Enforcing nonviolent discipline in the NH liberty movement, without reducing unity

As an “individual anarchist”, I find your thoughts interesting. You said, “One of those assumptions is that [everyone] who claims to be a member of “our community” isn’t really.” It would appear to me that you are defining a term, “our community”, however, I am having a problem understanding what the difference between “our community”, which I define as a unified body of individuals to which those participating in the conversation belong to, and your definition “our community”. Could you please define your definition?

This gets further acerbated by your next sentence, “[a]nother of those assumptions is that anyone should try to “enforce” nonviolence on the members of that community.” Here your appear to redefine the word “enforce”, again without establishing any definition. So, that my meaning is not misunderstood, I define “enforce” to mean using force against another without their consent. Perhaps, there has been a misunderstanding of what has been proposed. I do not think that anyone purposes the use of force against someone whom, while speaking of committing violent acts or using violent words, and absent of any actual action beyond pontificating the contents of their bowels, is not using force against another human being.

You follow up with “[s]till a third assumption is that any of us have a right to define membership in “our” community.”, which further confuses me, as it appears to redefine the word “our” in some other definition. To be clear, “our” refers to relating to us or ourselves.

I appreciate your position in your paragraph referring to your world view. I have to argue, however, that you appear to say that you, and you alone, define you. Regardless, if I understand you correctly or not, the fact remains that no one, alone, defines anything. Human beings are after all, factually speaking, social animals. We can not exist alone, by this I mean the fact that anyone exists at all is because two humans of the female and male gender got together and engaged in an act of procreation that caused the creation of another human being. This is evidence, that at least more than one person is required to define anything, as I have been defining my perceptions of reality. Further, anyone can define and redefine words, though my experience has been that those who choose to redefine words tend to do so to take advantage of others, as you have stated in pointing out the differences in the meaning of the word “anarchist” from the anarchist view point and non-anarchist view point.

To these points, I add, people within an actual community may define that community in one sense, and those outside that community may define it another sense. Subjectively, right or wrong, the real meaning of the word community, are individuals who share something, to which both groups are also communities.

I too typed “me too” the FSP letter of intent, before I defined my values as anarchist, mind you, and since it isn’t a lawfully binding document, and since I didn’t lawfully sign a non-lawfully binding document, and I am free to exit any agreement that I later find violates my natural existence. Allow me to point out, that the “agreement”, here I define this word to mean something other than an actual agreement, included the word “government”. This word, simply put, is the compounding of “govern”, which I define to mean “to control”, and “-ment” which I define to mean “that which does”, which I further define “government” to mean “that which controls”. So, my understanding is that you “signed”(not really) an “agreement”(not really) to which you “agreed”(not really) to enter a state of being which acknowledged that there would be some form of control, and are surprised when you experience other “signers”(not really) who feel that controlling others is okay? Further, people are allowed to believe what they wish, the universe isn’t obligated to keep a straight face. If those, in the first part, who believe they belong to the true FSP run up against those who, those in the second part, believe it is them, the parties of the second part, that belong to the true FSP, who am I to quibble with insane people?

It is my hope, that those who claim to be “libertarians”, which I define as those who uphold the principles of individual liberty, which I claim includes anarchists, since libertarian ideals were first defined by anarchists before they were claimed by those who uphold the principles of individual liberty except when they mean to control others.

I don’t think you can get away from the idea of community, or any idea for that matter, in so much as such a thing being a concept and having no actual existence in reality can be escaped from. As afore mentioned, human beings are social animals, those ideas relating to social constructs, in my opinion, are hard to “get away from” once they have been spoken into “existance”(metaphorically speaking). I think, in the same way, you may define anarchism, or I may define anarchism, or someone who doesn’t “believe”(metaphorically speaking) in anarchism, the idea of anarchism, whatever form that takes, will still exist as an idea, and so to will the idea of community.

I’ve participated in Jehovah Witnesses communities, and Mormon communities and witnessed what is called “shunning” which is more like ostracism, defined as the mutual agreement of those involved to social exile and individual or group of individuals, isn’t, in my definition of the word, isn’t an attempt to control another, but rather to social acknowledge that an act by that individual was deemed outside the community’s social norms. It may have the effect of causing the individual being ostracized as if they are trying to be controlled, but it is no more different then me offering to make and sell bagels to people, and choosing to not sell them to you because you said something to me 20 years ago that I didn’t like. Am I controlling you, or am I controlling who I have a right to sell to?

You said, “I have no desire to be a member of any group that wishes to control me”, and “I am registered independent for voting purposes”, do you not find these statements oxymoronic? First you say you don’t wish to be a member of a group that wants to control you, but then you voluntarily sign up to participate in an system(otherwise defined as a group), that as part of it’s defining purpose, is to control others. “Majority rules” and “tyranny of the majority” and so forth. Don’t misunderstand me, if you choose to accept anarchist principles as fact, then violate those same principles for some perceived benefit, who am I to disagree? But, if a man believes that his life is own, and chooses to control others, it speaks to the character of the man. I don’t know you well enough to know if I like you or not.

Finally, you said “We don’t need communities. We need cooperative ventures.” Please, explain the differences between these two ideas. Maybe, I’m here to show your flaws in your reasoning, or you are here to show me mine, either way, I’m happy to have met you.

He doesn’t yet realize it, but secretly he is already in it, he just hasn’t realized or accepted it yet.

1 Like

But you see, cyberdoo, here you are stating that I am “secretly in” some community, but I “just ha[vn’t] realized or accepted it yet.”

This is speaks exactly to the point I was trying to make. I don’t even know what the rules are, of the community of which you speak, and further, I wasn’t aware that it was “Dave’s community”. True, I have followed Dave, off and on, for quite some time, even before I came to NH. But I wasn’t aware of any “community” that could be called “Dave’s” community. In your eyes, perhaps I am a member, but that’s you trying define what the community is. I’m just getting together with some folks to discuss a question of philosophy. I can leave at any time, post anything relevant to the discussion (which I indeed find interesting), and agree to abide by the rules (keep it civil, etc.). If ever I don’t abide by the rules, I cease to be part of this venture into civil philosophical discussion.

Leif, a conversation, in my understanding, is exchanging and discussing of ideas. I have attempted to engage you in conversation, however, I feel as if you desire to make statements, not have a discussion or answer questions that are put to your ideas. If that is your end, then be well, and continue. For in my view, people who wish to make statements; choose not to defend their statements when asked questions; are people who choose to waste my valuable and limited time and are not worthy of me or my efforts.

1 Like

Had to issue a new warning this week to someone… basically so far I have not had to cut anyone off or warn anyone twice. But I except that will eventually change.

1 Like

reluctantly issued a warning yesterday and expect to issue one tomorrow. Again… warnings are private and never knowingly issued twice to the same person. again, I have not had to shut anyone out yet because I haven’t spotted anyone using violent rhetoric along these lines after being warned. But once I’ve cut someone off the plan is to publicize it in some detail. So far I have not had to do that but the day is coming and it will be kinda heartbreaking. Although not really common, it seems like violent rhetoric on is becoming less rare among people I consider allies…this despite the fact that we are flush with successes over the last year. why is that?

On the other hand everyone I’ve warned has reacted positively so far and these seems to have created no enmity. It’s important that this does not take on witch hunt characteristics or degenerate into an active attack on free speech… it is , again, just a promise to passively stop assisting certain people under certain circumstances…

1 Like

also there could be a path to restoring things later … after the cut off

another warning , issued today: Sent to the LPNH by their email form.
Dear folks at the LPNH
regarding your recent twitter post about hi cap mags and congress… No it’s not exactly a war crime on your part and much less bad than the stuff any government does. But this is a warning. I’m not sure if I have already issued you one so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I haven’t and that this is the first warning. If I ever see that kind of advocacy of violent rebellion against American governments , from you again, I won’t necessarily stop being your friend. But I’ll cut you off from all the political assistance I currently provide you. Usually that assistance takes the form of calling talk radio about your
successes, activities, etc. Here’s why I issue warnings of this type:

1 Like

Twitter posts are hard to link to or copy past but the one above read:
“Why would anyone need a magazine with 30 or more rounds?”
And had a pic of the members of congress.