Hi. Welcome to the site. Please check out the About Us, and if you have a question about crime and/or punishment, perhaps look at some previous questions along those lines first.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Why don't anarchists defend the freedom of the Organic Laws for the USA, property+contract rights (and nothing more)?

–4 votes
The Organic Laws of the USA come down to "every man is a king on their own land/law of the land", aka, the common law (property + contract rights), aka, the right of a man to his labor; why don't Anarchists see this as everthing they could ever want? The USA is free of kingship/rulers foundationally, but no Anarchists aid in defending those foundations with the lawful Common Law authorities/offices/officers/courts that should exist and operate, but don't.  Everyone just started accepting the defacto rule of govts beyond their territorial jurisdiction after WWII (generally they own only tiny amounts of land, not all land within map boundaries).

Anyway,  it is 100% lawful for the landowners of any county to elect a non-employee common-law sheriff, justice-of-the-peace, and operate common-law courts to defend their soveriengty and freedom in all lands outside govt ownership (DC + territories, parks, military bases, govt-owned lands for buildings, etc).
asked Mar 7, 2015 by anonymous
I think the dots you are failing to connect are that anarchists don't advocate the use of force to gain compliance.

When you talk about property and laws you inherently reference the use of force to control others.

Every man is a king, but of a kingdom of one.
No man can force another into compliance.
That is hard to see today because the fascists are in charge.

So, the reason anarchists don't support those things is because they require that force be used to control others.
I think the dots you are failing to connect is that there is no force in the common law, that is how "outlaws" come to be, those that choose not to submit to it.

When I talk of property rights I am talking about preventing the use of force to control others.  Preventing the use of force against people and their labor, and acknowledging the right of people to defend themselves and the products of their labor.

So, I hope you try to understand better, and see that your points are based on a lack of understanding, and are just plain wrong, and completely off the mark.
"...those that choose not to submit to it."

Who is it that enforces this determination of outlawry?

Who determines who gets to be the judge and what prevents the judge from favoring her friends?

What makes it right for a person labeled as sheriff to use force to control others not party to the agreement?

By what authority do those that band together to force this on others operate?

Under an anarchic arrangement one's neighbors would come to your defense if someone attacks you, in return they expect  you to do the same for them.

A basic principle of anarchism is that an attack on one is an attack on all, as the attacker will soon enough get around to attacking everybody.

There is no need to set up hierarchies to defend anarchism, the people can/will defend themselves just fine.

3 Answers

+4 votes
Probably because there's nothing appealing about anything you just referenced at all.

I don't want to be king of anything, let alone the life that exists everywhere which apparently you think can be bought and sold through "common law (property + contract rights).

I don't care what's lawful and I don't want laws. I don't want sheriffs, I don't want courts.

I don't want the singular, boring form of life that your capitalist hell (paradise to you?) implies.
answered Mar 7, 2015 by flip (3,980 points)
Freedom and personal responsibility is not appealing?  What does that say about your preferences?

Whether or not you want to be king of anything, you ARE king of your body/mind/spirituality-or-lack-thereof, and any children you create, and any labor that you engage in.  As I stated, property is a man's labor, a place where he can exercise his labor and faculties toward the provisioning of his life and those that depend upon him.

And I am partly with you about not wanting laws/sheriffs/courts, as possibly the laws of karma/kamma are enough, but a fundamental problem with humanity is that without defense, overpopulated masses will always eventually try to plunder those that exercise due personal responsibility amidst an abundance in nature.

Capitalism is usury.  Capital is money used to invest for the purpose of making more money - THAT is capitalism, which is a plague on mankind, a "sin" warned against in every religion.  I don't support or have any regard for that at all, I don't know why you said that.  A free-market is just fine with me - the problem is that breeding masses always run themselves down into poverty and despair, and then make pleas for help, which industrialists and other plantation owners are only too happy to provide by exercising sovereignty and authority over all to extract under the name of "welfare for the poor", while profiting handsomely in the process.
"you ARE king of...any children you create"

that doesn't sound like anarchy to me...probably the furthest thing from it that i can think of.

i have no desire to relate to other people as a "king", nor do i view my "labor" as "property".
You are only stating that you prefer to not be responsible or accountable for anything that you do ... which of course, is impossible, since nature or others will hold you accountable one way or another, sooner or later.  And I am not sure how you will eat, clothe, or shelter yourself or survive in any way if everyone is free to beat you senseless and take whatver you have each time to make an attempt to provide for your sustenance.
no, i did not state that. you did.
In every sense of the word, a king is someone responsible for his own welfare and those that depend upon him within his domain, so you did say as I said in saying you would not want to be a king of anything, or even a decent father.

   1a :  a male monarch of a major territorial unit; especially :  one whose position is hereditary and who rules for life
   b :  a paramount chief
   3 : one that holds a preeminent position; especially :  a chief among competitors
how about you say what you mean, and i'll say what i mean. i have no interest in further conversation with you if you insist on speaking for me.
hey baa, just as an exercise how would you define king?
i define it as a role in feudal society, one that is not separable from the idea of god-chosen, hierarchy, etc., which seem to be antithetical to how i3rabbit is using the word.
but (in our reading group we've been listening to someone defending the idea of anarchist-monarchist, so this is the right week for this conversation) if you consider the concept that everyone is a king (as some have said that we're all gods--using symbols that have emotional resonance to remind people that we have agency), then i3rabbit could make more sense (at least on that metric).
whether it is worthwhile trying to get past the jargon is a different question, of course.

edit:
however no amount of semantic shenanigans can make appropriate the idea of being king over one's children, of course... so, my stretches are undoubtedly misplaced.
yes, i have a high sensitivity to the notion of children as property, which probably prompted my initial comment.
+4 votes
Because anarchists don't support property and contract rights. Common law is still law. How is common law protected? Who recognizes it? It all falls to the state agreeing that these claims are legitimate, which means that the tactic is acceding to state power. Contract rights equal ownership of porperty. Anarchists are opposed to the accumulation of property in the sense that common law (so far as I understand it) would protect/reinforce.

That isn't to say that some anarchists might not rely on such tactics for momentary gains or holding ground, but not a a strategy of attack. Also, While I am not 100% sure about all the nuances of what you suggest, I am pretty sure that when this has been used strategically by groups or individuals it hasn't worked out too well (refusal of taxes, asserting sovereignty over private property, etc. - see for example, Ruby Ridge).
answered Mar 7, 2015 by ingrate (21,720 points)
Well, you don't speak for all anarchists.  And no, you are wrong about the state, because you don't understand the foundations of govt in the USA, only what schools or some other things said, but you don't understand the actuality of what happened in 1776; and what happened is that previously, the King owned all land, as all other kings in history, and when he was overthrown, there was no more authority over anybody, AND THAT IS ANARCHY.  Nothing less.  The USA is already an anarchistic land.  But the govts (federal/state/municipal), post WWII, have started exercising authority beyond their territories in violation of both  law and codes (see Title 18, USC for the definition of "territorial jurisdiction", aka, law of THEIR land), while the BAR has totally usurped all judicial authority by means of fraud and deceipt - and now everyone thinks that state laws/courts/authorities are the laws/courts/authorities for all lands and all people whatsoever, which simply isn't true.  We are simply living in a state of massive brainwashing by those who aspire to total control utilizing a right-left paradigm to keep everyone believing in change, and endless organizations to provide an outlet for everyone's frustrations.

There is only the "law of the land or property that you own", or there is no law at all - after all - any other kind of law would be "law over land or property you don't own" - which is absurd and ridiculous on it's face.

The common-law evolved over 1000s years, and it recognizes contract+property rights because they are extensions of a man's labor.  If you don't like someone walking up to the results/products of your faculties+labor and destroying it all just for fun, whereafter you may possibly die from the loss, then you must admit that some extension of your body/mind is inherently and fundamentally violated under such conditions.  And if a society such at that is born, nobody will do anything, because it is all just a waste of time.  Rape and murder may as well be acceptable in such a society.  So, that is why law is limited to contracts+property, because they are extensions of our bodies/minds, and to violate those things is the same as violating our rights to our bodies/minds.

And disputes DO NOT fall to the state under the Organic Law/Common Law, they fall to a justice-of-the-peace that is not an employee of the state, but an officer of the landowners that posts a bond using his own personal money, which he forfeits upon evidence of any corruption of his office - which is not a cubicle or room in a building, but an accountable position of trust amongst the people.  And they are supported by landonwers VOLUNTARILY, to whatever extent they deem fit individually.  Same with non-employee common-law sheriffs, which exercise the authority of the justice-of-the-peace.

The common-law is recognized by all people, as there is not a single human that finds it acceptable to have their bodies/minds or products of their labor stolen or destroyed.  It's just a universal aspect of mankind.  The common-law has nothing to do with a "state", it arose out of communities of landowners to settle disputes and protect their individual sovereignty.  What you know as "state employees" are just that - and they have no jurisdiction off of State-owned lands.

I agree with a concern about accumulation of lands, but that is equally a problem with dependence and lack of personal responsibility, since one can only protect ever-increasing amounts of land and profits with ever-increasing numbers of dependents.  But it's kind of a mute point, since as things progress, without any powers of the state, such a landowner would become very vulnerable to those in his servitude and others, and he will die soon enough anyway, unlike state/corporate powers, and generational entropy would take care of such problems on its own - which is what we are sorely lacking in the current paradigm of States and corporations .. entities protected using the funds of massive theft, entities that never die.  On personal/private levels, these things never amount to much overall.

And yes about Ruby Ridge, but these things only happen because we have ALL sacrified the foundational heritage of freedom in the USA for debt enslavement out of greed, lust, and desire ... And it wouldn't take too many principled people to re-seat the dejure offices of the people under the common law to take back the power from the state that has been stolen under fraud and deception.  The only thing that would be required is to keep govt employees from exercising authority off their own lands - which is 100% lawful and doable with common-law authorities.  They could be arrested and jailed for any offences against property outside of their own land, their own territorial jurisdiction.

Addition: I want to add that even compliance is voluntary under the common-law, and nobody is forced to obey it or be punished by it, but if you choose that route, you are an "outlaw", which means that you will not be protected by it either.  So, it is all very nice and pefectly anarchistic.  All things are completely voluntary.
[edit]

'Common-Law'
Common Law is the term used for the result of a process implemented centuries ago by English magistrates to create a common set of offenses and punishments, and to record those for the magistrates that would follow them ('precedence').  These 'offences' were seperate from the codified law written by the monarch of the day, and were largely customary offences that had been observed through various epochs and tribes; (such as 'stealing sheep', or 'shitting down the village well', or...).
When 'certain people' (mis-)use the term 'common-law', they really imply 'natural justice' or 'customary customs', which are nebulous enough for their ideologues to hide out on the fringes;  but 'common-law' has a certain air of respectability about it (for the wanna-be bourgoisie(sp??)).  And so they freely admit, they don't have a fucking clue about what they're talking about.

'the king owned all the lands...'
Well, yes the kings _claimed_ to own all the lands, and generally murdered anyone who raised issue with that claim.  But in the case of the americas (and africa, and ...) their claim was to land Stolen, by force and violence, from peoples already in possession and use of said land.
Your precious 'revolution' of 1775, was never an anarchic revolt, it was a hostile takeover by upper management (concocted by a wealthy elite while their slaves sat waiting - slaves who most assuredly remained slaves after your precious revolution, and dispossessed who remained dispossessed before as well as after).  So your claim, is to one of Stolen 'property',  lands that will soon be reclaimed by their rightful* stewards; ... and then you're fucked.

[edit]

* yeah, yeah 'rights' - it was a rhetorical flourish, little more.  Though the reclaimants may have other viewpoints....


[Re-edit:  deleted the cruder and more personal portions, as they sprung from general ill-temper and little from the content of the post.  ]
I hope it is not "scrubbed", it's a good question in all respects, and I saw none like it before posting it.  I always wondered about and is the first time I asked it, and as I have stated, if you cared to read anything at all, I am not a capitalist, and have nothing to do with AnarchoCapitalism.

OK, first of all, it is clear that you know far less than I about law, something I have studied over a quarter-century.  From Bouvier's 1856:

COMMON LAW. That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the people. See Law, common.

You are as wrong as wrong can be on the history of the common law.

> by force and violence, from peoples already in possession and use of said land.

Uh no, it is not that simple, but really, this is deviating from the topic, to which I refer to my original question, which is why Anarchists are not 110% suportive of the Organic Law for the USA, and the common-law from which it is derived, because it is all 100% voluntary, and as anarchal as anarchy can be without a society of murdering/stealing/raping rampage of monkeys.

> their claim was to land Stolen, by force and violence, from peoples already in possession and use of said land.

Uh, no, it is not that simple.  Land was acquired by the US by many and various means and times, and generally, Indians died off from illness, and not wars, and having no settlements, often just moved on when problems arose.  If anyone is interested, they can check this, which is fairly brief (1-2 pages) and informative on the topic:

http://famguardian.org/publications/propertyrights/R5Conq.html

Essentially, it was a mix of Right of Conquest (arguable, because this requires systems of law to be conquered, of which the indians had none), Right of Discovery (wild land with temporary occupations), and Treaties.

> Your precious 'revolution' of 1775, was never an anarchic revolt, it was a hostile takeover by upper management (concocted by a wealthy elite while their slaves sat waiting)

Oh please, if result was no authority over anybody, self-government in the truest sense, it sure as hell was an anarchal revolution.  And please don't talk about "slavery back then" when it has never been so rampant as today.  The entire planet is enslaved, generally landless, 100% dependent upon others for their lives and those of their familes.

I feel concern because every outlet for discussion aiming toward freedom and independence is under the domination of those that seek to eliminate any last vestige of freedom and independence by putting forth views that taste like cyanide filled cupcakes.

Generally, our problem across the globe is that we are all born into debt enslavement due to economic systems founded in usury, which creates ever-increasing debts, which require ever-increasing populations to pay on them, which creates immigration by peoples that have no concept of personal sovereignty/independence, and endless dependency, poverty, and ever-decreasing abundance of natural and easily available resources, and so on ... It is a downward spiral into death and cannibalism.  And I would guess that chemtrails, in large part, are a last gasp to heat the atmosphere to increase arable land in Canada and Russia, because we are just about out, and the only way to reset the systems of usury are either find arable land to continue business as usual, or create a massive die-off the reset the system for continued "growth".

There will be no "meek" inheriting the earth, and even if they did, they are so retarded, it would not be in their benefit.  The result of that would be cannibalism on unimaginable scales.  At the core of all problems in this world are those that breed children into debt servitude - that is the beginning of the end in every way.

Just as humans have defective genes in being unable to produce vitamin C, they also have a defect in breeding at any and all time and under any and all conditions - unlike other animals at the top of the food chain which only ovulate when there is a great sense of easily available abundance in nature.
since i have no interest in playing with you, i'll add a random historical stick in the craw... (even if i may agree with some of your belated deep-green curtsies)

I would point out that one of the first things your precious washington and his precious republic did - was to call out the militia to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion, and thereby to collect taxes the bastard had no custom to, by the customs of his own people.  
(i don't really care about this argument, i just really like yelling "Whiskey -- Rebellion!" :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

[edit::  and as for 'treaties' - scraps of paper signed at gunpoint and the sharp edge of famine; treaties ignored and betrayed time and again and again, by your precious republic as it felt convenient.  You assume that the past is dead and buried;  there are many who have a deeper bond to the earth, and a more immediate claim to the land (as you may phrase it), and they are standing up to reclaim their heritage - and there are many of us, myself and my companions, who stand with them, and the resultant redistribution of possession of lands. ]
@cb: yep, this 'republic' has always had imperial designs and engaged in foreign wars since day one, before day one...and even during that great internal bloodletting of 1861-65 it didn't let up. The US is nothing but an empire of merchants.

@i18r:...gotcha you wascally i18wabbit. you stink of thinly-veiled, feebly coded, 'alt-right' white nationalist bullshit.

edited for clarity
an caps and white nationalists are free to ask questions (within some limits).
it is on us (anarchists) to argue our points coherently and clearly, not on guests to already know what we think. this is the point of this site.
while they are not especially the audience, online no one can hear you scream. i mean, while they are not especially the audience, people do change and learn.
"people do change and learn."

indeed. this is why i called out the rabbit, because i'm definitely one of those who have changed and learned, and as such, recognize the coded speech of places i visited once upon a time. but, as ba@ pointed out, this particular individual has a penchant for putting words into the mouths of even the clearest speaker. i'd simply like our rabbit to challenge my assertion or perhaps ask why i'd make it at all.

as an aside, dot, one of the things i found pernicious among those who hold to leftist values is the very notion that antithetical beliefs and values cannot be changed all the while attempting to change the world. the once-racist will always be racist, and there will always be racist things to find in them...that sort of thing. this is part of why i found the post-left critiques so important when i finally came upon them. this is why i continue reading and posting here. thanks.
thanks AF. :)
we will wait to see if this rabbit-eater has ears.
Good comment, I have posted and written about that on Reddit.com, and similar things on the AntiCivilization subreddit.  Yes, I don't disagree that Washington was a devious POS, and I don't disagree that many of the Founders were aristocratic power-hungry POS that saw the unwashed masses as something to plunder. There was a reason Patrick Henry said "I smell a rat", because after the DoI and AoC (which are great - nothing but freedom), while Jefferson was in France negotiating the Treaty of Paris, what started out with decency and honor turned into a pack of rats, as always, and there was and is a lot of political trickery and deception going on.  It should be noted that people did not consent to Washington's Whiskey Tax overall, and he ran into a lot of trouble when he sent collectors toward the Appalachian mountains.

That is always the story of mankind - always those that want others to do their work for them, and it's a never ending struggle/suffering to prevent it.

There are 4 Organic Laws:

1. DoI (the right of men to be free).
2. AoC (the establishment of a federal govt with very limited powers, and no power over the people of the USA.
3. NW Territory Ordinance (how/when States are to be created, how the US gives a State a little amount of land to profit off of, to sustain functions as independent sub-units of the federal govt).
4. Constitution (never adopted, only ratified, only for use by DC + territories in a cut+paste fashion to modify the AoC slightly, which is still in effect and in control - which is fine - it's their documents for their land).  If one looks at the Oath the president takes, they will see it is none of those in the Constitution, and there are no requirements for the President in the AoC, so ... that explains all the BS surrounding Obama - total mind control - the President before Washington was born in Scotland.  No written oaths are done by any federal employee - no correct oaths by any State employee, they just say "Oh yeah, I promise I will do this, and this, Oh yeah, just trust me, my word is good ..." but never any valid oath in writing ... for a reason.  And there is not 1 President in the Constitution, there are 3: President of the United States (federal territory), a President of the USA (secretary of state), and the Office of President.  All different ... just some tidbits to show how far we have been BS'd.  It's a mess, but it's THEIR MESS, for THEIR LAND; that is what is important.

This question was to make Anarchists aware of their lawful right to push govt employees back onto their own land, or to even arrest and jail them if they try to use force against others outside their land.  That anarchy is waiting in common-law, but the common-law offices, positions of trust and accountability, where official bonds are posted and forfeited when the trust is violated, are waiting to be filled.  They are valid and legitimate, and have the highest source of authority in all the land, but nobody is home.

The State courts are a big criminal scam - absolute immunity for judges allows them to do anything they want; violate their own laws and rules, destroy court records, audio records, evidence, etc - it is perfectly evil, perfected tyranny.

Under the Laws of Nations, under International Law, under every system of written law in effect by "civilized nations of Europe", American citizens were free and independent sovereigns, only enslaved by their own delusions, and this was stated as much by John Jay:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
2 US 419 (February 1794)
Chisholm v. Georgia
Chief Justice JAY, JOHN

'... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty ... Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.

It doesn't matter how corrupt DC+US territories and all the "political subdivisions" are, because they only have authority on their own land.  The common law is still in effect, but nobody is home, and it is 100% lawful for any community, if they can dig up the facts on the lawful procedures (which I could do), to elect a common-law sheriff, justice of the peace, and juries, and start arresting and jailing those wandering off of govt lands and onto private or public lands for purposes of violating persons and property.  A big weak-spot in their fraud, supported by THEIR laws, is territorial jurisdiction, Title 18 USC.  And what applies to the feds, applies to every sub-unit of govt (States, municipalities).

We are in anarchy if we wake up enough to smell the coffee.  Those in power recognize this, and are free to be tyrannical because there is no law against it, just as there is no law against being stupid.  Success in anarchy does require a good morality and good relationships - which is why the system has been destroying those things and fragmenting families and society - not for freedom, but to destroy freedom.
I am neither an "AnCap" nor am I a "white nationalist", just for the record.  What I am, along these lines, is simply for the understanding of the foundations of America, and the understanding that it is founded in freedom, in self-government, in anarchy ... under the common law which essentially is a voluntary system that protects property+contract rights.

That's all.

The Declaration of Independence says we are all created equal,
the Articles of Confederation say that govt must stay out of everbody's business, and after the Revolution, all the written laws say Americans are sovereigns unto themselves.
> @cb: yep, this 'republic' has always had imperial designs and engaged in foreign wars since day one, before day one...and even during that great internal bloodletting of 1861-65 it didn't let up. The US is nothing but an empire of merchants.

I don't disagree with that, but there is nothing anyone can do to control all others.  The best we can do is to learn how to best conduct our own affairs, and understand that "it's a free country", with foundations in self-government, the governing of ourselves.

Everybody has their own views, their own ideas of what is best, and that is why being a nation of independent sovereigns, living without the rule of others (Anarchy), is the best society, because it's the only way people can have the freedom to do what they think is best.  And the common-law, which is completely voluntary, is the only way to protect those doing what they think is best from the force of others.

I hope I answered you all well.  There is just a big misunderstanding of what I say because everybody has "ideas" that generally come from sources of disinformation.  I have yet to see a single thing that anyone can point to that places the common-law and Organic Laws for the USA at odds with the highest values of Anarchy.
whether you consider yourself an ancap or white nationalist or not, you share with them (at least the ones who have posted on this site) a tendency to a) rant, b) write huge blocks of text, c) insist that we accept your terminology, d) put your meanings to our words.

preachers tend to be boring.
if you can't express something that sounds like an interest in what other people think, then i will recommend that no one responds further to this thread (which might not be necessary, of course), and it can exist as one more example of rhetoric from a non-anarchist.




(also flip, if you see this, your answer doesn't count as an answer. just a reminder.)
i18r said: "There is just a big misunderstanding of what I say because everybody has "ideas" that generally come from sources of disinformation.  I have yet to see a single thing that anyone can point to that places the common-law and Organic Laws for the USA at odds with the highest values of Anarchy."

Only when anarchists are held to be separable from anarchy; when anarchy is held to be a static abstraction rather than a fluctuating living process (aka: the intellectual division between 'theory' and 'practice'); only if one removes ideas out of the conditions of actually lived history; and so on.

There is no 'disinformation' at work here that I can see, so much as there is a recognition that English 'common/organic law' evolved over a long period within very questionable conditions of power-relations* as far as anarchy and anarchists are concerned.

Here It may be added that those who appeal to the above abstractions and desire to hearken back to some version of a de-contextualized, a-historical, 'golden era' where these notions are presumed to have existed, most definitely raise the proverbial red-flags for *this* anarchist.


*(Church, 'the family,' work, imperialism, colonization, enclosure, dehumanization of others and the concomitant rise of 'whiteness' as an ideal)

edit for typo...and another
> whether you consider yourself an ancap or white nationalist or not, you share with them (at least the ones who have posted on this site) a tendency to a) rant, b) write huge blocks of text, c) insist that we accept your terminology, d) put your meanings to our words.

Ranting is generally understood to be lengthy emotional
expressions, whereas, I attempted to merely put forth information.  Sourced definitions of words have importance in meaningful communication.  Without using words well, in their commonly understood meanings, decent communication is imossible.
> Only when anarchists are held to be separable from anarchy; when anarchy is held to be a static abstraction rather than a fluctuating living process (aka: the intellectual division between 'theory' and 'practice')

That was the whole point of my question and replies:  the USA was founded as a nation of sovereigns, people without rulers, with a system of law (the common-law) for the protection of people and their property that is voluntary.  There is nothing static about it - you can't get more anarchal than that - how could you?

> only if one removes ideas out of the conditions of actually lived history; and so on.

"Conditions of actually lived history" have nothing to do with anything ... they are merely a result of people doing what people do.

> English 'common/organic law' evolved over a long period within very questionable conditions of power-relations* as far as anarchy and anarchists are concerned.

Organic Law is the fundamental written law of a nation.  In the USA, it is composed of the 4 sets of laws cited previously.  Common-law is unwritten law that is universally accepted and well-understood by all.  It doesn't really evolve, at least, not in its conservatively understood sense of protecting property+contracts.

>  Here It may be added that those who appeal to the above abstractions and desire to hearken back to some version of a de-contextualized, a-historical, 'golden era' where these notions are presumed to have existed, most definitely raise the proverbial red-flags for *this* anarchist.

I never said freedom was a golden-era, though in terms of general prosperity, in terms of general living conditions, cost and access to medicines and medical care, cost of food, clothing, shelter and general living, amounts of leisure time and required labor to sustain life, circa 1830 was the peak in the USA, and the quality of life has deteriorated overall since then in those terms.

I never would even care to say there ever was or ever will be a utopia - my replies only suggest that freedom is "as good as it gets" - and "that is what you got" ... And generally, I would add that anyone that complains about it is just someone that was bred into debt-slavery by irresponsible parents - and such is life.  It can suck ...  And that is why immoral behavior is "immoral", because it creates crappy lives.
+4 votes
Here's why this anarchist doesn't support this scheme:

1. I accept little to none of its reification: its language; morality; unspoken/unexamined presuppositions; the logic derived thereof; its intentions; its a-historical, un-lived 'theory'; as well as any attempt in imposing it all now.

2. I have no desire to police myself or others by way of its flimsy  and hypocritical moral notions, the 'universality' of which has shown time and again changeable  by those in power when convenient to them, be they called 'monarchs,' or 'property owners.' 'Rights' (and 'rights' talk) always follows might. So-called 'common law' is no different.

3. I don't give fuck one about little pieces of paper justifying this code of hammurabbit any more than I do the bible, the torah, buddha's words, thomas jefferson, blackstone, the US code, or any other. Your love of little pieces of paper betrays you in actual history, since it was your beloved US which conquered ('might') and granted 'rights' on paper to the native peoples ('forever'/ 'in perpetuity' in many cases) and then shit on them when your little  burgher-kings found it advantageous to do so...I think it now comes to about 371 times. But, please inform us of the lawful and moral intricacies of how these US laws signed by the US didn't apply to the US, even in the earliest days of your beloved US republic. Actually, don't inform us, since it's all pretty obvious (see #4).

4. I am wholly unaccountable to you or anyone else in providing a reasoned analysis *on your terms (see #1 and 2)*. I frankly find your idealistic, a-historical love of 1830s-era-USA quite nauseating given it's grounding in state coercion, genocide, colonization, imperialism, theft, hypocrisy, contradiction, metaphysical hokum, dehumanization, slavery, work, etc.

edit for ease of reading, typo and my dyslexia
answered Mar 10, 2015 by AmorFati (7,440 points)
edited Mar 10, 2015 by AmorFati
great answer, af!
i don't do facebook, but i know about the facebook "like" concept.  i wish we had a "yawn" flag for users here.
i like your answer too, AF. you put in a lot more effort than i felt willing to spend on it. it seems to me that i18rabbit doesn't really want answers to consider or exploration of a question...rather a platform to keep hammering at the "correctness" of their viewpoint.
f@ & ba@ thanks for the comments. yes, one of the most insidious aspects of approaches like hammurabbit's is the expectation, the demand even, of 'correctness.' this person put it in a nutshell: "'Conditions of actually lived history" have nothing to do with anything ," that is, if we forsake our own lived lives, and those of others, we'll reach the correct view, a view from nowhere.
f@-yes, maybe with enough 'yawns' we could put some of these questions and answers to rest...at least down for a nap.
> Here's why this anarchist doesn't support this scheme:

Well, guess what?  Under the Organic Laws for the USA and the American common-law, you are free to do as you like, and nothing you said argues anything I put forth.

In your reply:

#1 has nothing in violation of the Organic Laws for the USA, nor the American common-law.

#2 has states nothing in opposition either.

#3 has some good points, but they have nothing to do with anything except human nature.  None of what you say is argues against the fact that people are sovereign by way of the laws I put forth, or even no laws at all.  Yes, it is true that there are less than honorable people in the world, and it is equally as true that most people will side with dishonor when it benefits them, and it is equally true that the extreme ignorance of people allows criminals in high places to get away with murder; but nothing you put forth does away with any of it at all, nor does it argue against anything I put forth.

Case in point: you don't even know the difference between the US (federal territory) and the USA (all lands within America).  And it is this kind of ignorance that allows "Burger King" to roll over "native lands".

#4 is a bunch of complaints because your parents did not provide well for their children, evidently, eg, state coercion, genocide, colonization, imperialism, theft, hypocrisy, contradiction, metaphysical hokum, dehumanization, slavery, work, etc. <-- You know what this is a result of?  Wankers and whores that don't give a shit about the results of their irresponsibility.  If the morality of society demanded parents to give a damn about children, there would be none of what you cited.  Every complaint you have is a complaint about the resultant chaos of generally uneducated children that were never provided or provisioned for, and were dumped off into the hands of a state to care for - which they will gladly put to use in doing all the bad deeds you stated.

But none of this is an argument against my point that: the founding laws for the USA are 100% in support of Anarchy: the freedom to do what you want, so long as you don't come on my land and destroy the efforts of my labor, or physically attack me, in which case, you will be held accountable, law or no law.
i18, it sounds like you think none of the answers or comments written here answer your question (or at least don't provide any insight to it).

do you think someone could answer it in a way you would find helpful?

edited: for clarity
i18rabbit: you come off as a condescending, moralistic know-it-all. combining that with the fact that your espoused perspective has many points of direct conflict with any sort of anarchy i recognize as such, why are you even posting here? you can blather on all you want about how much "law" you know and how smart you are, it is of no interest whatsoever.

<yawn target="i18rabbit" />
...