Using services you are forced through violence to pay for a poser does not make, though I suspect that comment was in jest.

He's not forced to use government education through force. And I doubt either he or his father pay enough to justify what he gets.

So yes. You're a poser. And I'd imagine most self-described anarchists are posers as well. There might be a few that walk the walk, but only a few.

You hate organized governments, but you willingly use what they have to offer.

Yep. Hypocrite. Poser. Any other words that would describe somebody who talks the talk, but has issues walking it.

Assuming an anarchist wants to live a life free of arbitrary imrisonment and/or social exclusion, there really is no choice but to accept some of the institutions and decrees of the ruling State.

That being said, I do not find that criticising government and desiring a more representative and less violent or heirarchal form of human organisation constitues 'being a poser'.

If you call Israel out for it's war crimes, and then fail to get over there and stop them from committing them, does that make you a poser?

I see no reason why arguments about why aspects governments are negative or unecessary become invalid unless you extricate yourself from the system entirely. This is simply a sneaky version of an ad homenim. :)

Aside from protesting, one cannot do much about any war crimes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

However, I've pointed out a way he can show that he does not want the government services in a particular way. He CAN do this. According to his self-professed political beliefs, he should do this. Its not even that hard to educate yourself in an alternative way.... if he's interested in doing more than talking.

If he was interested in reform from within, then you might have a point. But he's said before that "I do not recognize the Constitution, so I'm not bound by it"(paraphrased).

On a lighter note, the kid is 15. Its not shocking that his rhetoric is more radical than his actions. But I would be irresponsible if I didn't at least try to help educate the kid, either. Even if my methods of education are a bit brutal. :)

Well, your methods of education seem to be continued expressions of blustering angry bewilderment and haugty belittlement, so I would hesitate to call them 'methods'. ^^

But on a practical note... the *only* way to see less government in a responsible fashion is reform it from within. There is no point in extricating yourself completely and living alone as a hermit. Play by the rules that you see as benign, avoid supporting the worst abuses, but keep trying to educate and reform one step at a time. This is my mantra. :)

So... I really don't see an anarchist who went to public school or uses the bus as selling out and illegitimate in their criticisms of Statist violence, coercion, and silly nonsense. Sorry.

I'm only going off of what he said. He said that he sees the law as completely non-applicable to him, because he didn't agree to it, as well as saying that he doesn't want the government to provide any services.

While conceding that some services are provided without any choice on his part, he does willingly use some services.

Thus, he contradicts himself.

In any case, this original discussion was about Prop 8. And I'd be willing to make the assertion that a kid that claims the law has no hold on him because he didn't agree to it has no legitimate opinion on the pro or con side of that particular court case.

I still disagree that there is a contradiction, but I see your point about the silliness of CMs actions as an individual.

But Jack,

Claiming that the law has no hold on you, while it is possibly unjustifiable and rather naive, does not make one an unhuman blob whose commentary ought to be disregarded.

If you claim that God has no hold over you does that mean your criticisms or interpretations of scripture are somehow less valid than those of Bob the religious fundamentalist? No, it damn well does not.

What matters is the merit of the argument, not the merit of the individual making them. I still don't see why you remain oblivious to the ad hominem nature of your statement.

@Jack:"While conceding that some services are provided without any choice on his part, he does willingly use some services." Please tell me what services I willingly use. Education? My life will be screwed if I don't get it. So please, tell me what services I willingly use.

"There might be a few that walk the walk, but only a few." You know how I'm going to walk the walk? When I'm an adult and out of college, I'm going to try to start an anarchist community. I think that would definitely be walking the walk.

@FS:"Assuming an anarchist wants to live a life free of arbitrary imrisonment and/or social exclusion, there really is no choice but to accept some of the institutions and decrees of the ruling State. That being said, I do not find that criticising government and desiring a more representative and less violent or heirarchal form of human organisation constitues 'being a poser'." FS +1

"Claiming that the law has no hold on you, while it is possibly unjustifiable and rather naive, does not make one an unhuman blob whose commentary ought to be disregarded. If you claim that God has no hold over you does that mean your criticisms or interpretations of scripture are somehow less valid than those of Bob the religious fundamentalist? No, it damn well does not." FS +1 again.

@CM - Do you have a driver's license or take public transit? Buy a bicycle. It needs neither a license nor uses the public transit services. That's one. Education? Get home schooled or got to a private school that doesn't receive tax dollars. That's two.

Bicycle's are great. I love mine and she loves me back. We go everwhere together.

Now if only we could get married...

Actually, and I cringe saying this, but of all the nonsense CM has spewed into these forms, this time, he's correct.

He should not be criticized for taking advantage of the benefits of a capitalist society if his end goal is to start an anarchic(?) society. In reality, a child should not be expected to be able to start a society from scratch. He needs to get an education and have to time to find followers. That's the smart way of doing things. Now, if 30 years from now, he's still arguing on forums about capitalism and has none nothing, he can be called a hypocrite and hack.

@Draug: I don't know how to ride a bike. I suppose I could learn though. However, they are much slower than cars. I want fast transportation. The government has a monopoly on allowing that. Just because I get a liscense doesn't make me a hypocrite. (It's not really using a service anyway)

"I don't know how to ride a bike."

No wonder you are so messed up in the head! Just kidding...sort of

Your not really using a service when you get a license... The money from your license and your annual plate fees goes to pay for the road maintenance, a service. Epic fail, CM.

"I don't know how to ride a bike."

It all makes sense now...

@Draug: And I will pay for that service through the license. That's what they get for their service. The license itself is not a service.

Roads are... or you think they just pop around from nothing? :)

@CM

I have a serious suggestion for you:

Get off the computer, go to one of your friend's houses and learn how to ride a bike. It's not good for a kid your age to spend all his time on the Internet being knocked around by people 2-3 times your age. Go outside and have some fun.

The maintenance of roads *is* a service, however CM.

Personally I think government does a shoddy job of it, but the road system we have today is to a large degree singlehandedly a result of State power.

The clever anarchist must:
A) Argue against the the necessity of such a massive road system.
or
B) Provide an alternative mechanism to constructing such a large infrastructural project for such a large group of people.

Such is the case for a lot of 'goods' provided by the state. But you are smart kid, I know you can do it! :D

Every time you renew your plates you are paying for the service. Every time you renew your license you are payign for the service. Just because you don't pay for it at the time you receive it, doesn't mean you aren't paying for it. And every time you drive the care with that license and those tags, you are using that service.

*car

"Roads are... or you think they just pop around from nothing?" Why can't somebody else provide them? Like companies?

@FS: The above is the answer to B, by the way.

"Why can't somebody else provide them? Like companies?"

We've already answered this question. The most successful companies would be able to take advantage of the system, only building roads that suite them, crushing all competition. Do you really want the wealthiest company dictating where you're able to travel?

I give up. CM is too dense to see that the government sets the standards for what makes a lane 8 feet wide and determines what makes a car road legal and the cost of maintaining these roads would either bankrupt the local companies for their local roads or raise the cost of goods so high that we the people couldn't afford them. Also, who becomes responsible for the interstate system? You know, that system the feds put together that connects East Coast to West Coast and Maine to Texas to Washington state to Florida to Michigan to... No company, not even microsoft, could afford the maintenance on those roads so you would find interstate commerce via trucks screech to a halt. Then there is the air and rail systems. The airlines are already going bankrupt and you want them to take over security and ATC? The rail industry relies on the feds to get them the right of ways they need when they lay track down. Without government stepping in, the railways would never have gotten interconnected (remember the "east meets west" from your history class?)

And do you really want private security (aka rent-a-cops) handling your safety with no possible redress should a rogue rent-a-cop decide to go on a rape, pillage, and plunder spree just because he has a badge and a gun?

Finally, companies are in it to make money. So putting them in charge of things that currently rely heavily on volunteers (like rural fire departments) would force them to start charging every time the fire truck left the firehouse or the paramedics transported you to the hospital, and that charge would be a lot greater than you currently pay in places where you do have to pay for it.

@Abge: Companies in my system would be much smaller, and different. Search, mutualism. And why would companies only build roads that suit them? They won't make that much money that way.

1) What would prevent them from becoming larger?

2) No, building only building roads that suit them would NOT mean that they won't make as much money. That is a direct contradiction. But, they would, for instance, not build roads to their competitors.

Roads are an expense unless you put a toll on them. Do that and individuals will all start driving off road vehicles and going cross country. There's no uniform justice system to say you can't do that because the company's laws only apply to people on their roads.

And about licenses... If you don't have a central licensing authority, then anyone can drive a car any time they like, even if they are always drunk or 13 years old.

Or both.

"Do that and individuals will all start driving off road vehicles and going cross country"

I'd say that more people will just... stop driving, oui? ;)