Lyndsy Simon
Regular Member
Well I'm about as close to an anarchist as you can get without being one and for me, it means NO RULES. Now that's a bit too far for me as I'd prefer to not have to shoot everyone that decides they like my stuff or my girl enough to take them away from me. It would get quite tiring, isn't good for ones longevity, and I prefer a bit quieter lifestyle. So we must have some rules and a government of some sort to enforce them. A government like the one the founding fathers created could work but not the way its been bastardized over the course of time.
The definitions in the dictionary now are applicable to the use of the word now. I do get your point about how the meaning of words changes over time and I myself make the argument about the meaning of "regulated" at the time of the founding.
In regards to the current discussion, "anarchist" could be used to mean any of the current definitions or just how someone who identifies as an anarchist sees themselves. Apparently Kokesh believes in rules......his rules......and to me that's not anarchy, that's being ruled even if it is voluntary. Seems to me the founders all volunteered to abide by the rules of the Constitution (after deciding that the Articles of Confederation) weren't working out. Now if the current leadership could just abide by the rules of the Constitution, well we wouldn't be having this discussion.
We're getting off track of the discussion, but I'm curious - if the Founders voluntarily submitted to the Constitution and that gave it its authority... where exactly did it get its authority over you and I?
See also Lysander Spooner's writings on the topic of consent. It's an interesting topic even if you are a vehement opponent.