote Ron Paul? /s

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM

I have no “beloved anarchy” nor do I subscribe to such.

I have found myself inexorably drifting towards classical anarchism in my own little intellectual dinghy….a personal “follow the truth” journey of sorts ;)

Albeit a pragmatic anarchist…..not a utopian one!

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 3:22 PM

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 3:22 PM –

Me? I just want to get some. :-)

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 3:23 PM

Mankind has an evil feevah and the only cure is government regulation? No sale. That’s an indefensible religious assertion.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Ah, it comes from a “religious” point of view, thus it is false. WRONG, it an undeniable truth, its common knowledge, just like the sun comes up in this morning is common knowledge.

The vast majority of humans are docile with no seething desire to murder or steal. We just want to live comfortable lives.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Even if this was true, which it not, it would be that other small percentage that would make you Utopian dream unworkable. But the fact is, every unlearned and undisciplined child is a tyrant and they only get worst over time without correction.

Nonsense. I don’t know what you’re reading to make such statements. These institutions bear no resemblance to an anarchic society.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM

How do you know, and “anarchic society” has never been produced, except in the minds of dreamers.

It is the imposition of an authoritative hierarchy that is illegitimate.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM

This implies that our Republic’s method of achieving what we acknowledge as a “legitimate” government is not valid. Yet I can’t imagine any better way to do it. Can you?

Free people remain at liberty to voluntarily create agencies that ‘govern’ specific areas of responsibility – but they do so consensually.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM

Sounds a lot like a Republic to me.

This whole conversation is going to be pretty damned blind until you get your head around what anarchy actually is, not what anarchy is propagandized as being.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM

That’s what I’m waiting for you to explain to me. All I’m hearing is that there is no government, yet there is. Everyone lives in harmony… somehow. I don’t believe you know yourself what the basic tenants of your beloved “anarchy” is because all I’ve heard so far is scattered gibberish. Government with no government and so on.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 3:24 PM

Limey,

It works like this.

Some people who claim to be anarchists, are in reality marxist.

Therefore all anarchists are really marxist.

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 3:18 PM

LOL Yes…..such impeccable logic ;)

When I watch these ‘anarchists’ tearing the place up, I can’t help but think that in a legitimate anarchic society, these pricks would quickly meet a bullet-riddled end.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 3:25 PM

man, you really do revel in displaying your ignorance

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM

man you really revel in insults rather than answer questions.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 3:26 PM

That’s what I’m waiting for you to explain to me. All I’m hearing is that there is no government, yet there is. Everyone lives in harmony… somehow. I don’t believe you know yourself what the basic tenants of your beloved “anarchy” is because all I’ve heard so far is scattered gibberish. Government with no government and so on.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 3:24 PM

I’ve just realized I’ve been conversing with a dunce.

Go about your business Maxx. I won’t challenge you any more.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Demanding an ordered society, because human nature is inherently evil, that is the basis for fascism and totalitarianism.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 3:10 PM

Ok then I’ve got a question. Is America a fascist/totalitarian nation? I’m talking generally, not by degree.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 3:32 PM

If human nature is inherently evil — Why do people do charitable work? How do you explain Mother Theresa? How do you explain Ross McGinnmis, Michael Monsoor, Gary Gordon or Randy Shughart? How do you account for $400 million given by private Americans to the 2004 Tsunami? Why do people stop and render first aid in traffic accidents?

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 3:34 PM

I’ve just realized I’ve been conversing with a dunce.

Go about your business Maxx. I won’t challenge you any more.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM

I’m a dunce because YOU are not able to distinguish between whatever you think “anarchy” is and a Republic? Ok, that’s fine, have a nice day.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM

As an aside for MarkTheGreat and coldwarrior to ponder…..perhaps the tragedy of humanity is that an textbook anarchic society can never exist because of the gullibility of the general population? While people like Maxx exist [and arguably dominate public discourse?], it seems likely that the political tide will always be manipulated by artful individuals able to play upon the misguided belief that we cannot exist in an orderly fashion without authority imposed by a ruling power.

In other words – we have it in us to be truly free, yet we’re mentally predisposed to submission.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 3:32 PM –

Is America a fascist or totalitarian nation?

No. We still have a government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is called representative democracy, more a republic than a true democracy, in its operational form. But we are still ruled by the consent of the governed.

And if we are not more careful that, too, could perish from this earth.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 3:39 PM

If human nature is inherently evil — Why do people do charitable work? How do you explain Mother Theresa? How do you explain Ross McGinnmis, Michael Monsoor, Gary Gordon or Randy Shughart? How do you account for $400 million given by private Americans to the 2004 Tsunami? Why do people stop and render first aid in traffic accidents?

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 3:34 PM

I can’t speak for everyone as to why they sometimes do good things, but for me its because I’ve been commanded to do those things by a Jewish carpenter, who is my boss.

It doesn’t come naturally.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 3:39 PM

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 3:39 PM

I agree, but would add that we are seeing an alarming trend for more fascistic policy and legislation from our government.

Fascism will not arrive with the hoisting of a new flag, it will weave itself into the very fabric of Old Glory.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 3:45 PM

But we are still ruled by the consent of the governed.

And if we are not more careful that, too, could perish from this earth.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 3:39 PM

Exactly, its majority rules. You can’t make everybody happy no matter how hard you try. The best you can ever do is to try and make the majority happy. At the peak of the best that America ever was, there were still plenty of people complaining. Unfortunately we listened to them and tried to accommodate them and we only got worse not better. There is a limit to how “heavenly” man can make this fallen world due to our fallen nature.

Here’s something else from my religious beliefs, there will be no perfection on this Earth until the perfect comes. I think history shows man is not able to achieve a perfect state because of the way we are… human nature.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 3:50 PM

man you really revel in insults rather than answer questions.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 3:26 PM

I’ve answered your questions, multiple times. That you refuse to acknowledge such and keep asking the same discredited questions results in others questioning both your motives and your sanity.

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 3:50 PM

I’m a dunce because YOU are not able to distinguish between whatever you think “anarchy” is and a Republic? Ok, that’s fine, have a nice day.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Your a dunce because the difference has been explained over and over again.

If you weren’t a dunce, you would have picked up on this already.

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 3:52 PM

Since it’s impossible to make everyone happy, why do you insist that everyone must exist under the same form of govt?

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Your a dunce because the difference has been explained over and over again.

If you weren’t a dunce, you would have picked up on this already.

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 3:52 PM

OK, I’m a dunce. So help me out. Concisely explain to me with several points the difference between this Anarchy system and a Republic.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 3:54 PM

OK, I’m a dunce. So help me out. Concisely explain to me with several points the difference between this Anarchy system and a Republic.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 3:54 PM

I have,

reread the posts that you have skipped.

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Since it’s impossible to make everyone happy, why do you insist that everyone must exist under the same form of govt?

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Why do you?

I say the true Republic has proven itself to produce more individual freedom than any other form, that’s why.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 3:56 PM

I have,

reread the posts that you have skipped.

MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 3:56 PM

I’ve read it, and I don’t see any difference between your system and a Republic. So let me rephrase.

What does Anarchy have that a Republic does not?

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 4:01 PM

“…because I’ve been commanded to do those things by a Jewish carpenter, who is my boss.”

It doesn’t come naturally.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 3:39 PM

For me, it does come naturally. I was raised that way, I live my life that way, I have, through my example as a parent and with the welcome aid of others who likewise believe in the goodness of man, raised my five children that way. I associate comfortably with those who also believe in the goodness of man, not because I was commanded to do so but because I choose to do so, it is the basis for my Christian ethic, my Faith.

One cannot command loyalty, nor command goodness, nor command bravery, nor command Faith.

I’ve spent most of my adult lifetime immersed in nations and cultures where evil rules, and fascism and totalitarianism were an accepted way of life by those who benefited, and who controlled others for their own benefit. Even in those surroundings, despite the evil prevailing all around them, I have found good people, doing good for no other reason that they seek goodness.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM

What does Anarchy have that a Republic does not?

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 4:01 PM

A republic has a government. Anarchy has no need for government.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:12 PM

All this because some dunderhead broke a window?

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:14 PM

I was raised that way

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Then you were taught, it didn’t come naturally.

it is the basis for my Christian ethic, my Faith.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Once again, then you were taught, it didn’t come naturally.

One cannot command loyalty, nor command goodness, nor command bravery, nor command Faith.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Our Lord commanded all those things, but adherence to those commands is voluntary and how well we do, will be the standard by which we are judged. But it doesn’t come naturally, our hearts are naturally rebellous and nobody obeys the commands perfectly.

I have found good people, doing good for no other reason that they seek goodness.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM

There are some people like that, they are rare. Mostly the type you find are the very people who were causing all the evil around them. Those people will always exist, and a system of laws must exist to deal with them and you can’t do that without government. I believe what Jefferson said, That government is best that governs least. Yet some form of it is essential.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 4:21 PM

A republic has a government. Anarchy has no need for government.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Various forms of government exist in many political architectures. Perhaps some of Maxx’s confusion comes from a failure to distinguish between governments as we commonly think of them now, and ‘government’ in the abstract.

An anarchical society has no centralised monopoly on authority (a la contemporary ‘government’), yet can consist of a patchwork of freely evolving and interacting ‘governing’ agencies and individuals. No person, or group of people, can legitimately derive greater authority over others’ lives.

Anarchy is not about “government vs no government” – it is about the legitimacy of authority, and how same may be consensually arranged. The only sense in which anarchy should be considered as meaning “no government” is in the context of the contemporary view of ‘government’ as a ruling authority – such a manifestation of an authority structure is deemed illegitimate.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM

No person, or group of people, can legitimately derive greater authority over others’ lives.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Then how do you enforce laws?

Or are there laws?

Are there courts?

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 4:32 PM

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM –

I concur.

It is a pretty sad commentary on the overall effects of our public education system over the past four decades that there “civics” is not being taught in our schools, little if any attention paid to the fundamentals from which our present form of governance has evolved. Thus, the people are easy prey to those who would enslave them.

Is ours a perfect form of governance? No. It is a fragile attempt by those who believe in the inherent good qualities of mankind to form a union to preserve our rights to continue to seek a more perfect form of governance.

I think the Founding Fathers had this in mind. I would think also that the Founders studiously avoided any thought of establishing a government here in America that would simply parrot those in Europe. It would have been an easy choice to do so. Crown Washington as the new King. Proceed from there.

The Founders had faith in the people. Seems today, there are those who have no faith in the people.

On that note, I will be back later in the evening…have avoided a few tasks today that need to be accomplished.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:34 PM

…four decades that there “civics” is not…

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:36 PM

it is about the legitimacy of authority, and how same may be consensually arranged.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM

But there is no authority, you said this in your previous sentence.

No person, or group of people, can legitimately derive greater authority over others’ lives.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 4:22 PM

This is why I say you are sold on nonsense, pure pie in the sky gibberish which is so very typical of leftist “thinking.”

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 4:37 PM

*sigh* OK….I’ll bite just one more time.

But there is no authority, you said this in your previous sentence

My previous sentence was : “No person, or group of people, can legitimately derive greater authority over others’ lives.” This sentence does not infer the absence of authority. If your mastery of english comprehension leads you to believe that it does, stop reading now and please don’t waste my time. Of course, if you follow my instructions literally, you’ll never read the end of that sentence, or this one, so now I’m just rambling to myself for no good reason.

I retain authority over my life. If I consensually grant authority over, say, my security to another entity (individual or group – eg. a private police force) then I still retain the right to revoke such an arrangement.

There is no reason that common law cannot be agreed upon from the basis of inalienable rights. Murder will still be a crime, as will theft, rape, arson etc. What will be notable is the way that the legal ‘sphere’ collapses to a minimalistic set of laws protecting life and property.

In the interests of legitimacy, transparency in the enforcement and application of law would likely be paramount….not so far removed from what we see today.

The ‘fly in the ointment’, to my mind, are people like you. You seem convinced that only this magical entity known to you as ‘government’ can administer and enforce law, and preserve society. In the guise of ‘government’ you will continue to be sold on an ever-expanding set of ‘common sense’ laws that are ‘for our good’, and in doing so will bow further and further in submission.

People like you are the problem. The population simply hasn’t reached a critical mass of independent thinkers to be able to unshackle itself from such concepts.

In that sense, I agree that my ideas are ‘pie in the sky’. They aren’t gibberish however. Maybe one day we’ll all understand that.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 4:55 PM

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 4:55 PM

I’m the problem you say? Me and people like me are the reason that we can’t all live in harmony with no government. Wow.

I’m just a little concerned that you haven’t thought this whole thing through and before I join your cause and agree to disband the Constitution I’d like to be sure that there will be a mechanism for freedom and justice and private property.

You are right that I see no way to accomplish those things without …. courts for example. But I don’t see any accommodation for courts in your system. It sounds like a free for all, a everyman for themselves situation, an only the strong survive situation. I don’t like it, its indeed anarchy which is chaos. I’m glad you are not running the world LimeyGeek. I don’t think even you would like the world you would create.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 5:36 PM

*sigh*

Another hijacked thread… and I so used to enjoy reading the comments at Hot Air.

Big John on September 8, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Another hijacked thread… and I so used to enjoy reading the comments at Hot Air.

Big John on September 8, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Disagree, we are all on topic here. The “merits” of Anarchy is being discussed which is part of the post. We’re not talking Elvis or space aliens…. yet.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 5:50 PM

So the powers that be, want to investigate our police, yet this Sundin pig plans crimes on our dime. Hmmmmm

oakpack on September 8, 2008 at 5:54 PM

[Anarchy is] bad because of the inevitable result. I like to think the best of people, but you have to admit, given no restrictions and no superior authority to answer to will more often than not bring out the worst in people. Anarchism is a great idea in theory, trusting everyone to act under self-reliance and police themselves, but it rarely if ever works in practice.

*eats*

Grue in the Attic on September 8, 2008 at 12:26 PM

Agree [gives Grue a fish]

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 5:58 PM

This poster is not talking about the “merits” of anarchy.

- I have posted about the meaning of anarchy.
- About the origin of the concept of anarchy.
- About how the Left purloined a previously acceptable term.
- About how the Right has somehow learned that the term is a slander word.
- How the Left and most Americans have no concept as to the origin of anarchy,
- About literary references to help define anarchy.
- About the merits of agency and representational government.
- About my persoanl Faith.
- About getting some.
- About how close we can be towards an easy slide towards fascism because citizens see order as more important than individual rights.
- A bit about Ron Paul.
- A bit about libertarianism
- And, the idiots at UM need to be taken to task for using public funds to instill violence and vandalism.

But at no time did I speak to the “merits” of anarchy.

Just to make that point perfectly clear.

Now, then, if reading for comprehension is not a strong suit, then perhaps another venue would be more to one’s liking.

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 6:01 PM

This thread has gone so fast, I can’t keep up. On this anarchtic discussion of anarchy, the idea that a bunch of people living in anarchy will attract or hire some agency to defend them, put out their fires, or buy bombers is rather presumptive. Exactly how are they going to make that decision? All sit around in a circle sinnging kumbyah? If there are enough people involved to make a decision that way, I doubt they will have the resources to hire the outside agency. If they are big enough to have the resources, how do they make the decision without using some governmental technique? If there are a whole continent of these people, it is absurd to think of them as other than a nation – at least the barbarians at the gate will think that way. If they are not that big but county size, the barbarians at the gate will think of them as “easy pickins”.

University perfessers of the liberal arts type always think that protesting and anarchy is good, primarily because they live in a permissive fairyland that is encouraging of their mental deficiencies and protective of the consequences of their actiona.

Old Country Boy on September 8, 2008 at 6:28 PM

Next time, any chance… instead of supplying the police with mace, pepper spray and taser guns… how about flame throwers?

Just a thought.

freebird on September 8, 2008 at 7:33 PM

freebird on September 8, 2008 at 7:33 PM –

A bit extreme, don’t want to damage any property…maybe small ones. Whatever happened to police dogs? Big, snarling, nasty, growling fresh-hippie-meat eating police dogs?

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 7:58 PM

Answer that question for yourself. Where has there ever in all recorded history been a group of people that lived in peace an harmony, for any substantial length of time with no form of government in place?

Only in La La Land, which exist exclusively in the minds of the average liberal.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM

Right, right. That was a nearly rhetorical question. Since the answer is obvious, and it equals BOs experience, why in the world does it receive valuable discussion time?

All this because some dunderhead broke a window?

coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 4:14 PM

and

*sigh*

Another hijacked thread… and I so used to enjoy reading the comments at Hot Air.

Big John on September 8, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Hi Jack! Sometimes it’s so easy I can’t resist. I should hang out at KosKiddies and spin them up. They’re not nearly as nice……

BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 8:32 PM

Old Country Boy on September 8, 2008 at 6:28 PM

It’s possible. I saw it on Star Trek, TNG. Crusher Jr. nearly gets the needle for breaking a window (wow, what a coincidence) on some utopian anarchist planet (best costumes, evaaaah). First season, I believe.

All you need is a space ship that kills people for stepping on the wrong grassy area, and has a thundering voice.

“LET MY PEOPLE GO!”

BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 8:37 PM

why in the world does it receive valuable discussion time?

BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 8:32 PM

Because some people wanted to discuss it and it was on topic. No valuable discussion time was lost, no one was prevented from commenting. The thread was not hi-jacked.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 8:40 PM

I’m glad you are not running the world LimeyGeek. I don’t think even you would like the world you would create.

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 5:36 PM

Hmmm….if you’ve truly read what I and others have written, and still make comments like this, you have utterly failed to comprehend. ‘Missing the point’ doesn’t do your failure justice.

I’m pulling the plug on this one.

LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 8:40 PM

it seems likely that the political tide will always be manipulated by artful individuals able to play upon the misguided belief that we cannot exist in an orderly fashion without authority imposed by a ruling power.

Unfortunately, this same flaw exists in all forms of self rule, including democracy/republics.

MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2008 at 7:35 AM

I’ve read it, and I don’t see any difference between your system and a Republic. So let me rephrase.

What does Anarchy have that a Republic does not?

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Either you haven’t read it, or your reading comprehension is below that of a third grader.

The difference is choice. As I laid out several times. You have a choice of which defense organization you join, and you can change that choice at any time.

MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2008 at 7:36 AM

Then how do you enforce laws?

Or are there laws?

Are there courts?

Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 4:32 PM

I already explained how conflict resolution works.

MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2008 at 7:38 AM

Old Country Boy on September 8, 2008 at 6:28 PM

I guess that in your world, the only reason any company exists is because govt saw a need and ordered the company into existence?

MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM

I agree with Limey, Maxx isn’t just missing the point, he’s going out of his way to avoid it.

Total waste of time.

MarkTheGreat on September 9, 2008 at 7:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2