Augustine said it best, long ago: What sets a "government" apart from a common robber band is not the repudiation of violence, but the attainment of impunity. Justice being taken away, a government is nothing but a "vast robbery," as he put it.
On this theme it's useful to point out that the Second Amendment is a plenary repudiation of the idea that government has a monopoly on force or violence.
You'll all morons, the monoply on violence isnt his idea. Besides think about it...you cannot raise your own army, invade iraq on behalf of the united states. Nor can you coerce other citizens into behaving. This is the role of the state. This is the use of legitmate violence.
Is it legitimate for me to put a gun to your face and take your money because I'm going to give it to someone who needs it more?
There is no legitimate INITIATION of force. That's what the Government is. That's what the State is. A monopoly and claim to a legal right to initiate violence.
If Government is simply a group that has had certain powers delegated to it, then how can they have been delegated a power that WE DON'T HAVE?
You have much thinking to do on the nature of truth.
@Zen5012 No because thats robbery. What monopoly of the legitimate use of violence is concerned with social contract theory. We submit ourselves to the state, surrendering total freedom, the freedom of the nature state, to ensure that life will not be brutish and short because people cannot act how they please aka- killing and raping you because they please. A state cannot function without the coercive institutions to ensure the rule of law. The founding fathers were acutely aware of this
@Tris10 that is why a union was formed. They were also aware that concentrated power tended to be abused, which is why the amedments were made. There is no contradiction, you just have no f***ing clue what your talking about.
Don't reply to your own comment when telling someone they have no clue what they're talking about - it's way too funny.
The Constitution was made expressly to ensure the eventual and steady consolidation of power. If you believe the Federalists were friends, you have a LOT of studying to do.
Ah, the "Social Contract". The Statist's first resort. Check this out. I have never signed nor do I intend to ever sign a contract with any group calling themselves "Government".
There is no amorphous "Social Contract" that I am bound to simply for being born in a certain geographical location. Lysander Spooner can run you through this better than I if you take the time to read a little.
But sorry, no, that's not the way contracts, "Social" or not, work.
THE GOVERNMENT KILLS AND RAPES AT ITS PLEASURE. None of the problems you're so convinced the Government must exist to counter have been countered. THEY ALL STILL EXIST.
It's a LIE that Government is, at least, a "Necessary Evil". Law can and will exist in the absence of Government.
Tell me, is the only reason you don't rape infants because there's a law against it?
So, you may believe Hobbe's but I have actually READ his work. Let me tell you, you should really try doing so.
If you have ANY notion of Liberty and being a Free Man who no one, Government especially, has a claim to you or what you own - Hobbe's is NOT the one you need to be referencing.
Now, if you're a Statist who loves to see the Government controlling those you hate (and prays their guns won't be turned on you) then you should love him.
@Tris10 The only point worth mentioning, which i agree with, is that we never actually entered into this contact. We never had the choice at to join and live in and under the protection of or live free without it.
Your entire rant was wasted. Whilst i wouldnt rape a child there are many, that without the threat of force would. If you can point out a single modern society, non-tribal, that functions without the state feel free to do so. Then you can consider yourself vindicated.
@Zen5012@Zen5012 Read the Declaration of Independence then try deny how Locke influenced the document in any way. If you deny this then try ignore the historical accounts of Locke being blamed for the revolutionary upheavals across Europe and the United States.
You support monopolies on cars, televisions, clothes, food or any other item? Hopefully not as a TRULY free market prevents and detests monopolies. Isn't that what America is supposed to be about?
So how do you support a group of people, a mafia who calls themselves "Government", to have a monopoly of violence?
That is the Governments opinion, regardless of whatever bullshit party affiliation they join. However, isn't the 2nd Amendment SPECIFICALLY meant to prevent that?
@Zen5012 Beasuse if the government does not have the monoploy on violence every single citizen is able to pick up a gun and shoot who he or she pleaes when it pleases them. The monopoly of violence refers to the states coersive/legal instutues that enforce law and order. You already support a monopoly on violence wether you are consiously doing so or not. Without the use of legitmate violence being concentarted in a single coersive institue there is anarchy.
Once again, no, they can't. Law exists apart from Government. It is NATURAL LAW, not "Statutes", that decided Malum In Se crimes. If you don't know what that is, again, you have a LOT of studying to do.
Initiating violence will NEVER solve a problem. Show me ONE instance where it has. Hatfield's and McCoy's, Taliban and Afghanistan, Vicki Weaver and the F.B.I. - the initiation of violence only leads to hate, resentment and eventual revolution.
@Zen5012 Two things: Yes i prefer the mafia of the state as opposed to thousands of individual mafias who think because they have the most guns or power fighting each other and potentially make my life miserable.
The 2nd Amendment? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Hmm notice a few important words like "militia", "State", "rights of people"..gasp they said state and the violence
Yes, the state is certainly unique as it is the only thing that claims a legal right that no human on the planet has. They claim the right to INITIATE violence to further their means.
Once again, if Government gains its power from the consent of the governed, and its powers are those delegated from those consenting - how can they have a power that we CANNOT delegate? You know, since you can't delegate a power which you yourself don't have.
And this is the same bullshit, short sighted, unreasoned argument that every statist says.
If someone enforcing their will over you with guns is what scares you, why the hell would you make that person a fucking president?
If you actually want to have a reasoned discussion, I can explain to you why the "Wild West, Gang War, Strong Oppressing the Weak" argument is ridiculous. It'll take a little effort from you though.
@Zen5012 "If someone enforcing their will over you with guns is what scares you, why the hell would you make that person a fucking president?" -the state wont rape me, kill me, steal from me, torture me for no reason. If you topple the state then indiviudal will be free to do all of these things and many individuals will.
Now your true colours come out "do you spport gun, drug control", because if i did i would be some socalist commie wanting to take your freedoms? Well in answer to the ques
@Tris10 tion i'll say im a gun owner (.22brono, ..22savage hornet, 303.no4.mk1 sportanised, .250 wincchester and always looking to buy more) and dont care what drugs people do. Now do i support "gun control" and "drug control", frankly i dont want anybody who cares to own a gun to have one because they want one. More guns dont mean more gun deaths (look at switzerland) but there is no need for guns in highly urban enviroments. I go to farms/hunting/camping so i have a reason ala i have guns
@Tris10 your free to feel as though you need guns to protect yourself from the state but look at my context. We had no war of independece, no civil war, we have never been invaded nor declared war unilaterlly, we have never felt the need to defend ourselves from opression, nor have we had to (besdies japan in ww2) different story though. As for the WOD, waste of time and money. Legalisation is a postive thing but this does not mean a 12 yr old should be free to shoot up smack.
The point to the question is simple. If laws keep people from raping, as you stated, then they should also prevent drug use, "illegal" firearm purchases and use etc.
But they don't. Laws don't do shit. People will do what they want to do and will simply figure out ways around the laws. Prohibition of alcohol ended because people finally wised up and, when sitting in a jury, refused to convict. Jury Nullification showed the power we still possess.
Government currently exists and MILLIONS of people disobey their laws routinely. From the smallest "infraction" of going 5mph over the limit to owning machineguns without a "Tax Stamp".
People murder, rape, steal - these are Malum in Se - we all recognize they're wrong.
People speed, take drugs, don't get permits, buy booze without federal tax paid - these are Malum Prohibita - Gov. says its wrong, that's it.
Laws aren't stopping them so what exactly makes Government necessary?
@Zen5012 Compare countries with government to those with none. Somila is anarchy. Indivudals acting how they want to freely. No taxes, institutions or barely any. How is the country faring? Compared to Norwary, by all indexs how does that country perform, with is socalism and communism and all those bad things. Err its the best. Granted these are two extream exmaples and norways sucess is hard to replicate in larger populations but there is a clear corrultion between peace/government/none anrchy
Aaaaah, I was waiting for you to bring up Somalia. I'll make a bet with you right now - 100 bucks says you haven't actually researched Somalia. What'cha think?
Do me a favor - before we continue, go read Peter Leeson's paper titled "Better off Stateless". Betcha haven't heard any of this documented information on your idiot box.
Remember, when you read something, it's kind of important that you think about it and try to understand it.
And no, there is no clear corrultion[sic]. The correlations are much deeper when you try to understand history, culture, growth, homogeneity of culture, past Government actions.
You see, Somalia didn't go from a 1st World Nation to a Stateless cesspool. They were ruled and MURDERED by a vicious, bloodthirsty GOVERNMENT who drove itself into the ground much like the U.S. is doing right now.
Since the State's collapse - well, please go read the paper by Leeson.
It's a mistaken premise to believe that the elimination of government means that there will be no laws or no justice. That's an elementary position and obviously comes from simply not having thought your position out.
There are things that we all recognize are wrong and we can enforce it without giving some group of murdering, thieving, lying, manipulating war mongers the legal right to initiate force to back up their every whim.
One position is based on first principles, one is not.
@Zen5012 Yes i agree, it is a fairly basic princple not to rape, kill, steal. Many people will follow these. Many will not, the state recitifs this. Pyshcoths, egomanicas, sadists, rapists, child molesters, they fall on the otherside of the bellcurve. Not to mention other states taking advantage of stateless/military-less people.
The state does not rectify this. If they did IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN.
How, exactly, does the state rectify this? The state is in power and it still happens left and right. So people say "Let's give the tyrants with guns MORE power - THAT should work" and yet it never does.
300 years we've tried that and it keeps getting worse. When will people look around and figure out the core problem?
Really? Tell that to Vicki Weaver or the 27 children burned to death in Texas. Or the hundreds upon hundreds of children raped in Government orphanage's and state care. Tell that to EVERY AMERICAN PAYING TAXES. You realize that Government makes a claim to your BODY when they STEAL from you and call it "Taxes" right?
Your body is YOURS and your labor is a product of your body to freely contract for whatever you want.
Don't assume my intentions, just answer the question or don't.
@Zen5012 your equivquting people who work for the government or in government with government policy. There was no offical "rape children in orpahges act", as we know, people acting how they wanted to act raped those children. Not the government. Yes the roll of the state is Taxes, Defence, Infustructure...who does this remind you of, taxes are needed to pay for things.
The Government IS people. The power hungry, depraved tyrants FLOCK to the Government because THAT'S where the power is. That's the FIRST place people who want power are going to go.
Policy or not - that's entirely irrelevant and almost stupid to use as a point. When you give a group unlimited ability to initiate force there doesn't have to be a policy. They know they can do it and get away with it. THAT'S THE POINT.
@Zen5012 First i have responsed to every one of your questions. You have not to any of mine. Its getting annoying now.
1) Never did i say you cannot defend youself, nor do what you want to do with your body how you want too. Your an indivudal who is free, proud blah blah blah. For those that cannot, for those that are scared, for those that are weak the state helps them. This is not hard to understand.
Your question regarding the state of Somalia will be answered by Peter Leeson - please, read through and try to understand it.
Now, when your "Gun Control" decides how I can defend my body, yes you are telling me what to do with it. When your "Taxes" tell me that for every transaction which I exchange my labor for something that the Government has a right to a cut, you're telling me what I can do with my body.
@Zen5012 On taxes, from your own document, "It was crippled by a lack of popular support and an inability to raise tax revenues", yes evil taxes that provide servies those lack of taxes, the inability to create commerce/revune/taxes/growth leads a country to implode. Thank you for the evience i needed.
You really didn't read the damn thing. The Government was spending on their own personal growth and taxing the ever loving fuck out of the people. Yeah, there was NO popular support for that and they couldn't raise the tax revenues to fund their own personal wealth.
The Government collapsed - The PEOPLE did not. They still live and are THRIVING compared to pre-collapse.
Please, actually READ the paper and think about it.
@Zen5012@Zen5012 i read your document as quickly as a i could. It is clear that the failur to collect tax lead to state failure. It is also clear that these groups were little more than ethnic/tribal groups who were not interested in achive fair and equitable government. This is why they failed. They failed to act like a government with checks and balances.
And if you think that Somalia is thriving you are seriously deluded. It has a free market economy, yay, also ranked lowest in human indexs
Of course it's low - it has been run by a group of despots for years. You cannot look at one thing in comparison to completely different things and think that this is honest reason. It's basic logical fallacies.
You have to have a comparison point - You have to say "this is their condition relative to WHAT?"
Comparing them to the U.S. is bullshit. What you have to compare it to is their condition BEFORE the state collapse.
It is demonstrably clear that they are IMPROVING. YAY!!
You really have that low of an opinion of your friends and family that you and they won't help each other and others in need?
You see, there are a great many people looking out for each other, hospitals which are FREE and NOT funded by the Government - we look out for each other.
Quit having the Government steal over 50% plus of your wealth and just IMAGINE how much more we'll be able to help.
And please provide proof that government "assistance" helps. Poor people are still poor.
@Zen5012 Still no mention of nowwary/australia(where i live)/other welfare governments. Its funny that norway and australia, two heavily regulated countries, performed the best out of every single country during the gfc/now.
I wasnt talking about my faimly, nor friends. My family and friends are just that. People i trust. Could i defend myself from a pmc, armed to to teeth who wanted to take power for themselves? No, i leave that to the government.
I went through the Norway issue - not sure what else you want. As far as Australia, you better hope to hell that the Government gets there to "help" you pretty damn quick since you've been pretty thoroughly disarmed.
Now, if you want to go through the ridiculousness of the "PMC" (anarchists call them DRO's) taking power, please let me know. You REALLY need to learn about a Free Market to try and get any further on that issue.
@Zen5012 1) the pmc was a far out example, just as what happened in somalia, where in times of anarchy powerful groups seize power for themselves. It is what happens. These powerful groups are laws unto themsevles with no capacity for justice besdies how they feel they should hand it out. There is no legal recourse, you are at the mercy of trayants who you cannot vote for.
If you think that poweful groups do exploit power vaccums you are serioulsy navie.
Again, no. If you have actually RESEARCHED Somalia, you'll realize that the claim of "warlords" controlling different areas is complete bullshit. Look at the number of murders since the collapse of the state.
You are seriously NOT thinking shit through. The Government is able to run and control a huge force because it FORCIBLY steals money from you.
Do you realize the infrastructure needed for these groups? Honestly, this is a huge topic that deserves an in depth conversation.
@Zen5012 Lets conecdee that the murder rate decreases, frankly i dont care, i havnt seen those stats. How can you account for Ethopia having to wage war against Islamic extreamists? Is is because the anarchic somila is incapable of doing it themselves because they dont have a government? Or otherwise.
You need to read that paper more carefully. Also, the references should be read. That's how you go through an academic paper.
Or Somalia is growing, getting stronger and better everyday - every single index except for 2 have grown exponentially since the collapse of the State.
War is the province of the State. It wants to protect its "interests". Self Defense is an entirely different subject. The State loves war - People hate it.
@Zen5012 People dont hate war when Islamic militants are estabshing religious law and performing acts of terrorism and state actors eradicate them. This is a good thing.
@Zen5012 I didnt say be scared. Its a bad idea to make shit up when you read 1 paragraph before and see the lie. Nor did i say they are a big threat, i even discussed it before. Insane religious people that attempt to murder people at the interntional level being destroyed is a good thing.
Oh, and you are at the mercy of tyrants who have claimed the LEGAL right to do what they wish to you if you simply say "no".
Honestly, if you think "voting" does a damn thing then the claim of naivety is perhaps aimed the wrong way.
The U.S. has been voting for nearly 300 years and the Government has been taken the same exact course the entire time. Government has been growing and Liberty has been dying.
@Zen5012 1) Stop defecting (by deflecting im clearly vindicated that in a power vaccum, other brutal groups emerge) 2) Your wrong, a government cannot do as it pleases to me, you have rights and legal recourse! Its not perfect but ill take government of a mob of machete wielding bozos anyday.
I can agree that voting is seemingly pointless and we are disslusioned with our role in demoncracy and governments have tended to expand in scope and size.
Yes, they can. If Government passes a "Law" (Actually a statute) and you disagree with it, they can go so far as murdering you because you say "no".
Sorry champ, they can do as they damn well please.
Now, aside from that, bureaucracy is intentionally designed to shield Government Actors from liability. Hell, most of the statutes passed in the U.S. include direct immunity to agents. They are ABOVE the law.
Try telling a SWAT team about your legal recourse, let me know how it goes.
@Zen5012 according to you, sure dissent has lead people to be executed, do you think i advocate this? Its no different if you disagree with a powerful tribe/milita in times of anarhcy.
And abuses of power disgust me, these are the lower points of the state.
And for fucks sake - all voting does is let you pick your master. A slave being able to pick the man who whips the shit out him doesn't mean he's free. It's a farm, you are the livestock and the Government is the farmer.
You are a free range tax asset used to secure Government debt. The fiat currency in your pocket is a debt instrument backed by the promise of YOUR future labor.
And no, I'm not deflecting. Don't take your misunderstanding and try to use it as a debate point.
If you want to have the "Warlords are gonna rule us" discussion, let me know. I am MORE than happy to have it but there is a LOT to go through and, honestly without any insult, you have a LOT that you need to learn before the conversation can actually get anywhere.
Without a legal requirement to support a gang, where are the maintenance men, hangars, fuel, ammo etc. gonna come from?
@Zen5012 im not misunderstanding you accuse me of navity but refuse to ackonlegde that powerful groups will exploit the power vaccum to ascend for their own personal gain.
Question that could end this all: Will powerful groups seek to dominate others in a power vaccum? Thats all you need to answer. Even your own somilia report says that powerful milita groups emerged to create a new balance of power.
Oh for fucks sake. Honestly, you're not reading what I'm telling you.
You want the stupid, insipid childlike idiotic explanation instead of the big boy discussion? Yes, people will try to gain power without a state. However, they will not be able to in a truly FREE MARKET environment.
The point is, evil, sadistic and power hungry people will ALWAYS exist - regardless of the existence of the State. That's exactly why you don't make them a god damn PRESIDENT.
@Zen5012 Well i dont choose a president, we dont have one. As people people not gaining power because of a free market that is totally unsubstainited idealism.
Prove it. If people are free to sell or deny their fuel, their maintenance work, their storage areas, their training staff, their logistical personnel, their transportation systems - they would NEVER actively support someone who will use it to do them harm.
Honestly, this is much deeper than you may be able to comprehend. Do you grasp the vast logistical nightmare that maintaining a large offensive force presents? Have you ever been responsible for management of anything like that?
Oh, that's right, they'll just "take it". They'll be able to constantly and without failure be able to acquire everything needed to keep a vast offensive control network in operation.
Seriously, that's about as stupid as just saying "God did it".
@Zen5012 If you want to think of some scenario they will come from the free market, from surplus supplies, i doesnt matter they can use sharpened sticks for all i care.
And so can you. And your friends. And your neighbors. And the people you contracted with to help defend your area. But you don't have to support those people by LAW. They must take the inherent risk with trying to take the immense resources needed to maintain their threat.
When NO ONE will deal with them because its damaging to everyone's well being then they won't have the ABILITY to dominate anyone.
This is the same stupid point every statist tries to make and its invalid.
If there are evil people in the world then the last thing you want to do is make a Government because that's where they will flock to.
If only a few people are evil and most are good, then you don't make a Government because the bad, evil lying bastards will gain control and dominate the rest.
If most everyone is evil then you don't want a Government because the few good people won't stand a chance.
If most everyone is good then you just don't NEED a Government.
@Zen5012 I do agree with you, i would prefer not to have brig brother and the politicans attached to it. But given the global world, the threat of insane individuals/groups, coutries interested in resoucres, to surrender a state and its coersive instutions would be a recipe for disaster.
There's just no logical scenario where the evil vs. good, the strong vs. the weak would benefit from a Government.
Free Markets, friends and neighbors and contractual responsibilities can provide anything at a far better quality at a far cheaper price than Government ever could because it won't be based on the use of VIOLENCE.
@Zen5012 im sure they cant, but your computer, the big house you might live in, the subrbs, big SUVS, imported goods, highways, roads, dams, bridges...they would be impossible to build/move around if governments did not exist.
Fucking prove it. Governments don't do any of that - PEOPLE do. Governments just restrict and make it more difficult.
Transportation companies operate, road construction operates, fuel refineries operate - take the Government out of the picture and they have more liberty, more money and more incentive to get even better at what they do.
Instead of constantly coming up with inane situations and demanding answers, try thinking as an entrepreneur and how you would SOLVE problems without the interference of a Government.
PEOPLE do these things - Government does not. Roads are not built by "Government", they are built by PEOPLE. Trucks, computers, dams, bridges - PEOPLE build all that.
@Zen5012 I wasnt saying we are not free to come up with soultions. The government provides services that are not profitable so society can improve. Private everything will just as corrupt as any other insution. The difference is they are not accountable, look at blackwater.
Man, Blackwater is not accountable because they are backed by THE GOVERNMENT for christ sake.
The difference between Private vs. Government is that, when the Private Companies do a poor job, are not holding up their contractual obligations or are providing substandard performance/products - YOU CAN STOP GIVING THEM MONEY.
When the Government does something, they don't have to make a profit which means there's no incentive to do better since they can just steal what they need from you!
Look, your whole deal is apparently the "warlords will take over" thing. So let's go this direction. Let's say men want power and, in the absence of the State, one group succeeds. They can now take money from you at the point of a gun, force you to abide by their will at the point of a gun and take whatever land/property they deem fit for their purposes at the point of a gun.
@Zen5012 Not a government because i never elected for them, they have no quorum, no reviews, no balance and checks, no consitution, no bill of rights, no systems of recourse, no elected individuals, what have you have described is a group of violent individuals a tribe/milita and im not part of their organistion, nor political partry, nor are they any opposing parties, nor do they have laws or guided by morals nor is this "government" serving my interest, they are violent individuals.
i rebel and form a group collective of people who oppose them, we have a war, we make a document called the delcaration of indepence against these oppresors outlining that we choose to make our own (gasp) government, having done so collaborativly over many years we then have a war of independence with a common army and now we have a government that represents us.
You are stuck, absolutely STUCK on this warlord/tribe/militia thing.
Imagine this - a true free market where security and safety are not lorded over by a dominant and hostile monopoly called the Government. Where the rules, procedures and entities are mastered by Free Market principles, where the threat of customers and investors pulling support has MASSIVELY more power than "voting" since you have NO choice to join The State or not.
A Constitution and Bill of Rights has done NOTHING to stop Government intrusion and oppression.
Checks and Balances are NON-EXISTENT. The Judges decide whether the Governments actions were "Constitutional" or not. Here's a hint - who do the judges work for? Figure that one out and you'll be on the road to truth.
Recourse? Tell the Judge about your "rights" and "recourse" when they charge you with an illegitimate "crime".
@Zen5012 Powerful groups filling power vaccums is a crazy sceniro? Well its exactlly what happen in somalia. You thought you proved something with that example? It proved shit. They have some sort of free market, they always have.
What they got when their incompetent government collapsed was violent militas/islamic extreamists. My "scenario" isnt crazy it happens. Not to mention your embarssing fail citing evil taxes yet the report clearly state lack of taxes contributed to collapse
@Tris10 its really quite pointless to argue when you say things like "A Constitution and Bill of Rights has done NOTHING to stop Government intrusion and oppression", done nothing ehy? What of the supreme court decison on firearms? Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002) Hudson v. Michigan (2006) Indianapolis v. James (2001) Dickerson v. United States (2000) Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), feel free to search for your own cases, till you acknowldge real world exmaples
The government in Somalia failed because of lack of taxes. YES. EXACTLY. ONCE THE PEOPLE REFUSE TO BE ROBBED THE GOVERNMENT WILL COLLAPSE! THAT'S THE POINT.
Their government was MURDERING PEOPLE DAILY. The people could no longer give ANYTHING to them and it collapsed. You're saying this is bad? That a genocidal regime collapsed because the people both could not and refused to comply?
Honestly you're going to say that it's a bad thing?
You should be fucking CHEERING the Somalians for NOT FUNDING MURDERERS.
Instead, you praise the state. You say that, unless the State TAKES FROM YOU WITH GUNS it will collapse so we need to make sure they KEEP TAKING FROM US WITH GUNS.
NO. LET THEM FUCKING COLLAPSE.
Any system that relies on murder and theft is NOT LEGITIMATE.
Show me a government that exists without the use of force and I'll show you a Free Market Company.
@Zen5012 bad government collapsing not bad ehy no sirrre, the tng failed because unpopular and had no taxes...i think you missed this part
Recognition of this is not to deny that Somalia could be doing much better. It clearly could. Nor is this to say that Somalia is better off stateless than it would be under any government. A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm but strong enough to support the private sector may very well do more for Somalia than statelessness
@Tris10 whats this OMG!!! "A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm" your favorite author! from the mouth of babes, from ears to whatever, read all about it...proponate of anarchy says what ive been saying all along, let me copy it once more
A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm
A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm
A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm
@Tris10 "bad government collapsing not bad ehy no sirrre, the tng failed because unpopular and had no taxes"
You'll have to explain that to me. I don't understand what the hell you're saying.
A constitutionally constrained state. With limited powers.
Seriously? Like the U.S. has? The "Constitution" keeps the State in check? Perhaps you should come over here sometime and realize that a murderous system "balancing and checking" itself is a ridiculous and illogical notion.
@Zen5012 well true to my word i read all of your document and look what i found...
A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm
I honestly don't understand your point. That someone else believes in a lie? That, after proving the collapse of a state was beneficial to the people he then reverts to the addiction of statism?
Data and opinions are two different things - learn to separate them.
@Zen5012 seriously though what is SOOOO wrong with the US right now, today, this second, what rampant abuse are you sick of, lets move on to now, to you and the US and what its doing to YOU
I am being robbed daily to fund the murder of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi Citizens.
How's that for starters?
I am robbed daily and my money is given to a private banking institution that has several orders of magnitude of control more over my government than I do.
I am harassed by LEO's daily and extorted for not having the proper licenses, permits and stamps that the Government approves of.
I am prevented from acquiring the tools I see best fit to defend my wife and I.
People who are positioned to where their free speech can actually make a difference are harassed, assaulted and murdered.
My property rights mean nothing as the Government forces me to pay rent on land that I OWN.
My property rights are being threatened because my Governor wants to build a big ass highway going from Mexico to Oklahoma. I will have my HOME STOLEN FROM ME for a fucking toll road that a Spanish Company will own.
My accumulated wealth is daily stolen through inflation.
@Zen5012 keep on posting this is good, its late where im living, so put up so more, despite the polarising effects of net speak i agree with many of these points, i guess i have more faith in my government but thats because it seems my one is more effctive and how we grow up, im sleeping now
Do you really want me to continue or does the fact that someone doesn't just roll over and say "well, murder, theft, lies, corruption and the implicit and explicit threat of lethal force is okay - guess it could be worse".
Principles are just that because you must STAND ON THEM.
Rolling over and obeying your masters because they throw you some treats and give you a comfortable little life is what a dog does.
And Somalia is not ruled by crazy militants. it simply is not - that is a lie.
Since the collapse of the state, violence, coercion and deaths have all decreased. It shows that people can run their own damn lives.
The militias are losing power daily, the market is gaining stability (without the oh so loved government) and people are getting better in every possible way.
Food, health, mortality rates - they are doing this THEMSELVES.
@Zen5012 No somalia isnt rules by militants the government drove them out, "As a truce, in March 2009, Somalia's newly established coalition government announced that it would re-implement Shari'a as the nation's official judicial system.[92] However, conflict continues in the southern and central parts of the country between government troops and extremist Islamist militants with links to al-Qaed"
Now you're starting to get to something a little more real and tangible.
The truth is that Somalia is not a true anarchy. They have remnants of many factions still vying in different sectors.
Now, the next part to that truth is to look at the progression from the collapse of the State to now.
Do some real research, don't quote hunt, and you'll find that both the power and the influence of all groups has steadily diminished because the vast majority of people aren't supporting them
Remember what we talked about earlier, that you completely ignored - The fact that to run such an oppressive regime that you are scared of (and that the Government is) requires a huge logistical support network.
When the Free Market works, it is increasingly difficult for anyone who wants to do harm to acquire the things they need. Food, vehicles, maintenance, ammo, fuel etc.
Is it that a newly forming government, trying to gain itself power, is implementing an oppressive and wholly unethical system to gain control?
Shocking that a GOVERNMENT would do such a thing.
Make you another bet right now. Those numbers that have been PROVEN, showing the increase in QOL after the state collapse - they'll go down once a centralized authority takes over.
Perhaps a brief honeymoon, like the U.S. 1950's - but it won't take long.
It relies on the initiation of violence to achieve its goals.
Or are you going to tell me that you think initiating violence is sometimes ethical, moral and just? Is that what we've come to here?
Will you admit that's your stance or will you stand on principles and say that ANY system which claims the right to initiate violence is unethical, immoral and WRONG?
Derrrr? Fuck, is this really the level that you want to go to?
@Zen5012 well you clearly didnt realise that to a muslim society sharia law might actually make sense but hey thats just me thinking what a somalian clansman/women might think!
@Zen5012 but hey thats just me thinking what a somalian clansman/women might think!but hey thats just me thinking what a somalian clansman/women might think!but hey thats just me thinking what a somalian clansman/women might think!but hey thats just me thinking what a somalian clansman/women might think!but hey thats just me thinking what a somalian clansman/women might think!
@Tris10 CLEARLY YOU MISSED THAT SENTENCE otherwise you wouldnt have just said You're sayingYou're sayingYou're sayingYou're sayingYou're sayingYou're saying over and over again
Your childish responses, attempts to use scare stories in place of reasoned arguments, inability and refusal to stand on principle even when it's hard - this is what makes a slave. Not a man.
Have a pleasant evening. Dream of Liberty and let yourself think about how to gain it instead of how best to defend and protect your masters.
@Zen5012 Scare stories? Name one. Stand on princple? Name one where i foldedit. Reasoned arguments? Id say about 30 emails worth. Protect my masters? Im not their slave, listen you fucking cunt i read your 30 page bullshit thing, ive done a lot more of your then you did for it. I made points you ignored them. Im not 100% pro state, i just dont want to rely on crazy hicks with spam and min14s when another countries army invades mine.
Scare Stories - Oh, warlords and militias will take over.
That's a scare story. It's not based on any reasoned argument.
If you agree that the initiation of violence is WRONG then you must STAND ON THAT PRINCIPLE. If you say that, well, it's wrong but it's okay if it means the Government will do things for me - that's folding your principles.
You are their slave. They have claimed a right to take what is rightfully yours. If you do not resist, you are agreeing with them.
@Zen5012 "hi, warlords and militias will take over" THATS a hypothetical WHICH YOUR OWN FUCKING THESIS proved to be TRUE "At the moment at least, it seems that in upsetting this delicate balance of power the attempted
reestablishment of government in Somalia is likely to lead to more conflict and obstacles to progress rather than less", YOU SAID the governemt failed because it was unpopular THEN WHAT happens, WARLORDS and MILITA takeover, its right in YOUR OWN THESIS, its WHAT HAPPENS
@Tris10 POWERFUL GROUPS FILLED THE VACCUM and made a NEW BALANCE OF POWER and now people have to pay tribute to them, EVERYTHING I SAID WOULD HAPPEN you gave me evidence of
The situation in Somalia is its own character. Under the state, the militia groups already existed. Many were simply enforcement arms OF the state. They didn't arise from nothing to fill a vacuum, they already existed.
Now, what you're missing is this important statement - "the attempted reestablishment of government in Somalia"
The problem is arising from some attempting to reinstate what the people previously refused.
Now, does it mean its impossible? Certainly not. But like I said earlier, what you would end up with is just another Government. Why not take the fucking chance to BE FREE?
You see, they are scare stories. Same as when someone who "isn't 100% pro-state" says to a Statist - we shouldn't have x-program. Statist replies - oh, but poor people will die in the street.
It's a scare story. There are plenty of alternate scenarios to reason through but, when you don't, it's a scare story.
@Zen5012@Zen5012 a) it doesnt matter when they existed before after otherwise b) no one group has emerged because there has been constant fighting, many groups held power, many groups lost it, there is a basic government and a coliation of flaky militas, AGAGIN FUCKING AGAIN you misquote me and make up lies
"POWERFUL GROUPS FILLED THE VACCUM and made a NEW BALANCE OF POWER"
Thats what i said, never a "sieze of power" just a balance because there is anarchy, you lie yet again, so many lies
If you agree with the initiation of violence, and therefore agree with the State, then you must agree with robbery, extortion etc.
Thank You. Resolution is a beautiful thing.
Either you are an ethical and moral person who opposes the initiation of violence in whatever form or you are an immoral and unethical person who believes that everyone should be able to enforce their own will at the point of a gun.
Either way, Government cannot be allowed because of practical or moral reasons.
Incidentally, there's about as many damns and levees on the Mississippi River that are PRIVATELY owned, constructed and maintained as there are Government ones built by the Army Corps of Engineers.
After Hurricane Katrina, the ones that broke and flooded New Orleans were the GOVERNMENT levees.
a) I don't understand, there seems to be some words missing
b) Scandinavian Socialism is such a deep subject that your one line item does not do it justice. Strict immigration control, an extremely homogeneous culture, years of individuality and neutrality, - there's a great many issues to it if you actually want to go deeper into it
c)Aah, a valid question. Running outta space so the next comment will address.
c) here's the point - others who "need/want services" can get them without The State. Simply because they need/want something does NOT mean that ANYONE has the right to STEAL it from me or anyone else at the point of a gun. Now does it? The poor man who robs from you at the point of a gun is still guilty of a Malum In Se crime regardless of needing it or not.
Now, why do you think that "services" are the domain of ONLY the State? We can't/won't help each other?
@Zen5012 I dont think servies are the domain of the state, nor if we were statless neglect to help each other but a state brings stablilty to ensure those services exist. Servies such as ambulences, hospitals, infustrcutre, defence. Services that would be unprofitable/to large for indivudals to provide. This is mostly why states become states, to streamline/unify people/technology/militaries
@Zen5012 So much instablility? Well not really. Terrorism undermines the state, it doesnt usally created state collapse. Armed conflict has decline since the end of the cold war, ethnic conflict has declined or has been around since the cold war, there are not many if any emerging conflicts that have not been around before. Terrorism is acutally declcining, terrorism against the west is increasing. Besdies a few critical states like pakistan many governments are very stable, though the GFC
Really, Iceland, Greece, U.S., China - Governments are collapsing left and right because they have pushed the false bubbles of prosperity through DEBT.
A person can seem very rich and as if they're doing quite well when they're living on Credit Cards. However, the bill must come do and that is exactly what you're seeing right now.
People are the collateral for this fiat currency - people are COLLATERAL. What do you think Social Security is?
@Zen5012 Iceland/Greece economies might have collapsed, the governments did not. China is growing at over 10% p/a and the US looks to be slowly recovering. We can talk about long term but you said they collapsed, when they clearly didnt.
Collapsing. You have to look at the man behind the curtain. When the economy collapse's - it means the Government collapsed. You have stated that the Government is there because they provide stability for the people.
Fact of the matter is - they don't. It might look like it short term but, again, the credit card example comes to play. Short term doesn't tell you anything, you MUST understand the nature under the situation and the inevitable results.
@Zen5012 Well err nothings pefect, there are said intentions and then what happens. Your speaking in monoliths. My government provided me with the greatest economic stablity in the world, statisticlly proven, because our banks are regulated. Greeces did not. I flourished whilst they floundered, both times governments could be credited and blamed.
China is almost entirely tied to the U.S. consumer base. They are scrambling to get out of their IMMENSE holdings of T-Bonds.
They're coming to realize those debt instruments don't mean shit. They have a very serious situation ahead of them.
And please, if you think the U.S. is recovering then you really don't understand shit about reality. The Presidential Working Group on the Markets might make it seem like we're getting a little better but the TRUTH, well that's different.
@Zen5012 Yes they have serious problems, yes they are getting out of holdings, yes they want yes they want to sell bonds but they havent collaped, they are growing at 10% you said they collapsed. They havent.
Their growth, just as ours, is false. It is fake. It is artificial. You can put out a series of calls for long positions on a stock and make it temporarily rise. You can also do the same with a short position. Manipulation is rampant when a group has the legal right to do so.
Look at Greece's numbers up until the collapse. They did everything they could to artificially reinflate the bubble. Argentina did the same thing in around 1999/2000.
And if you're stuck on my using the wrong suffix, then so be it. They haven't collapsed. However, I understand that it is INEVITABLE.
Mathematically, fiat currencies will ALWAYS collapse. They have to. When interest is calculated onto an amount of created money, from the FIRST DAY it is mathematically impossible to pay off that debt.
If you want to go deeper into that conversation, if you want to get some more understanding about that, let me know. I can help you a lot.
@Zen5012 most civilisation collapse, has always happened and will continue to do so. The question still reamins. Will powerful groups seek to dominate others in a power vaccum? Yes or no.
It is not - it's the stupid invalid point you've decided is the crux of your debate and I've already answered it.
Will people seek power - yes. Will they be able to - no. Because the innate interdependence of a free market economy makes it absolutely preposterous to think that anyone would actively help or support a group that seeks to dominate.
It is unguided statist addiction to think that the Government is the only thing keeping roving mad max gangs from ruling the world.
If you need me to explain what the Working Group on the Markets is (AKA Plunge Protection Team) just let me know.
J.P. Morgan was just PROVEN to be directly and seriously manipulating and controlling the commodity futures market. The CFTC is doing everything in their power to avoid having to deal with this.
WC Heraeus has discovered tungsten plated with Gold when assaying Gold Transfers for foreign Governments. India just bought 200 metric tonnes.
And yes, if you believe that you or anyone else should have the ability to determine what I do with my body or how I protect it - you are definitely trying to take away my freedoms.
By definition you are. What exactly is the problem with understanding that? When you try and limit the freedom of a human being you are therefore trying to limit their freedoms. Pretty simple to understand really.
Plain and simple, if you say you are against the initiation of force then there's no way you can ever say there should be a government without admitting that you're willing to ignore your principles and do what you, mistakenly, think is easier.
Yes, of course they did. Because The State is violence. It's no big secret. This video is just a figurehead saying it plainly and simply - finally.
Quick question - do you support gun control or drug laws? Honest question.
@Tris10 And where did i say i supported a monoploy on tvs/cars/clothes i dont know what the f**k your talking about and i never said anything about consumer goods
You see, that was a QUESTION I asked whether you did or didn't. If you do not, I am curious why you oppose a monopoly on THOSE things but support one for OTHER things. Perhaps, you oppose THOSE monopolies because they breed corruption, oppressive and controlling behavior?
Interesting - those are the common charges laid at the feet of the Monopoly you do support.
We are spreading democracy, by killing brown people in the middle east, such great logic of Obama, and the fucktards in the congress. Go Obama, give us a bullshit excuse for the war on imaginary terrorist, lets bomb them for your puppet masters Obama.
I for one am glad the government has the "monopoly on violence." Why? Because i can work to CHANGE my government. It may be hard and it may take generations, but at least it can be done. That's not the case with a private organization with the right to kill. The ability to shoot me and seize my property isn't something I want spread around, and certainly not to unaccountable CEO's and shareholders.
We were ruled by a monopoly on violence under Bush, but the difference is that George Bush was most likely completely ignorant of his position and the implications of his actions. Obama apparently knows that he is using violence to achieve his ends, and does it anyway. While George Bush may have been more ignorant and stupid than evil, Obama is just evil.
Augustine said it best, long ago: What sets a "government" apart from a common robber band is not the repudiation of violence, but the attainment of impunity. Justice being taken away, a government is nothing but a "vast robbery," as he put it.
On this theme it's useful to point out that the Second Amendment is a plenary repudiation of the idea that government has a monopoly on force or violence.
FreedomZealot 1 year ago
Nation states are a monopoly on violence. Obama got that right. And the voters legitimize this violence when they cast their ballots.
EndGovtTyranny 1 year ago 2
Interesting video in that Obama candidly admits what nations actually are: a monopoly on violence.
MoneyIsSilver 1 year ago 6
You'll all morons, the monoply on violence isnt his idea. Besides think about it...you cannot raise your own army, invade iraq on behalf of the united states. Nor can you coerce other citizens into behaving. This is the role of the state. This is the use of legitmate violence.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Is it legitimate for me to put a gun to your face and take your money because I'm going to give it to someone who needs it more?
There is no legitimate INITIATION of force. That's what the Government is. That's what the State is. A monopoly and claim to a legal right to initiate violence.
If Government is simply a group that has had certain powers delegated to it, then how can they have been delegated a power that WE DON'T HAVE?
You have much thinking to do on the nature of truth.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 No because thats robbery. What monopoly of the legitimate use of violence is concerned with social contract theory. We submit ourselves to the state, surrendering total freedom, the freedom of the nature state, to ensure that life will not be brutish and short because people cannot act how they please aka- killing and raping you because they please. A state cannot function without the coercive institutions to ensure the rule of law. The founding fathers were acutely aware of this
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 that is why a union was formed. They were also aware that concentrated power tended to be abused, which is why the amedments were made. There is no contradiction, you just have no f***ing clue what your talking about.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Don't reply to your own comment when telling someone they have no clue what they're talking about - it's way too funny.
The Constitution was made expressly to ensure the eventual and steady consolidation of power. If you believe the Federalists were friends, you have a LOT of studying to do.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
Ah, the "Social Contract". The Statist's first resort. Check this out. I have never signed nor do I intend to ever sign a contract with any group calling themselves "Government".
There is no amorphous "Social Contract" that I am bound to simply for being born in a certain geographical location. Lysander Spooner can run you through this better than I if you take the time to read a little.
But sorry, no, that's not the way contracts, "Social" or not, work.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
It's only robbery because they people doing it haven't called themselves a "Government".
Work with me, take the blinders off. Government is just humans wearing costumes and writing down words - nothing else. Actions are what matter.
Taking a gun and threatening to murder someone if they don't turn over money to you is ROBBERY - No matter WHO does it.
Again, the "Founders" believed in delegated authorities. However, if I do not have an authority then it cannot be delegated.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
THE GOVERNMENT KILLS AND RAPES AT ITS PLEASURE. None of the problems you're so convinced the Government must exist to counter have been countered. THEY ALL STILL EXIST.
It's a LIE that Government is, at least, a "Necessary Evil". Law can and will exist in the absence of Government.
Tell me, is the only reason you don't rape infants because there's a law against it?
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
So, you may believe Hobbe's but I have actually READ his work. Let me tell you, you should really try doing so.
If you have ANY notion of Liberty and being a Free Man who no one, Government especially, has a claim to you or what you own - Hobbe's is NOT the one you need to be referencing.
Now, if you're a Statist who loves to see the Government controlling those you hate (and prays their guns won't be turned on you) then you should love him.
From your comments, I see which is true.
Zen5012 1 year ago
Comment removed
Tris10 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tris10 The only point worth mentioning, which i agree with, is that we never actually entered into this contact. We never had the choice at to join and live in and under the protection of or live free without it.
Your entire rant was wasted. Whilst i wouldnt rape a child there are many, that without the threat of force would. If you can point out a single modern society, non-tribal, that functions without the state feel free to do so. Then you can consider yourself vindicated.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Zen5012 @Zen5012 Read the Declaration of Independence then try deny how Locke influenced the document in any way. If you deny this then try ignore the historical accounts of Locke being blamed for the revolutionary upheavals across Europe and the United States.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Who brought up Locke? Of course Locke influenced the Declaration. What's your point?
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
You support monopolies on cars, televisions, clothes, food or any other item? Hopefully not as a TRULY free market prevents and detests monopolies. Isn't that what America is supposed to be about?
So how do you support a group of people, a mafia who calls themselves "Government", to have a monopoly of violence?
That is the Governments opinion, regardless of whatever bullshit party affiliation they join. However, isn't the 2nd Amendment SPECIFICALLY meant to prevent that?
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 Beasuse if the government does not have the monoploy on violence every single citizen is able to pick up a gun and shoot who he or she pleaes when it pleases them. The monopoly of violence refers to the states coersive/legal instutues that enforce law and order. You already support a monopoly on violence wether you are consiously doing so or not. Without the use of legitmate violence being concentarted in a single coersive institue there is anarchy.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Once again, no, they can't. Law exists apart from Government. It is NATURAL LAW, not "Statutes", that decided Malum In Se crimes. If you don't know what that is, again, you have a LOT of studying to do.
Initiating violence will NEVER solve a problem. Show me ONE instance where it has. Hatfield's and McCoy's, Taliban and Afghanistan, Vicki Weaver and the F.B.I. - the initiation of violence only leads to hate, resentment and eventual revolution.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 Two things: Yes i prefer the mafia of the state as opposed to thousands of individual mafias who think because they have the most guns or power fighting each other and potentially make my life miserable.
The 2nd Amendment? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Hmm notice a few important words like "militia", "State", "rights of people"..gasp they said state and the violence
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 that is needed to protect the state because this is what makes the state a unique instution.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Yes, the state is certainly unique as it is the only thing that claims a legal right that no human on the planet has. They claim the right to INITIATE violence to further their means.
Once again, if Government gains its power from the consent of the governed, and its powers are those delegated from those consenting - how can they have a power that we CANNOT delegate? You know, since you can't delegate a power which you yourself don't have.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
Don't even get started on Delegata Potesta Non Potest Delegari.
That one was blown away in 1913.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
And this is the same bullshit, short sighted, unreasoned argument that every statist says.
If someone enforcing their will over you with guns is what scares you, why the hell would you make that person a fucking president?
If you actually want to have a reasoned discussion, I can explain to you why the "Wild West, Gang War, Strong Oppressing the Weak" argument is ridiculous. It'll take a little effort from you though.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 "If someone enforcing their will over you with guns is what scares you, why the hell would you make that person a fucking president?" -the state wont rape me, kill me, steal from me, torture me for no reason. If you topple the state then indiviudal will be free to do all of these things and many individuals will.
Now your true colours come out "do you spport gun, drug control", because if i did i would be some socalist commie wanting to take your freedoms? Well in answer to the ques
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 tion i'll say im a gun owner (.22brono, ..22savage hornet, 303.no4.mk1 sportanised, .250 wincchester and always looking to buy more) and dont care what drugs people do. Now do i support "gun control" and "drug control", frankly i dont want anybody who cares to own a gun to have one because they want one. More guns dont mean more gun deaths (look at switzerland) but there is no need for guns in highly urban enviroments. I go to farms/hunting/camping so i have a reason ala i have guns
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 your free to feel as though you need guns to protect yourself from the state but look at my context. We had no war of independece, no civil war, we have never been invaded nor declared war unilaterlly, we have never felt the need to defend ourselves from opression, nor have we had to (besdies japan in ww2) different story though. As for the WOD, waste of time and money. Legalisation is a postive thing but this does not mean a 12 yr old should be free to shoot up smack.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
The point to the question is simple. If laws keep people from raping, as you stated, then they should also prevent drug use, "illegal" firearm purchases and use etc.
But they don't. Laws don't do shit. People will do what they want to do and will simply figure out ways around the laws. Prohibition of alcohol ended because people finally wised up and, when sitting in a jury, refused to convict. Jury Nullification showed the power we still possess.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
Government currently exists and MILLIONS of people disobey their laws routinely. From the smallest "infraction" of going 5mph over the limit to owning machineguns without a "Tax Stamp".
People murder, rape, steal - these are Malum in Se - we all recognize they're wrong.
People speed, take drugs, don't get permits, buy booze without federal tax paid - these are Malum Prohibita - Gov. says its wrong, that's it.
Laws aren't stopping them so what exactly makes Government necessary?
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 Compare countries with government to those with none. Somila is anarchy. Indivudals acting how they want to freely. No taxes, institutions or barely any. How is the country faring? Compared to Norwary, by all indexs how does that country perform, with is socalism and communism and all those bad things. Err its the best. Granted these are two extream exmaples and norways sucess is hard to replicate in larger populations but there is a clear corrultion between peace/government/none anrchy
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Aaaaah, I was waiting for you to bring up Somalia. I'll make a bet with you right now - 100 bucks says you haven't actually researched Somalia. What'cha think?
Do me a favor - before we continue, go read Peter Leeson's paper titled "Better off Stateless". Betcha haven't heard any of this documented information on your idiot box.
Remember, when you read something, it's kind of important that you think about it and try to understand it.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
And no, there is no clear corrultion[sic]. The correlations are much deeper when you try to understand history, culture, growth, homogeneity of culture, past Government actions.
You see, Somalia didn't go from a 1st World Nation to a Stateless cesspool. They were ruled and MURDERED by a vicious, bloodthirsty GOVERNMENT who drove itself into the ground much like the U.S. is doing right now.
Since the State's collapse - well, please go read the paper by Leeson.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
It's a mistaken premise to believe that the elimination of government means that there will be no laws or no justice. That's an elementary position and obviously comes from simply not having thought your position out.
There are things that we all recognize are wrong and we can enforce it without giving some group of murdering, thieving, lying, manipulating war mongers the legal right to initiate force to back up their every whim.
One position is based on first principles, one is not.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 Yes i agree, it is a fairly basic princple not to rape, kill, steal. Many people will follow these. Many will not, the state recitifs this. Pyshcoths, egomanicas, sadists, rapists, child molesters, they fall on the otherside of the bellcurve. Not to mention other states taking advantage of stateless/military-less people.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
The state does not rectify this. If they did IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN.
How, exactly, does the state rectify this? The state is in power and it still happens left and right. So people say "Let's give the tyrants with guns MORE power - THAT should work" and yet it never does.
300 years we've tried that and it keeps getting worse. When will people look around and figure out the core problem?
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
Really? Tell that to Vicki Weaver or the 27 children burned to death in Texas. Or the hundreds upon hundreds of children raped in Government orphanage's and state care. Tell that to EVERY AMERICAN PAYING TAXES. You realize that Government makes a claim to your BODY when they STEAL from you and call it "Taxes" right?
Your body is YOURS and your labor is a product of your body to freely contract for whatever you want.
Don't assume my intentions, just answer the question or don't.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 your equivquting people who work for the government or in government with government policy. There was no offical "rape children in orpahges act", as we know, people acting how they wanted to act raped those children. Not the government. Yes the roll of the state is Taxes, Defence, Infustructure...who does this remind you of, taxes are needed to pay for things.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
The Government IS people. The power hungry, depraved tyrants FLOCK to the Government because THAT'S where the power is. That's the FIRST place people who want power are going to go.
Policy or not - that's entirely irrelevant and almost stupid to use as a point. When you give a group unlimited ability to initiate force there doesn't have to be a policy. They know they can do it and get away with it. THAT'S THE POINT.
Ask Lon Horiuchi about that.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 First i have responsed to every one of your questions. You have not to any of mine. Its getting annoying now.
1) Never did i say you cannot defend youself, nor do what you want to do with your body how you want too. Your an indivudal who is free, proud blah blah blah. For those that cannot, for those that are scared, for those that are weak the state helps them. This is not hard to understand.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Your question regarding the state of Somalia will be answered by Peter Leeson - please, read through and try to understand it.
Now, when your "Gun Control" decides how I can defend my body, yes you are telling me what to do with it. When your "Taxes" tell me that for every transaction which I exchange my labor for something that the Government has a right to a cut, you're telling me what I can do with my body.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 On taxes, from your own document, "It was crippled by a lack of popular support and an inability to raise tax revenues", yes evil taxes that provide servies those lack of taxes, the inability to create commerce/revune/taxes/growth leads a country to implode. Thank you for the evience i needed.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
You really didn't read the damn thing. The Government was spending on their own personal growth and taxing the ever loving fuck out of the people. Yeah, there was NO popular support for that and they couldn't raise the tax revenues to fund their own personal wealth.
The Government collapsed - The PEOPLE did not. They still live and are THRIVING compared to pre-collapse.
Please, actually READ the paper and think about it.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 @Zen5012 i read your document as quickly as a i could. It is clear that the failur to collect tax lead to state failure. It is also clear that these groups were little more than ethnic/tribal groups who were not interested in achive fair and equitable government. This is why they failed. They failed to act like a government with checks and balances.
And if you think that Somalia is thriving you are seriously deluded. It has a free market economy, yay, also ranked lowest in human indexs
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Of course it's low - it has been run by a group of despots for years. You cannot look at one thing in comparison to completely different things and think that this is honest reason. It's basic logical fallacies.
You have to have a comparison point - You have to say "this is their condition relative to WHAT?"
Comparing them to the U.S. is bullshit. What you have to compare it to is their condition BEFORE the state collapse.
It is demonstrably clear that they are IMPROVING. YAY!!
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
You really have that low of an opinion of your friends and family that you and they won't help each other and others in need?
You see, there are a great many people looking out for each other, hospitals which are FREE and NOT funded by the Government - we look out for each other.
Quit having the Government steal over 50% plus of your wealth and just IMAGINE how much more we'll be able to help.
And please provide proof that government "assistance" helps. Poor people are still poor.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 Still no mention of nowwary/australia(where i live)/other welfare governments. Its funny that norway and australia, two heavily regulated countries, performed the best out of every single country during the gfc/now.
I wasnt talking about my faimly, nor friends. My family and friends are just that. People i trust. Could i defend myself from a pmc, armed to to teeth who wanted to take power for themselves? No, i leave that to the government.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
And when it's the Government doing it? What then?
I went through the Norway issue - not sure what else you want. As far as Australia, you better hope to hell that the Government gets there to "help" you pretty damn quick since you've been pretty thoroughly disarmed.
Now, if you want to go through the ridiculousness of the "PMC" (anarchists call them DRO's) taking power, please let me know. You REALLY need to learn about a Free Market to try and get any further on that issue.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 1) the pmc was a far out example, just as what happened in somalia, where in times of anarchy powerful groups seize power for themselves. It is what happens. These powerful groups are laws unto themsevles with no capacity for justice besdies how they feel they should hand it out. There is no legal recourse, you are at the mercy of trayants who you cannot vote for.
If you think that poweful groups do exploit power vaccums you are serioulsy navie.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Again, no. If you have actually RESEARCHED Somalia, you'll realize that the claim of "warlords" controlling different areas is complete bullshit. Look at the number of murders since the collapse of the state.
You are seriously NOT thinking shit through. The Government is able to run and control a huge force because it FORCIBLY steals money from you.
Do you realize the infrastructure needed for these groups? Honestly, this is a huge topic that deserves an in depth conversation.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 Lets conecdee that the murder rate decreases, frankly i dont care, i havnt seen those stats. How can you account for Ethopia having to wage war against Islamic extreamists? Is is because the anarchic somila is incapable of doing it themselves because they dont have a government? Or otherwise.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 (government providing the military)
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
You need to read that paper more carefully. Also, the references should be read. That's how you go through an academic paper.
Or Somalia is growing, getting stronger and better everyday - every single index except for 2 have grown exponentially since the collapse of the State.
War is the province of the State. It wants to protect its "interests". Self Defense is an entirely different subject. The State loves war - People hate it.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 People dont hate war when Islamic militants are estabshing religious law and performing acts of terrorism and state actors eradicate them. This is a good thing.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Oh good, another person telling me to be scared of the brown people.
Governments are DIRECTLY responsible for the murders of over 500 MILLION human beings in the last century. GOVERNMENTS are responsible.
Frankly, the brown people who worship a different god are not the biggest threat.
Betcha money that the Government sure as hell wants you to think so.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 I didnt say be scared. Its a bad idea to make shit up when you read 1 paragraph before and see the lie. Nor did i say they are a big threat, i even discussed it before. Insane religious people that attempt to murder people at the interntional level being destroyed is a good thing.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Oh, and you are at the mercy of tyrants who have claimed the LEGAL right to do what they wish to you if you simply say "no".
Honestly, if you think "voting" does a damn thing then the claim of naivety is perhaps aimed the wrong way.
The U.S. has been voting for nearly 300 years and the Government has been taken the same exact course the entire time. Government has been growing and Liberty has been dying.
That's the nature of Government.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 1) Stop defecting (by deflecting im clearly vindicated that in a power vaccum, other brutal groups emerge) 2) Your wrong, a government cannot do as it pleases to me, you have rights and legal recourse! Its not perfect but ill take government of a mob of machete wielding bozos anyday.
I can agree that voting is seemingly pointless and we are disslusioned with our role in demoncracy and governments have tended to expand in scope and size.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 deflecting lol...not defecting
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Yes, they can. If Government passes a "Law" (Actually a statute) and you disagree with it, they can go so far as murdering you because you say "no".
Sorry champ, they can do as they damn well please.
Now, aside from that, bureaucracy is intentionally designed to shield Government Actors from liability. Hell, most of the statutes passed in the U.S. include direct immunity to agents. They are ABOVE the law.
Try telling a SWAT team about your legal recourse, let me know how it goes.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 according to you, sure dissent has lead people to be executed, do you think i advocate this? Its no different if you disagree with a powerful tribe/milita in times of anarhcy.
And abuses of power disgust me, these are the lower points of the state.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 ccording to you, should not be there
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
And for fucks sake - all voting does is let you pick your master. A slave being able to pick the man who whips the shit out him doesn't mean he's free. It's a farm, you are the livestock and the Government is the farmer.
You are a free range tax asset used to secure Government debt. The fiat currency in your pocket is a debt instrument backed by the promise of YOUR future labor.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
And no, I'm not deflecting. Don't take your misunderstanding and try to use it as a debate point.
If you want to have the "Warlords are gonna rule us" discussion, let me know. I am MORE than happy to have it but there is a LOT to go through and, honestly without any insult, you have a LOT that you need to learn before the conversation can actually get anywhere.
Without a legal requirement to support a gang, where are the maintenance men, hangars, fuel, ammo etc. gonna come from?
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 im not misunderstanding you accuse me of navity but refuse to ackonlegde that powerful groups will exploit the power vaccum to ascend for their own personal gain.
Question that could end this all: Will powerful groups seek to dominate others in a power vaccum? Thats all you need to answer. Even your own somilia report says that powerful milita groups emerged to create a new balance of power.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Oh for fucks sake. Honestly, you're not reading what I'm telling you.
You want the stupid, insipid childlike idiotic explanation instead of the big boy discussion? Yes, people will try to gain power without a state. However, they will not be able to in a truly FREE MARKET environment.
The point is, evil, sadistic and power hungry people will ALWAYS exist - regardless of the existence of the State. That's exactly why you don't make them a god damn PRESIDENT.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 Well i dont choose a president, we dont have one. As people people not gaining power because of a free market that is totally unsubstainited idealism.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Prove it. If people are free to sell or deny their fuel, their maintenance work, their storage areas, their training staff, their logistical personnel, their transportation systems - they would NEVER actively support someone who will use it to do them harm.
Honestly, this is much deeper than you may be able to comprehend. Do you grasp the vast logistical nightmare that maintaining a large offensive force presents? Have you ever been responsible for management of anything like that?
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
Oh, that's right, they'll just "take it". They'll be able to constantly and without failure be able to acquire everything needed to keep a vast offensive control network in operation.
Seriously, that's about as stupid as just saying "God did it".
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 If you want to think of some scenario they will come from the free market, from surplus supplies, i doesnt matter they can use sharpened sticks for all i care.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
And so can you. And your friends. And your neighbors. And the people you contracted with to help defend your area. But you don't have to support those people by LAW. They must take the inherent risk with trying to take the immense resources needed to maintain their threat.
When NO ONE will deal with them because its damaging to everyone's well being then they won't have the ABILITY to dominate anyone.
This is the same stupid point every statist tries to make and its invalid.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
If there are evil people in the world then the last thing you want to do is make a Government because that's where they will flock to.
If only a few people are evil and most are good, then you don't make a Government because the bad, evil lying bastards will gain control and dominate the rest.
If most everyone is evil then you don't want a Government because the few good people won't stand a chance.
If most everyone is good then you just don't NEED a Government.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 I do agree with you, i would prefer not to have brig brother and the politicans attached to it. But given the global world, the threat of insane individuals/groups, coutries interested in resoucres, to surrender a state and its coersive instutions would be a recipe for disaster.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 states protect from external threats too
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
There's just no logical scenario where the evil vs. good, the strong vs. the weak would benefit from a Government.
Free Markets, friends and neighbors and contractual responsibilities can provide anything at a far better quality at a far cheaper price than Government ever could because it won't be based on the use of VIOLENCE.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 im sure they cant, but your computer, the big house you might live in, the subrbs, big SUVS, imported goods, highways, roads, dams, bridges...they would be impossible to build/move around if governments did not exist.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Fucking prove it. Governments don't do any of that - PEOPLE do. Governments just restrict and make it more difficult.
Transportation companies operate, road construction operates, fuel refineries operate - take the Government out of the picture and they have more liberty, more money and more incentive to get even better at what they do.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
Instead of constantly coming up with inane situations and demanding answers, try thinking as an entrepreneur and how you would SOLVE problems without the interference of a Government.
PEOPLE do these things - Government does not. Roads are not built by "Government", they are built by PEOPLE. Trucks, computers, dams, bridges - PEOPLE build all that.
.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 I wasnt saying we are not free to come up with soultions. The government provides services that are not profitable so society can improve. Private everything will just as corrupt as any other insution. The difference is they are not accountable, look at blackwater.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Man, Blackwater is not accountable because they are backed by THE GOVERNMENT for christ sake.
The difference between Private vs. Government is that, when the Private Companies do a poor job, are not holding up their contractual obligations or are providing substandard performance/products - YOU CAN STOP GIVING THEM MONEY.
When the Government does something, they don't have to make a profit which means there's no incentive to do better since they can just steal what they need from you!
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
Look, your whole deal is apparently the "warlords will take over" thing. So let's go this direction. Let's say men want power and, in the absence of the State, one group succeeds. They can now take money from you at the point of a gun, force you to abide by their will at the point of a gun and take whatever land/property they deem fit for their purposes at the point of a gun.
WOW! Look at that! YOU'VE GOT A GOVERNMENT!!!!
So why not take the chance to be FREE?
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 Not a government because i never elected for them, they have no quorum, no reviews, no balance and checks, no consitution, no bill of rights, no systems of recourse, no elected individuals, what have you have described is a group of violent individuals a tribe/milita and im not part of their organistion, nor political partry, nor are they any opposing parties, nor do they have laws or guided by morals nor is this "government" serving my interest, they are violent individuals.
Tris10 1 year ago
i rebel and form a group collective of people who oppose them, we have a war, we make a document called the delcaration of indepence against these oppresors outlining that we choose to make our own (gasp) government, having done so collaborativly over many years we then have a war of independence with a common army and now we have a government that represents us.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Yes, YOU made a decision for MILLIONS OF OTHERS.
By force, you imposed your will on them. That is morally and ethically wrong in ANY situation.
Please, justify your belief that imposing YOUR will at gunpoint on OTHERS is just.
You see, we have to work from First Principles - do you understand what that means? If not, let me know and I can help.
Once we do that, we can reach a position where all Freedom is respected, people are cared for by love and not by forced "contributions".
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
You are stuck, absolutely STUCK on this warlord/tribe/militia thing.
Imagine this - a true free market where security and safety are not lorded over by a dominant and hostile monopoly called the Government. Where the rules, procedures and entities are mastered by Free Market principles, where the threat of customers and investors pulling support has MASSIVELY more power than "voting" since you have NO choice to join The State or not.
This scenario is your head is ridiculous.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
A Constitution and Bill of Rights has done NOTHING to stop Government intrusion and oppression.
Checks and Balances are NON-EXISTENT. The Judges decide whether the Governments actions were "Constitutional" or not. Here's a hint - who do the judges work for? Figure that one out and you'll be on the road to truth.
Recourse? Tell the Judge about your "rights" and "recourse" when they charge you with an illegitimate "crime".
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 Powerful groups filling power vaccums is a crazy sceniro? Well its exactlly what happen in somalia. You thought you proved something with that example? It proved shit. They have some sort of free market, they always have.
What they got when their incompetent government collapsed was violent militas/islamic extreamists. My "scenario" isnt crazy it happens. Not to mention your embarssing fail citing evil taxes yet the report clearly state lack of taxes contributed to collapse
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 its really quite pointless to argue when you say things like "A Constitution and Bill of Rights has done NOTHING to stop Government intrusion and oppression", done nothing ehy? What of the supreme court decison on firearms? Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002) Hudson v. Michigan (2006) Indianapolis v. James (2001) Dickerson v. United States (2000) Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), feel free to search for your own cases, till you acknowldge real world exmaples
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 i think ill leave you dwelling in whatever bunker with cans o spam and bincos scanning for un helicopters
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
All right, I'm gonna give this one more shot.
The government in Somalia failed because of lack of taxes. YES. EXACTLY. ONCE THE PEOPLE REFUSE TO BE ROBBED THE GOVERNMENT WILL COLLAPSE! THAT'S THE POINT.
Their government was MURDERING PEOPLE DAILY. The people could no longer give ANYTHING to them and it collapsed. You're saying this is bad? That a genocidal regime collapsed because the people both could not and refused to comply?
Is that your point? Honestly?
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012
Honestly you're going to say that it's a bad thing?
You should be fucking CHEERING the Somalians for NOT FUNDING MURDERERS.
Instead, you praise the state. You say that, unless the State TAKES FROM YOU WITH GUNS it will collapse so we need to make sure they KEEP TAKING FROM US WITH GUNS.
NO. LET THEM FUCKING COLLAPSE.
Any system that relies on murder and theft is NOT LEGITIMATE.
Show me a government that exists without the use of force and I'll show you a Free Market Company.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 bad government collapsing not bad ehy no sirrre, the tng failed because unpopular and had no taxes...i think you missed this part
Recognition of this is not to deny that Somalia could be doing much better. It clearly could. Nor is this to say that Somalia is better off stateless than it would be under any government. A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm but strong enough to support the private sector may very well do more for Somalia than statelessness
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 whats this OMG!!! "A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm" your favorite author! from the mouth of babes, from ears to whatever, read all about it...proponate of anarchy says what ive been saying all along, let me copy it once more
A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm
A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm
A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 "bad government collapsing not bad ehy no sirrre, the tng failed because unpopular and had no taxes"
You'll have to explain that to me. I don't understand what the hell you're saying.
A constitutionally constrained state. With limited powers.
Seriously? Like the U.S. has? The "Constitution" keeps the State in check? Perhaps you should come over here sometime and realize that a murderous system "balancing and checking" itself is a ridiculous and illogical notion.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 well true to my word i read all of your document and look what i found...
A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm A constitutionally-constrained state with limited powers to do harm
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
I honestly don't understand your point. That someone else believes in a lie? That, after proving the collapse of a state was beneficial to the people he then reverts to the addiction of statism?
Data and opinions are two different things - learn to separate them.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 seriously though what is SOOOO wrong with the US right now, today, this second, what rampant abuse are you sick of, lets move on to now, to you and the US and what its doing to YOU
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
I am being robbed daily to fund the murder of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi Citizens.
How's that for starters?
I am robbed daily and my money is given to a private banking institution that has several orders of magnitude of control more over my government than I do.
I am harassed by LEO's daily and extorted for not having the proper licenses, permits and stamps that the Government approves of.
I am prevented from acquiring the tools I see best fit to defend my wife and I.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
People who are positioned to where their free speech can actually make a difference are harassed, assaulted and murdered.
My property rights mean nothing as the Government forces me to pay rent on land that I OWN.
My property rights are being threatened because my Governor wants to build a big ass highway going from Mexico to Oklahoma. I will have my HOME STOLEN FROM ME for a fucking toll road that a Spanish Company will own.
My accumulated wealth is daily stolen through inflation.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 keep on posting this is good, its late where im living, so put up so more, despite the polarising effects of net speak i agree with many of these points, i guess i have more faith in my government but thats because it seems my one is more effctive and how we grow up, im sleeping now
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Do you really want me to continue or does the fact that someone doesn't just roll over and say "well, murder, theft, lies, corruption and the implicit and explicit threat of lethal force is okay - guess it could be worse".
Principles are just that because you must STAND ON THEM.
Rolling over and obeying your masters because they throw you some treats and give you a comfortable little life is what a dog does.
I am a man. Not a dog.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
And Somalia is not ruled by crazy militants. it simply is not - that is a lie.
Since the collapse of the state, violence, coercion and deaths have all decreased. It shows that people can run their own damn lives.
The militias are losing power daily, the market is gaining stability (without the oh so loved government) and people are getting better in every possible way.
Food, health, mortality rates - they are doing this THEMSELVES.
Scare stories are not reasoned arguments.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 No somalia isnt rules by militants the government drove them out, "As a truce, in March 2009, Somalia's newly established coalition government announced that it would re-implement Shari'a as the nation's official judicial system.[92] However, conflict continues in the southern and central parts of the country between government troops and extremist Islamist militants with links to al-Qaed"
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Now you're starting to get to something a little more real and tangible.
The truth is that Somalia is not a true anarchy. They have remnants of many factions still vying in different sectors.
Now, the next part to that truth is to look at the progression from the collapse of the State to now.
Do some real research, don't quote hunt, and you'll find that both the power and the influence of all groups has steadily diminished because the vast majority of people aren't supporting them
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
Remember what we talked about earlier, that you completely ignored - The fact that to run such an oppressive regime that you are scared of (and that the Government is) requires a huge logistical support network.
When the Free Market works, it is increasingly difficult for anyone who wants to do harm to acquire the things they need. Food, vehicles, maintenance, ammo, fuel etc.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
But what's your point about Sharia?
Is it that a newly forming government, trying to gain itself power, is implementing an oppressive and wholly unethical system to gain control?
Shocking that a GOVERNMENT would do such a thing.
Make you another bet right now. Those numbers that have been PROVEN, showing the increase in QOL after the state collapse - they'll go down once a centralized authority takes over.
Perhaps a brief honeymoon, like the U.S. 1950's - but it won't take long.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 not about sharia its showing the government doing something BTW sharia law is not unethical to a muslim country derrrr :|
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
It is unethical.
It relies on the initiation of violence to achieve its goals.
Or are you going to tell me that you think initiating violence is sometimes ethical, moral and just? Is that what we've come to here?
Will you admit that's your stance or will you stand on principles and say that ANY system which claims the right to initiate violence is unethical, immoral and WRONG?
Derrrr? Fuck, is this really the level that you want to go to?
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 well you clearly didnt realise that to a muslim society sharia law might actually make sense but hey thats just me thinking what a somalian clansman/women might think!
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
You're saying that the subjugation, domination and dehumanization of women is just, moral and ethical?
Your saying it's okay to enslave a person so long as they don't put up a fight?
Please, clarify because it sure as hell sounds like that's your point.
"I have sworn upon the altar of god,
eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" - Jefferson, a Free Man who was lured and seduced by power.
Zen5012 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zen5012 but hey thats just me thinking what a somalian clansman/women might think!but hey thats just me thinking what a somalian clansman/women might think!but hey thats just me thinking what a somalian clansman/women might think!but hey thats just me thinking what a somalian clansman/women might think!but hey thats just me thinking what a somalian clansman/women might think!
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 CLEARLY YOU MISSED THAT SENTENCE otherwise you wouldnt have just said You're sayingYou're sayingYou're sayingYou're sayingYou're sayingYou're saying over and over again
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Your childish responses, attempts to use scare stories in place of reasoned arguments, inability and refusal to stand on principle even when it's hard - this is what makes a slave. Not a man.
Have a pleasant evening. Dream of Liberty and let yourself think about how to gain it instead of how best to defend and protect your masters.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 Scare stories? Name one. Stand on princple? Name one where i foldedit. Reasoned arguments? Id say about 30 emails worth. Protect my masters? Im not their slave, listen you fucking cunt i read your 30 page bullshit thing, ive done a lot more of your then you did for it. I made points you ignored them. Im not 100% pro state, i just dont want to rely on crazy hicks with spam and min14s when another countries army invades mine.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Scare Stories - Oh, warlords and militias will take over.
That's a scare story. It's not based on any reasoned argument.
If you agree that the initiation of violence is WRONG then you must STAND ON THAT PRINCIPLE. If you say that, well, it's wrong but it's okay if it means the Government will do things for me - that's folding your principles.
You are their slave. They have claimed a right to take what is rightfully yours. If you do not resist, you are agreeing with them.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 "hi, warlords and militias will take over" THATS a hypothetical WHICH YOUR OWN FUCKING THESIS proved to be TRUE "At the moment at least, it seems that in upsetting this delicate balance of power the attempted
reestablishment of government in Somalia is likely to lead to more conflict and obstacles to progress rather than less", YOU SAID the governemt failed because it was unpopular THEN WHAT happens, WARLORDS and MILITA takeover, its right in YOUR OWN THESIS, its WHAT HAPPENS
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 POWERFUL GROUPS FILLED THE VACCUM and made a NEW BALANCE OF POWER and now people have to pay tribute to them, EVERYTHING I SAID WOULD HAPPEN you gave me evidence of
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
You're confusing absolutes and non-absolutes.
The situation in Somalia is its own character. Under the state, the militia groups already existed. Many were simply enforcement arms OF the state. They didn't arise from nothing to fill a vacuum, they already existed.
Now, what you're missing is this important statement - "the attempted reestablishment of government in Somalia"
The problem is arising from some attempting to reinstate what the people previously refused.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10 this does not mean i support the government of somalia, i would support a JUST GOVERNMENT of somalia AND GUESS WHAT your THESIS DOES TOO
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
It's not my thesis champ. It's a viable collection of data used to support the conclusion that people are better off after the collapse of the state.
Again, learn to separate data and opinions. It's very important, especially when listening to the Government.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
And no, they didn't take over. Honestly, look deeper into the situation.
No one has "taken over". There are disparate groups that, while trying to gain ultimate control, have been UNABLE TO.
interesting, isn't it? That these "warlords/militia" were unable to just jump in and seize power?
Perhaps the point is, once given the chance, people will refuse those who attempt to subjugate them.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
Now, does it mean its impossible? Certainly not. But like I said earlier, what you would end up with is just another Government. Why not take the fucking chance to BE FREE?
You see, they are scare stories. Same as when someone who "isn't 100% pro-state" says to a Statist - we shouldn't have x-program. Statist replies - oh, but poor people will die in the street.
It's a scare story. There are plenty of alternate scenarios to reason through but, when you don't, it's a scare story.
Zen5012 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zen5012 @Zen5012 a) it doesnt matter when they existed before after otherwise b) no one group has emerged because there has been constant fighting, many groups held power, many groups lost it, there is a basic government and a coliation of flaky militas, AGAGIN FUCKING AGAIN you misquote me and make up lies
"POWERFUL GROUPS FILLED THE VACCUM and made a NEW BALANCE OF POWER"
Thats what i said, never a "sieze of power" just a balance because there is anarchy, you lie yet again, so many lies
Tris10 1 year ago 2
@Tris10 so many misquotes and lies so fucking dishonest.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Zen5012 NEVER ONCE have i ever said that the initation of violence was wrong. NEVER ONCE. Never had the chance.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
If you don't agree with it then you must disagree with the most fundamental point of The State.
Thank You. Resolution is a beautiful thing.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
If you agree with the initiation of violence, and therefore agree with the State, then you must agree with robbery, extortion etc.
Thank You. Resolution is a beautiful thing.
Either you are an ethical and moral person who opposes the initiation of violence in whatever form or you are an immoral and unethical person who believes that everyone should be able to enforce their own will at the point of a gun.
Either way, Government cannot be allowed because of practical or moral reasons.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
Problem is - the initiation of violence IS wrong. You cannot logically justify it on any grounds. I welcome the attempt though.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10 did for me* rather, i read you thesis, answered EVERY one of your questions and all i got was deflections, other tales of woe
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Incidentally, there's about as many damns and levees on the Mississippi River that are PRIVATELY owned, constructed and maintained as there are Government ones built by the Army Corps of Engineers.
After Hurricane Katrina, the ones that broke and flooded New Orleans were the GOVERNMENT levees.
Think about that for a minute.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 1) You now need to answer this given that i adress where i can your questions
a) will many people cause to others they would not have done with a state in place?
b) why are governments like norway so succesful?
c) just because you dont want the state does that mean others who need/want servies should go without?
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
a) I don't understand, there seems to be some words missing
b) Scandinavian Socialism is such a deep subject that your one line item does not do it justice. Strict immigration control, an extremely homogeneous culture, years of individuality and neutrality, - there's a great many issues to it if you actually want to go deeper into it
c)Aah, a valid question. Running outta space so the next comment will address.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
c) here's the point - others who "need/want services" can get them without The State. Simply because they need/want something does NOT mean that ANYONE has the right to STEAL it from me or anyone else at the point of a gun. Now does it? The poor man who robs from you at the point of a gun is still guilty of a Malum In Se crime regardless of needing it or not.
Now, why do you think that "services" are the domain of ONLY the State? We can't/won't help each other?
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 I dont think servies are the domain of the state, nor if we were statless neglect to help each other but a state brings stablilty to ensure those services exist. Servies such as ambulences, hospitals, infustrcutre, defence. Services that would be unprofitable/to large for indivudals to provide. This is mostly why states become states, to streamline/unify people/technology/militaries
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 SOLE domain of the state i should add
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Really? Stability? Then why so much instability in the world governments today?
Perhaps because using violence to achieve your goals will ALWAYS result in instability, hate, resistance and, eventually, revolution?
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 So much instablility? Well not really. Terrorism undermines the state, it doesnt usally created state collapse. Armed conflict has decline since the end of the cold war, ethnic conflict has declined or has been around since the cold war, there are not many if any emerging conflicts that have not been around before. Terrorism is acutally declcining, terrorism against the west is increasing. Besdies a few critical states like pakistan many governments are very stable, though the GFC
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10 has caused a few hickups
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Really, Iceland, Greece, U.S., China - Governments are collapsing left and right because they have pushed the false bubbles of prosperity through DEBT.
A person can seem very rich and as if they're doing quite well when they're living on Credit Cards. However, the bill must come do and that is exactly what you're seeing right now.
People are the collateral for this fiat currency - people are COLLATERAL. What do you think Social Security is?
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 Iceland/Greece economies might have collapsed, the governments did not. China is growing at over 10% p/a and the US looks to be slowly recovering. We can talk about long term but you said they collapsed, when they clearly didnt.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Collapsing. You have to look at the man behind the curtain. When the economy collapse's - it means the Government collapsed. You have stated that the Government is there because they provide stability for the people.
Fact of the matter is - they don't. It might look like it short term but, again, the credit card example comes to play. Short term doesn't tell you anything, you MUST understand the nature under the situation and the inevitable results.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 Well err nothings pefect, there are said intentions and then what happens. Your speaking in monoliths. My government provided me with the greatest economic stablity in the world, statisticlly proven, because our banks are regulated. Greeces did not. I flourished whilst they floundered, both times governments could be credited and blamed.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
China is almost entirely tied to the U.S. consumer base. They are scrambling to get out of their IMMENSE holdings of T-Bonds.
They're coming to realize those debt instruments don't mean shit. They have a very serious situation ahead of them.
And please, if you think the U.S. is recovering then you really don't understand shit about reality. The Presidential Working Group on the Markets might make it seem like we're getting a little better but the TRUTH, well that's different.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 Yes they have serious problems, yes they are getting out of holdings, yes they want yes they want to sell bonds but they havent collaped, they are growing at 10% you said they collapsed. They havent.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
Their growth, just as ours, is false. It is fake. It is artificial. You can put out a series of calls for long positions on a stock and make it temporarily rise. You can also do the same with a short position. Manipulation is rampant when a group has the legal right to do so.
Look at Greece's numbers up until the collapse. They did everything they could to artificially reinflate the bubble. Argentina did the same thing in around 1999/2000.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
And if you're stuck on my using the wrong suffix, then so be it. They haven't collapsed. However, I understand that it is INEVITABLE.
Mathematically, fiat currencies will ALWAYS collapse. They have to. When interest is calculated onto an amount of created money, from the FIRST DAY it is mathematically impossible to pay off that debt.
If you want to go deeper into that conversation, if you want to get some more understanding about that, let me know. I can help you a lot.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Zen5012 most civilisation collapse, has always happened and will continue to do so. The question still reamins. Will powerful groups seek to dominate others in a power vaccum? Yes or no.
This is the crux of the entire debate.
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
It is not - it's the stupid invalid point you've decided is the crux of your debate and I've already answered it.
Will people seek power - yes. Will they be able to - no. Because the innate interdependence of a free market economy makes it absolutely preposterous to think that anyone would actively help or support a group that seeks to dominate.
It is unguided statist addiction to think that the Government is the only thing keeping roving mad max gangs from ruling the world.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
If you need me to explain what the Working Group on the Markets is (AKA Plunge Protection Team) just let me know.
J.P. Morgan was just PROVEN to be directly and seriously manipulating and controlling the commodity futures market. The CFTC is doing everything in their power to avoid having to deal with this.
WC Heraeus has discovered tungsten plated with Gold when assaying Gold Transfers for foreign Governments. India just bought 200 metric tonnes.
Oh yeah, it's all recovering.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
And yes, if you believe that you or anyone else should have the ability to determine what I do with my body or how I protect it - you are definitely trying to take away my freedoms.
By definition you are. What exactly is the problem with understanding that? When you try and limit the freedom of a human being you are therefore trying to limit their freedoms. Pretty simple to understand really.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10
Plain and simple, if you say you are against the initiation of force then there's no way you can ever say there should be a government without admitting that you're willing to ignore your principles and do what you, mistakenly, think is easier.
Yes, of course they did. Because The State is violence. It's no big secret. This video is just a figurehead saying it plainly and simply - finally.
Quick question - do you support gun control or drug laws? Honest question.
Zen5012 1 year ago
@Tris10 And where did i say i supported a monoploy on tvs/cars/clothes i dont know what the f**k your talking about and i never said anything about consumer goods
Tris10 1 year ago
@Tris10
You see, that was a QUESTION I asked whether you did or didn't. If you do not, I am curious why you oppose a monopoly on THOSE things but support one for OTHER things. Perhaps, you oppose THOSE monopolies because they breed corruption, oppressive and controlling behavior?
Interesting - those are the common charges laid at the feet of the Monopoly you do support.
Zen5012 1 year ago
We are spreading democracy, by killing brown people in the middle east, such great logic of Obama, and the fucktards in the congress. Go Obama, give us a bullshit excuse for the war on imaginary terrorist, lets bomb them for your puppet masters Obama.
NWOSupporter2012 1 year ago
I for one am glad the government has the "monopoly on violence." Why? Because i can work to CHANGE my government. It may be hard and it may take generations, but at least it can be done. That's not the case with a private organization with the right to kill. The ability to shoot me and seize my property isn't something I want spread around, and certainly not to unaccountable CEO's and shareholders.
monkeyboxcomedy 1 year ago
2:00 - 2:08
What else is there to be said? we are being ruled by someone who KNOWINGLY uses the violence of the state to achieve his goals.
Shezmu 2 years ago 6
and this hasnt been happening for the last 8years with bush and dick...... At least obama will say the truth every now and then.
Popsicle22754 2 years ago
without telling you what truly matters.
ExquisiteDoom 2 years ago
We were ruled by a monopoly on violence under Bush, but the difference is that George Bush was most likely completely ignorant of his position and the implications of his actions. Obama apparently knows that he is using violence to achieve his ends, and does it anyway. While George Bush may have been more ignorant and stupid than evil, Obama is just evil.
IVoteNone 2 years ago