Center of the violent RNCC protests: U of M
posted at 12:05 pm on September 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 Next »
Ahh, students. Thank god they don’t vote.
lodge on September 8, 2008 at 12:08 PM
there ya go Ed…nice catch….
Ace has some on it as well….
sven10077 on September 8, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Maybe Olby can interview her and her minions.
bbz123 on September 8, 2008 at 12:10 PM
If the university or it’s staff was involved…nothing will happen. They will bury it, the one thing a university does not do is police itself.
right2bright on September 8, 2008 at 12:10 PM
And the REPUBLICANS are the evil, violent, destructive ones?
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on September 8, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Its time Minnesota teaches these teachers about free speech and responsilbity/accountability.
I’d be willing to bill university department in which these idiots hold tenure, or the bill entire university, and subtract that portion of the State university budget to pay for the essential police services rendered.
Minnesota would not be censoring free speech, it would simply be demanding accountability for that speech. Being a professor or having tenure does not grant one immunity.
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Organized anarchists.
Do you think they realize, in the slightest amount, what that means?
Oh yeah…these folks share genetics with those that brought us iced coffee
BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 12:12 PM
LAWSUIT, LAWSUIT, LAWSUIT. That sometimes help people fess up.
bloggless on September 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM
I agree with Newt, the police should immediately arrest anyone who puts on the bandana over their face. That’s an incitement for violence and breaking the law. That’s equivalent to brandishing a weapon. Lock ‘em up pronto. Saves property, insurance companies, and the small businesses that these waste of human beings hurt by their actions.
Weebork on September 8, 2008 at 12:16 PM
People who believe that violence is ever called for really piss me off. More than anyone, I believe they deserve to have the tables turned on them. I’m not asking anyone to do anything, but so many innocent people are victims of petty arson or rocks through their windows, I just wish that anti war “leaders” would happen to be victims of random acts of violence so that they might understand how disruptive they are. But our side isn’t unlawfully violent in support of our political aims, and that is a good thing.
jimmy the notable on September 8, 2008 at 12:18 PM
It’s a sad thing– Minnesotans I’ve known have invariably been decent, neighborly folk. Unfortunately it may have been their very assumption of such civility and trustworthiness of others that has opened the door to such evil and foolishness on the campuses of their state schools.
Let the rabble-rousing professors and students go without the hospitality of their fellow Minnesotans for a winter, and they’ll likely learn the value of kindliness anew!
Scribbler on September 8, 2008 at 12:19 PM
BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 12:12 PM –
Organized anarchists = oxymoron.
Why do people insist on giving the Left the “anarchist” label?
— Liberalism extended outward is facism extended outward is a Brave New World.
— Comservatism extended outward is libertarianism extended outward is anarchy.
Anarchy is not a bad word. Anarchy is the absence of any form of political authority…self-reliance, simple as that.
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM
And I can’t believe this woman’s web page. What a horrible person. She actually published a statement released by an organization that really did murder American troops. Here’s the direct link This woman should be arrested for treason. The previous page that links to that statement has the title “I say NO to war.” And yet you openly publish the statement of terrorists who are waging WAR against American troops? Isn’t that a little bit hypocritical?
jimmy the notable on September 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Weebork on September 8, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Good point, Weeb. This isn’t the Gaza Strip. If these folks have the courage of their convictions, they should show their faces.
Cody1991 on September 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Scribbler
Have no illusions….. MN is NOT the friendly place one may think it is…. it allows sanctuary cities, Marxist professors and Islamic Madrassas
MNDavenotPC on September 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM
There are limits to free speech. Inciting riots and inciting violence are criminal offenses. Of course, this requires the suspected individuals be under surveillance prior to the violence. Since we don’t want to violate their privacy, we won’t be doing the necessary surveillance, and therefore will not be able to prove that they were actually inciting violence since all they were doing is peacefully protesting. (Yes, I know.)
What really gets me is the protesters know exactly just how far they can go. They can stand face to face with armed police, and scream insults, but as long as there is ‘no touching’ there is no crime, according to the leftists.
If the police give an order for the crowd to disperse, there is a ‘protocol’ that has to be followed, otherwise, the police are over reacting. Thank you lawyers.
Until there are some penalties for the kind of behavior exhibited in Minneapolis, it won’t stop. (Yes, I know, put the leaders in prison, and they claim to be martyrs and political prisoners. Thank you Jerry Rubin, union organizers, community organizers, and academia.)
rockhauler on September 8, 2008 at 12:24 PM
It’s 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
How to quell a violent protester: insert bullet “A” into skull “B”…
Spanglemaker on September 8, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Unfortunately, I don’t think that your prescription would work. From your point of view, it would be irony and they should see that, because that is reasonable. They however, don’t work reasonably. They are not just fanatical, but believe they are ordained to be prophets of, er, change. Any such violence against them would be perceived as validation that their cause is just, because the “forces of darkness” are trying to stop them to the point of being violent.
I think the only way to get rid of these people is to ignore them, for the most part. Certainly, if there are any indications that they are going to break the law, such as plans to damage businesses, and such, they should be stopped immediately. Otherwise, if they’re just being a Cindy Sheehan, where she merely is non-violent, I propose to hit the ignore button.
Weebork on September 8, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Anarchy is a very bad condition.
There is no way to media disputes other than physical force.
There is no way to enforce contracts because there are no rules. There is no private property beyond what you can defend, and since most private property is fixed in place, your only defense is ‘in depth’ which requires manpower, which leads to tyranny.
No Anarchy is a very bad deal.
rockhauler on September 8, 2008 at 12:32 PM
Grue in the Attic on September 8, 2008 at 12:26 PM —
It is the Left’s claiming this word, this concept, as their own that has perverted its meaning.
Given the choice of pure anarchy among good people and totalitariaism among good people, which would be the better choice?
In this small community, for example, among good people, we generally police ourselves. (Keep our lawns neat and trimmed, pick up garbage along the road side, help out neighbors in need, walk the streets at night to ensure that vandals are not at play, and so forth.)
When others join the community and disregard the established norms, incur crime, we set up a policing agency, operating at our behest, to compel compliance with the established fundamentals, the norms. The smaller the population, the easier this is accomplished. As the poulation grows, establshment of a political entity is required. You are correct. It works in the “lab.” It very rarely works in practice.
On the other hand, among good people, in the name of public good and public order, liberlism has a sweet beckoning call. Facism has a more strident call. Totalitarianism allows no such call.
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 12:38 PM
I think he is more making the point that if these guys really were anarchists, they should be on the side of self-reliance, not statism.
Sekhmet on September 8, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Ah, I didn’t catch that. Carry on.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on September 8, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Communist have truly taken over our universities, that’s not exaggeration. We need a new Joe McCarthy, and we need to treat him better this time.
Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 12:42 PM
This is not the Ann Arbor I thought I knew..
:)
DaveC on September 8, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Sekhmet on September 8, 2008 at 12:40 PM –
Yeah. What Sekhmet said. :-)
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 12:43 PM
And these are the people ‘educating’ our youth. God help us!
pannw on September 8, 2008 at 12:44 PM
And these are the people ‘educating’ our youth. God help us!
pannw on September 8, 2008 at 12:44 PM
God is not allowed in academia.
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Not according to Encarta: anarchy = chaos
When has chaos ever been a good thing?
Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM
But.. but.. but..
Just this morning Amy Goodman at ‘Democracy Now’ reported that the the ‘peaceful’ protesters at the RNCC were being unfairly treated.
Urban Infidel on September 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Grue,
Anarchy need not end up in chaos.
There’s an interesting book titled “Machinery of Freedom”.
Don’t know if such a system would work, or if it would be possible to set up, but we have all seen the flaws inherent in the current system.
MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 12:49 PM
“The worst and most likely thing we could learn now was that McCarthy was right. God help us.” – D.Baker
On a large scale, it’s practically impossible. And by “large scale” I mean anything bigger than County lines.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on September 8, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I think the links have been removed from the article to their website.
bloggless on September 8, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM –
Chaos – a state of things in which chance is supreme; confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms.
In the Beginning…
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM
My, my, domestic anarchists with to much time on their hands, and being paid by taxpayers monies. I say, hunt them down, jail and/or fire them. Get them off the public payrolls, and making a living elsewhere.
byteshredder on September 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM
What you have described is not anarchy because there are rules. Consensus rules informally propagated, with the unspoken threat of enforcement by the community. You don’t mention the consequence of violating those community standards, making everything seem so tranquil.
Human nature being what it is, there will always be someone who pushes the envelope.
rockhauler on September 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Most ordinary Americans would be fired by their employers for engaging in such lawbreaking. University employees should be no different.
I just left a job in which my employer did not allow me to even write a check to a political candidate. If I had even thought about violently protesting anything I would have been fired immediately.
This is not a free speech issue.
rockmom on September 8, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Sadly we lack the power to Speak Into Being….
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on September 8, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Yeah, that was the point I was trying to get at….
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on September 8, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Oh dear
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
Date: 1539
1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder
Coldwarrior, are you suggesting the photo that leads this thread represents simple self-reliance? It is possible the young man breaking the window felt threatened by the glass in some way, or was trying to avoid a reckless driver by jumping into the store through the glass. This single photo is without context, so I concede my conclusion is formed by imperfect data; there may be other legitimate reasons why the glass needed to be broken.
BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 12:55 PM
You’re a few posts behind, Bob….
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on September 8, 2008 at 12:57 PM
There are two flavors of anarchist, anarcho-capitalist (as in David Friedman’s book above) and anarcho-socialist.
The anarcho-capitalists have no problem with private property and large business structures, so long as they are voluntary.
The anarcho-socialists believe that organizational structures must be destroyed. The problem is the only way to keep people from forming voluntary organizations is to have large power structures capable of punishing those who do. So anarch-socialism is internally contradictory.
It’s a philosophy that attracts those who like to destroy things without having to feel guilty about it. All businesses are evil. Period. Just by existing they prove this.
MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 12:57 PM
If this type of activity is allowed to go unchallenged, what happens if this type of these types of hate groups spread to other schools and becomes state sponsored terrorism. I forgot, that is what capitalism is, isn’t that their message?
volsense on September 8, 2008 at 12:59 PM
They have no idea of what “anarchism” is at all. It has been usurped to mean chaos & mayhem. To further indict their stupidity, they then claim to be “organized” – as oxymoronic as that may be.
Utter societal dross.
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 1:01 PM
I guess ALGORE the Pinhead is an anarchist. He believes there is no controlling legal authority over just about anything he likes to do.
Sporty1946 on September 8, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Maybe you should have stayed, written the check, then sued the shit out of them if they dared enforce such an unconscionable policy ;)
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Send the repair bills to the U of M Student Union
mojo on September 8, 2008 at 1:04 PM
That’s it! Enough!
I am marching straight to the campus quad where I will start a drum circle and chant!
I am college student, hear me roar!
Montana on September 8, 2008 at 1:07 PM
I’m assuming you meant a COMPANY contribution. Any job that thinks they can regulate who you write personal checks to is out of their minds.
Then again, you did say you just left….
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on September 8, 2008 at 1:07 PM
BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 12:55 PM –
No, not at all. But, I like to go to the origin of words. Anarchy…from the Greek…”having no ruler.”
[As for the Left taking over the word, we can thank Kropotkin.]
What the person in the picture is doing is antithesis. As an anarchist, in breaking the window, he is denying the right of the owner of that window having the right to own it. Thus, the owner can deny the window breaker the right to break it. Perhaps in a self-reliant way, prevent the window breaker from ever breaking another window again.
We are are getting a bit toward the angels on the head of a pin zone here…
I was merely earlier trying to make a point that the Left has stolen a word that is best placed on the far right, a natural result of the extension of conservatism and the further extension of libertarianism being carried to the fullest extreme.
And back to my original post…those on the public payroll who incite this behaviour, and the public insititutions which enable them to do so, should be held fully accountable for the costs incurred by their actions, in addition to the actual participants being held fully accountable for the specific actions.
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Agreed! I know they would be shouting, “Look, look, I’m being repressed!” But if I put on a ski mask and walk into a bank, I don’t think the security guard would wait for me to announce the robbery before acting, and he would be justified. Masked faces at protests are the first harbingers of violence.
iurockhead on September 8, 2008 at 1:08 PM
So there are two sides of anarchy? Kinda like the Force, eh? Where the Dark Side uses violence and mayhem, and respects no authority, and the Good Side takes a “Live and Let Live” approach which works as long as everyone agrees/abides/follows the rule of..uh..not bothering anyone…uh…else.
Wait….How can it be anarchy (the good kind) if there are rule(s) to follow…even the rule that says there aren’t any rules.
Circular arguments don’t go anywhere.
BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 1:08 PM
She’s a socialist lesbian. There must be something wrong with this country if we keep producing such screwed up people.
peacenprosperity on September 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Quite so. At its heart, anarchism is the nullification of ‘authority’ outside voluntary consent.
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM
BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 1:08 PM –
Now you know how I felt for an entire semester in Philosophy 456 so many years ago.
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM
You don’t need to be able to defend yourself. All you need is to be able to hire someone who will.
The Machinery of Freedom model assumes multiple “self defense” agencies. These agencies compete amongst each other for clients, just as any other service organization would. They compete on price and quality of service.
These agencies would also provide conflict resolution. Friedman envisions that these agencies would include as part of their service agreement, that their customers would agree to use one of a list of private mediators (such mediation agencies exist today) when a conflict arises, either between clients of the same agency or clients of competing agencies.
Agencies would behave like this because mediation is a lot less expensive than open warfare. (They are in business to make money after all.)
If a crime is committed, then the agencies would have detective agencies to solve the crime. When a perpetrator is identified, a trial would proceed. (My agency representing me, the accused’s agency representing him.) Once again, using private mediation services.
If a person decides not to use the mediation services offered by his agency, or refuses to abide by the decision of the mediation service, then his agency is free to regard his protection contract as being voided.
The problem of rogue defense agencies can be handled by mutual aid agreements between defense agencies. These agencies have a stake in ensuring that the defense agency market not be destroyed.
Is it perfect? No. Is what we have now perfect? No.
Is the model proposed by Friedman better than what we have now? Possibly. I’d like to see it tried out on a small scale.
These defense agencies would be very similar to our current govts. The big difference is that no agency has exclusive rights over a particular plot of land. If you think that your agency is not doing it’s job well, or is doing it inefficiently, you are free to cancel your contract and sign on with someone else, without having to move.
I’ve spent just a couple of paragraphs trying to describe what Friedman takes an entire book to cover.
MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Complete agreement. Such accountability including banishment from teaching. Where, btw, is W. Churchill nowadays (and I don’t mean Winston)?
BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 1:12 PM
She’s a socialist lesbian. There must be something wrong with this country if we keep producing such screwed up people.
peacenprosperity on September 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Mmmm, careful now, you might be leaning toward the Biden eugenics path… :-)
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Oh yeah, and she’s trying to learn arabaic. Wouldn’t it be esaier for her if she was sent to, say, saudi arabia, where she could be emersed in the language and culture? I’ll help chip in for her one way ticket.
peacenprosperity on September 8, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Stalin is grinning ear-to-ear
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 1:14 PM
That is kind of interesting. I agree it warrants some testing. I might have to read this myself.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on September 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Stalin is grinning ear-to-ear
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Wonder how many caught the deeper meaning?
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 1:16 PM
anarcy does not mean no rules. It means no government.
You don’t need government to have rules.
MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Pardon my ignorance – what book would that be? Sounds interesting.
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Grue,
As always when discussing different ways of organizing society, the toughest challenge, after deciding which new one you want, is how to get from here to there.
There are no easy answers.
MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Limey,
If my memory is correct, it’s “Machinery of Freedom” by David Friedman.
MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 1:19 PM
While I’d love to be optimistic, my cynical nature keeps popping up the response that the only real and effective way of doing so would be to start from scratch. Given the implications of that I’m not sure its the most optimum solution….
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on September 8, 2008 at 1:20 PM
Got it, thanks :)
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 1:21 PM
A true statement as long as the rules (or norms of society, if you like) are followed. What happens when the rules aren’t followed?
BobMbx on September 8, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Depends on the rules.
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Unless you were the Connecticut delegation. They were attacked with an 83 year old man knocked to the ground, his badge stolen and several delegates splashed with bleach and having to go through hazmat decontamination for 45 minutes. I’m not saying the authorities failed but it wasn’t all sweetness and light either.
jnelchef on September 8, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Grue in the Attic on September 8, 2008 at 1:20 PM –
“Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!”
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Send your sappy kid to State U, and then pay for the damages brought about by the suggestion of their professors to act like vandals.
Sounds fair to me.
I wish someone had taught me that breaking public property when some idiot Democrat gets elected releases stress and is way cool. I paid for a BA and MA, and only received a useful education.
Hening on September 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Who defends the nation? Who enforces the rules? Who collects the taxes to pay the people who enforce the rules. Who develops weapons to defend the nation. Who build roads, bridges etc? I could go on, but maybe you see my point.
All the above things would need to be accomplished by somebody and whoever does it is effectively the government whether you call them the government or not.
My friend, you have been sold a pie in the sky theory. Somebody is trying to promote the idea that Anarchy is the road to utopia. Both are leftist fantasies.
Read and study the Constitution and learn the most successful formula for free society that has yet to be devised.
Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Dear LORD there goes more soda….
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on September 8, 2008 at 1:38 PM
jnelchef on September 8, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Eh, a Code Stinko also got in the convention center. Considering what the overall plan was to disrupt and attack during the convention, the police did a fantastic job; one or two ding-dongs will always slip through the net in a venue as big as a city.
Bishop on September 8, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Here is Sundin, mixed in here somewhere:
http://www.frso.org/about/unitystatement2001.htm
http://www.antiwarcommittee.org/
She is pictured here:
http://www.cptelecom.net/mbayly/icons/faces27.jpg
SlimyBill on September 8, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Thanks for posting the link to her picture. That explains it.
Hummer53 on September 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Bishop on September 8, 2008 at 1:38 PM –
I’m still waiting for the photos of Republican extremists storming and disrupting the Dem convention.
Can’t recall any.
So, which Party actually walks the talk when it comes to basic decency?
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Isn’t this chick(?) I’ve seen driving around with a hundred bumper stickers on their car?
Oh yeah, there’s one of those in every town.
Hummer53 on September 8, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Yet to be devised ;)
You are aware that the foundations for the DoI, Constitution and BoR (especially from the anti-federalist camp) are set in the bedrock of european post-enlightenment anarchism, yes?
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 1:48 PM
“People”. There is no need for an authoritarian ‘government’ to accomplish any of these things.
In as much as the respective people involved would be ‘governing’ such developments, yes…..but most certainly not so in any general authoritarian sense.
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 1:48 PM
no
Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Perhaps the cruelest and most intellectually degrading meme I know is that which preemptively convinces people of what cannot be.
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 1:53 PM
I am disappointed in myself for thinking the same thing.
SlimyBill on September 8, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Then I suggest you study harder.
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Most people would call that “pragmatism”.
SlimyBill on September 8, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Really? Let’s say we need a new figher/bomber in order to defend from outside threats. What people do we go to in order to get that done? Who pays them, or are they expected to work for free?
Maxx on September 8, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Maxx,
apparently you did not read my post.
Nobody defends the nation, there is no nation to defend.
The defense agencies protect their clients when assaulted by outside forces.
There are no taxes, since there is no govt. If you want a defense agency to protect you, you write a check to them. Fail to send in the check, and no protection.
Who builds roads and bridges? Anyone who wants to. The only difference is they can’t use the power of govt to force someone to sell at a tiny fraction of market price.
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
What MarkTheGreat said ;)
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 2:01 PM
90% of what the govt does is not supported anywhere in the constitution.
If Obama wins, then it will be safe to say that the American experiment in self rule has failed.
MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 2:01 PM
May god save us from ‘most people’ then ;)
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM
LimeyGeek on September 8, 2008 at 1:48 PM –
+1
A most salient point.
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 2:02 PM
If a defense agency believes that a fighter/bomber is required, they can buy one.
MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 2:03 PM
It’s pragmatic to give up without trying?
MarkTheGreat on September 8, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Amen to that. :-)
SlimyBill on September 8, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Would the Valley of Atlantis from the book, ‘Atlas Shrugs’ be considered anarchy? in the purest sense of the word..
DaveC on September 8, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Agency…an important concept.
Agency is a person or thing through which power is exerted or an end is achieved.
Thus, if individuals acting together to achieve an end, for example putting out house fires, that agency is a fire department. If that same community wishes to defend itself from outside threats, than a protection agency, an army, for example, is established. Both can be voluntary or both can be paid agencies.
As communities grow those agencies grow as well.
If the hired agency determines that a new fighter/bomber is necessary to achieve an end, protection of the people who hired them, then the people pay for that protection.
When those agencies exert power over (not for) those who hired them, the agency should no longer be paid by the people who hired them.
[Damn. Ron Paul is starting to make sense.] :-)
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 2:16 PM
DaveC on September 8, 2008 at 2:12 PM –
Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” in Rand’s Atlantis, private property is sacrosanct. One works to one’s best ability; is free to lay claim to the full benefit of all that one produces.
Justice stems from complete equality.
The equal capacity to use one’s intellect or abilities, to compete with other equals, to make the most of oneself that one is able.
This breeds a common morality. No individual has the right to lay claim to what another has earned.
All are willing traders, working as they choose and engaging voluntarily, not under the threat of compulsion.
So, yes, it would be anarchy.
coldwarrior on September 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »