My spectrum is like a piece of lint. I am somewhere near the area that the tiny piece of floorboard meets the lint, while everyone else is probably much closer together like the sheep they are. The 'distance' only exists because no one likes crowding. :]
Isn't it just really confusing two different spectrum? One was created by the French during their convention and the other by the American progressives. Two different places in history, two different concepts behind the spectrum. They're is no need to debate them as opposites.
Then, the parliaments of Europe have adopted the system of leftists sitting in the left (Socialists, Radicals, some Liberals, Communists appeared later on in the Far Left of the seating arrangement) and rightists sitting to the right (some Liberals, conservatives, reactionaries) As for the Fascists.....How can a batch of people who want to end class conflict , restore the traditions of society, are anti-egalitarian, and have conspiracy theories about Capitalist Communists are left-wingers?
Guess who supported the French Revolutionaries? Some of the founding fathers of course. The left and right spectrum was strengthened further with the 2nd French Revolution's parliament seating. The Democratic Republicans (The first Socialists), the Radical Republicans (Radicals), and the more moderate of the Republicans sitting to the Left, and the Bonapartists, Orleanists, and Legitimists sitting to the right.
Really, just fucking really. First of all, you revise the political meanings of left and right to fit your ideology. The words 'Left' and 'Right' in the political sense came from the French Revolution where the National Assembly had the Revolutionaries (With the values of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Radicals and Liberals) sitting in the left and the supporters of the Monarchy (With the values of Tradition, Order, and Authority.) sitting to the right.
ruled by law? I have never seen a law arrest anyone. There are people who claim to arrest others in name of the law, but that is what all rulers do. They do stuff in the name of the majority, in the name of god, in the name of tradition. But I have yet to see majority, tradition or god make any arrests.
The problem with this spectrum is that it doesn't point out that a democracy can be more authoritarian than a monarchy at times. What if the monarch in power is a minarchist? or a democracy where the majority are white nationalists?
I've seen this video before, and while I think it does a good job of showing how individualism is in direct opposition to collectivism, it misses the mark on how liberty is in opposition to government. It is possible to live freer under some monarchies than under some democracies, it would just depend on whether the collectivist paranoia against individual liberty is greater than the monarch's paranoia against individual liberty.
This is a great video Mike... it's a shame about the next bit, where the guy attacks anarchy and opts for not-so-ruggedly individualistic Minarchism instead.
@mudwhistle sorry mud you DONT get it. You or anyone else can't try to feel better about yourself by claiming someone else's position EG you claiming I'm right because most are left. Using that logic as a rational foundation for political beliefs equals a huge mistake. You can not tell me what I am, I really enjoy how you think your entitled enough to tell others where they stand. But again, I don't play left or right so sorry. Further, there is no one person who is LEFT or RIGHT entirely.
Sorry Mike. There is no left and right, its only a created diversion. You choose to buy into it or not. EG no is 100% left or 100% right, therefore no one is really left or right they only vote that way depending on the particular situation or vote intended. Only puppets still play left and right.
someone said "if the ultra far right opposes government control then they are anarchist, it's as simple as that." No, they are not! When they are still classist, capitalist, racist homophobic macho's, they're still authoritarian and therefore not anarchist, far from it. Anarchism is about more than being anti-state, that's why it don't fit in the most spectrum's. Libertarians are right when they oppose the state, but are fine with capitalism cause they care about property rights so much
@TheArjan1982 Property rights are the basis of self-ownership, and without self-ownership there is no freedom, so yes libertarians care about property rights. Anarchy without capitalism requires an authority to dictate who is allowed to own what, and thus is not truly anarchy. Anarcho-capitalism is the only true anarchy, and the only way in which complete liberty can be achieved.
Government has exactly one legitimate purpose and no more.
It is to keep government out of people's lives.
Rape, armed robbery, and murder are forms of government, being conned into doing a job that you didn't know was dangerous is another (OSHA), and so is parts of another persons house flying into your house in a tornado (building codes).
Nobody is free to hold their left elbow in their left hand, but if government sticks to its legitimate purpose you're as free as a person can be.
@MrShoeguy That's contradictory though, since the definition of government requires A) taxation, and B) monopoly, two things which guarantee that people's lives are going to be interfered with. If we're going to respect an individual's rights then we have to respect their right to A) keep all their property (no taxes), and B) start any business they want (no police/law monopoly), and if you allow for these two things then any statist construct remaining cannot be defined as a government.
This isn't a very good spectrum either. It's "anarchy" is miss-characterized. The "anarchy" I believe it is referring to is opposition to statism in general. A "constitutional republic" is still a fiat land claim that is not pro-liberty. If anything a "minimal" state lays the foundation for the inevitable expansion of the state. All states are left overs of our ancestors and with time the market will kill them off.
@InTheEndIWasRight what do you mean? if the ultra far right opposes government control then they are anarchist, it's as simple as that. While the the far right wingers (like me) support the minimal state for purposes of convenience, and we recognize that the price for this is a constant battle to keep the state to a certain minimum.
@kubaniski What do I mean on what part? Right and left are meaningless. Most self-described "anarchists" are perfectly fine with statism, they simply do not wish to have a political class. Anti-statism is opposed to all fiat land claims and are pro market. The conditions however that a minimal state has breed the growth of a large state because the vast amounts of capital can be "taxed" ect and there is the ideological belief in the system of the state in question, in this case a republic.
I don't believe this spectrum is accurate. I believe in the 2D spectrum... Libertarians on top, Authoritarians on bottom, Social Conservatives on the right, and Economic Liberals on the left.
Well, no, I don't like breaking it up, I'm an anarchist. However, I do think it makes sense to make sure that you see fighting between leftists and rightists because they do see a difference. Most people do not flow into the authoritarian category because they do appreciate freedom, though they see a "need" for government. So I do think that I see 4 categories... and maybe a fifth "centrist" position.
It doesn't matter though. Freedom is freedom, you have it or you don't.
@mikeshanklin didnt you already upload this? anyhow i believe i confronted some errors that eventually you gave up trying to deny...or admit. more important than more vs. less GOVT is BETTER vs. WORSE govt. also republic ruled by "law". thats an opinion not fact. all people whom arent anarchist think they are about correct laws or right etc. america was FOUNDED on STEALING all God-given resources and even people to build it up, never returning any stolen goods/services but passing it down to...
@mikeshanklin ...passing it to next of kin whom will own it/get more rich by having control. even after slavery they had prison camps. after that, great depressions and recessions. doesn't matter if the president is dam-ocrat or republic-con. anyway now the top 1% own 90% of the natural God-given resources and they chose who works and for how much; they even can control whom can get elected into office and run schools/justice/protection/all laws etc. THEN they say let's have a "FREE" market...
@mikeshanklin ...maybe if schools taught basic spiritual values and useful things based on the INDIVIDUALS needs/interests etc. and everyone had a MINIMAL amount of BASIC God-given natural resources like PROPERTY (which the republic was supposed to say but didn't) THEN maybe you could have some good free market. anyway the republic was founded on mob rule not some vague "law" where a cross that holds to weights is the dictator.
I still like your chart better than the liberal vs conservative chart.
I prefer a chart of more or less government myself, especially as it is usually the latter question of the amount of government that usually gets left out.
However, I find the right vs left claims even in this video are red herrings unnecessary at best.
So advocating any government pushes policy toward all the bad stuff? Is government a "necessary evil" unless we embrace anarchy? I'm not convinced. I think government is as natural as the right to self defense, that people have rights and that government should protect our rights. The anarchist position defaults to the first gang who doesn't play by the rules. As libertarians, we need to stop apologizing for what government should be doing, which is protecting us.
I would suggest you google anarcho-capitalism and voluntarism.
The Constitution is the reason we got to where we are today.....because government always grows into a monster, that cannot be controlled. The smallest government will always end up the largest.
@mikeshanklin I understand your position. I've been in this for decades. Bottom line is that i don't believe in what I call "mercenary government", which is where anarcho-capitalism arguments lead. There are too many intellectual flaws in the objectivist philosophy, and it is unworkable politically. The argument begins with land rights and ends with anarchism defending injustice. We can have that argument if you wish, or you can check out my website first.
@mikeshanklin Actually the Reconstruction acts destroyed the Constitution. The Radical Republicans took us from a confederated polystate to a centralized monostate. The 13th amendment is the only one we need and it itself only addresses part of the problem it leaves open voluntary servitude/slavery. Being almost universally corporate heads they had to leave that open of course.
@mikeshanklin Amendment 14 is just repeating the freedom all free men are granted by the constitution but also applying the bill of rights to the states. This amendment is the one that changed our confederation of republics. The south had to be divided up into military districts and force at gun point to accept it. Amendment 15 is unnecessary because the constitution states all free men have the right to vote. There is no distinction in the constitution between the races only free and slave.
@etzel33 Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean no order. You can have competing law firms for different regions. The land claim is what sets it apart from the rest. In Anarcho-capitalism (anarchy) all land is private. Corporate land meaning land granted to fictional entities does not exist. Only people can own land.
@Luigi84289 And how do you come to "own" land? I hereby claim the planet earth as my own. It's mine, so get off. Find your own planet. Land and natural resources aren't the "fruits of labor". It is Title, exclusive privilege granted by force. The American Indians were all over the US until they were forced off, killed, etc.. By what right? The king of England granted William Penn what is now called Pennsylvania. It wasn't his to grant. You "own" stolen property under that view.
@etzel33 Even Adam Smith, John Locke, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson recognized that land rights weren't absolute and believed that the costs of government should be drawn from the privileges to land. It's more convenient to use quotes of the Founding Fathers when the phrase suits the punditry.
Ayn Rand was mistaken in her views on land ownership.
@etzel33 Okay use rights are the only fair way. If you are using the land to sustain yourself then you own that land. As I stated previously but you must not have read you can have law. People are good. What drives people to commit crimes almost all the time is not being able to sustain themselves. Privileges are not a term you use in free societies. Those are temporary. Everyone already wants to feed everyone else look around you if we could all farm and grow our own food we'd be better off.
@etzel33 You didn't just really ask me how to get land. I'm not going to explain every little facet of that form of societal structure. If you want to learn go learn.
@Luigi84289 "You didn't just really ask me how to get land."
I'm sorry. It's been a long day and I've been arguing with neo-Confederates all day. Funny how easy it is to say a person supports the US Constitution and then freaks out about the 16th amendment. It's been a long day.
@Luigi84289 I've learned enough about Anarchism to realize that the issue of territorial ownership nullifies the argument. It's a long discussion if you want to do that here. Consider that Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and John Locke also took this view. If you want to learn go learn :)
@etzel33 The American indians were killed by the way by the United States. Normal citizens do not want to go out and kill people in stable conditions. Your version of history is just wrong. The settlers from Europe immigrated first into land that was vacant as the native americans outnumbered them. Hundreds of years later conflicts arose because of the states erections over land but it was always states not the people killing. Average citizens did not just want to go out and kill.like today.
My spectrum is like a piece of lint. I am somewhere near the area that the tiny piece of floorboard meets the lint, while everyone else is probably much closer together like the sheep they are. The 'distance' only exists because no one likes crowding. :]
Donatellangelo 7 months ago
Isn't it just really confusing two different spectrum? One was created by the French during their convention and the other by the American progressives. Two different places in history, two different concepts behind the spectrum. They're is no need to debate them as opposites.
Mortonc3 9 months ago
Then, the parliaments of Europe have adopted the system of leftists sitting in the left (Socialists, Radicals, some Liberals, Communists appeared later on in the Far Left of the seating arrangement) and rightists sitting to the right (some Liberals, conservatives, reactionaries) As for the Fascists.....How can a batch of people who want to end class conflict , restore the traditions of society, are anti-egalitarian, and have conspiracy theories about Capitalist Communists are left-wingers?
DinodudeEpic 9 months ago
Guess who supported the French Revolutionaries? Some of the founding fathers of course. The left and right spectrum was strengthened further with the 2nd French Revolution's parliament seating. The Democratic Republicans (The first Socialists), the Radical Republicans (Radicals), and the more moderate of the Republicans sitting to the Left, and the Bonapartists, Orleanists, and Legitimists sitting to the right.
DinodudeEpic 9 months ago
Really, just fucking really. First of all, you revise the political meanings of left and right to fit your ideology. The words 'Left' and 'Right' in the political sense came from the French Revolution where the National Assembly had the Revolutionaries (With the values of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. Radicals and Liberals) sitting in the left and the supporters of the Monarchy (With the values of Tradition, Order, and Authority.) sitting to the right.
DinodudeEpic 9 months ago
Inaccurate. That explanation is even MORE oversimplified than the spectrum he says is wrong.
MinstrelKrampf 10 months ago
ruled by law? I have never seen a law arrest anyone. There are people who claim to arrest others in name of the law, but that is what all rulers do. They do stuff in the name of the majority, in the name of god, in the name of tradition. But I have yet to see majority, tradition or god make any arrests.
modelmark 10 months ago
Notice how they conveniently leave out Socialism in the definitions.
Robikus 10 months ago
Hilter was a lefty socialist,Communist are leftist,Hitler was not of the Right
CrashMarket 10 months ago
The problem with this spectrum is that it doesn't point out that a democracy can be more authoritarian than a monarchy at times. What if the monarch in power is a minarchist? or a democracy where the majority are white nationalists?
Bit of a conundrum there :P
JakkaLakkaDingDing 1 year ago
I like the Nolan Chart, but I'd advise this one too: /watch?v=xCzNTfAPFUQ
vspqbd 1 year ago
I've seen this video before, and while I think it does a good job of showing how individualism is in direct opposition to collectivism, it misses the mark on how liberty is in opposition to government. It is possible to live freer under some monarchies than under some democracies, it would just depend on whether the collectivist paranoia against individual liberty is greater than the monarch's paranoia against individual liberty.
ericrolofson 1 year ago
This is a great video Mike... it's a shame about the next bit, where the guy attacks anarchy and opts for not-so-ruggedly individualistic Minarchism instead.
Hostile 1 year ago
@mudwhistle sorry mud you DONT get it. You or anyone else can't try to feel better about yourself by claiming someone else's position EG you claiming I'm right because most are left. Using that logic as a rational foundation for political beliefs equals a huge mistake. You can not tell me what I am, I really enjoy how you think your entitled enough to tell others where they stand. But again, I don't play left or right so sorry. Further, there is no one person who is LEFT or RIGHT entirely.
xxxxdarksidexxxx 1 year ago
John Birch, baby! :)
bronxer78 1 year ago
Post the whole video up from Wimp.com
blummedia 1 year ago
Sorry Mike. There is no left and right, its only a created diversion. You choose to buy into it or not. EG no is 100% left or 100% right, therefore no one is really left or right they only vote that way depending on the particular situation or vote intended. Only puppets still play left and right.
xxxxdarksidexxxx 1 year ago
i dont care about spelling rules either, as you can see ;) fuck me, I'm European
TheArjan1982 1 year ago
someone said "if the ultra far right opposes government control then they are anarchist, it's as simple as that." No, they are not! When they are still classist, capitalist, racist homophobic macho's, they're still authoritarian and therefore not anarchist, far from it. Anarchism is about more than being anti-state, that's why it don't fit in the most spectrum's. Libertarians are right when they oppose the state, but are fine with capitalism cause they care about property rights so much
TheArjan1982 1 year ago
@TheArjan1982 Property rights are the basis of self-ownership, and without self-ownership there is no freedom, so yes libertarians care about property rights. Anarchy without capitalism requires an authority to dictate who is allowed to own what, and thus is not truly anarchy. Anarcho-capitalism is the only true anarchy, and the only way in which complete liberty can be achieved.
Hostile 1 year ago
@Hostile
"without self-ownership there is no freedom" > FAIL
TheArjan1982 1 year ago
@TheArjan1982 My statement is greater than a failure? Um... thank you?
Hostile 1 year ago
Government has exactly one legitimate purpose and no more.
It is to keep government out of people's lives.
Rape, armed robbery, and murder are forms of government, being conned into doing a job that you didn't know was dangerous is another (OSHA), and so is parts of another persons house flying into your house in a tornado (building codes).
Nobody is free to hold their left elbow in their left hand, but if government sticks to its legitimate purpose you're as free as a person can be.
MrShoeguy 1 year ago
@MrShoeguy That's contradictory though, since the definition of government requires A) taxation, and B) monopoly, two things which guarantee that people's lives are going to be interfered with. If we're going to respect an individual's rights then we have to respect their right to A) keep all their property (no taxes), and B) start any business they want (no police/law monopoly), and if you allow for these two things then any statist construct remaining cannot be defined as a government.
Hostile 1 year ago
in a truly free society you cannot seperate personal and economic freedom. In my opinion, the word ''freedom'' covers them both or not at all.
bastardchildofmary 1 year ago
MODRA
Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy, Republic, Anarchy.
Nice vid. :)
ManintheArmor 1 year ago
I'm for no government.
Shaunt1 1 year ago
true news
LibertyPoet
website
campaign4liberty 1 year ago
Mike, why do you advertise people running for office when you are an anarchist?
WaywornIVImmmm 1 year ago
i'm an post-left anarchist and this is all american style libertarian bull
TheArjan1982 1 year ago
@TheArjan1982 I agree. I believe libertarians can find common ground in lefties and righties.
josda1000 1 year ago
This isn't a very good spectrum either. It's "anarchy" is miss-characterized. The "anarchy" I believe it is referring to is opposition to statism in general. A "constitutional republic" is still a fiat land claim that is not pro-liberty. If anything a "minimal" state lays the foundation for the inevitable expansion of the state. All states are left overs of our ancestors and with time the market will kill them off.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@InTheEndIWasRight what do you mean? if the ultra far right opposes government control then they are anarchist, it's as simple as that. While the the far right wingers (like me) support the minimal state for purposes of convenience, and we recognize that the price for this is a constant battle to keep the state to a certain minimum.
kubaniski 1 year ago
@kubaniski What do I mean on what part? Right and left are meaningless. Most self-described "anarchists" are perfectly fine with statism, they simply do not wish to have a political class. Anti-statism is opposed to all fiat land claims and are pro market. The conditions however that a minimal state has breed the growth of a large state because the vast amounts of capital can be "taxed" ect and there is the ideological belief in the system of the state in question, in this case a republic.
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
I don't believe this spectrum is accurate. I believe in the 2D spectrum... Libertarians on top, Authoritarians on bottom, Social Conservatives on the right, and Economic Liberals on the left.
josda1000 1 year ago
@josda1000
So you like breaking up Freedom into social freedoms and economic freedoms?
In the end, this 2d spectrum is the Nolan Chart's 3d spectrum condensed....they are really the same thing, the Nolan Chart just goes in more depth.
mikeshanklin 1 year ago 4
@mikeshanklin
Well, no, I don't like breaking it up, I'm an anarchist. However, I do think it makes sense to make sure that you see fighting between leftists and rightists because they do see a difference. Most people do not flow into the authoritarian category because they do appreciate freedom, though they see a "need" for government. So I do think that I see 4 categories... and maybe a fifth "centrist" position.
It doesn't matter though. Freedom is freedom, you have it or you don't.
josda1000 1 year ago
@mikeshanklin didnt you already upload this? anyhow i believe i confronted some errors that eventually you gave up trying to deny...or admit. more important than more vs. less GOVT is BETTER vs. WORSE govt. also republic ruled by "law". thats an opinion not fact. all people whom arent anarchist think they are about correct laws or right etc. america was FOUNDED on STEALING all God-given resources and even people to build it up, never returning any stolen goods/services but passing it down to...
Playitalready 1 year ago
@mikeshanklin ...passing it to next of kin whom will own it/get more rich by having control. even after slavery they had prison camps. after that, great depressions and recessions. doesn't matter if the president is dam-ocrat or republic-con. anyway now the top 1% own 90% of the natural God-given resources and they chose who works and for how much; they even can control whom can get elected into office and run schools/justice/protection/all laws etc. THEN they say let's have a "FREE" market...
Playitalready 1 year ago
@mikeshanklin ...maybe if schools taught basic spiritual values and useful things based on the INDIVIDUALS needs/interests etc. and everyone had a MINIMAL amount of BASIC God-given natural resources like PROPERTY (which the republic was supposed to say but didn't) THEN maybe you could have some good free market. anyway the republic was founded on mob rule not some vague "law" where a cross that holds to weights is the dictator.
Playitalready 1 year ago
@mikeshanklin
I still like your chart better than the liberal vs conservative chart.
I prefer a chart of more or less government myself, especially as it is usually the latter question of the amount of government that usually gets left out.
However, I find the right vs left claims even in this video are red herrings unnecessary at best.
Either a person is a statist, or an anarchist.
Simple as can be.
vspqbd 1 year ago
So advocating any government pushes policy toward all the bad stuff? Is government a "necessary evil" unless we embrace anarchy? I'm not convinced. I think government is as natural as the right to self defense, that people have rights and that government should protect our rights. The anarchist position defaults to the first gang who doesn't play by the rules. As libertarians, we need to stop apologizing for what government should be doing, which is protecting us.
etzel33 1 year ago
@etzel33
So you've never researched DROs.....
I would suggest you google anarcho-capitalism and voluntarism.
The Constitution is the reason we got to where we are today.....because government always grows into a monster, that cannot be controlled. The smallest government will always end up the largest.
mikeshanklin 1 year ago 6
@mikeshanklin I understand your position. I've been in this for decades. Bottom line is that i don't believe in what I call "mercenary government", which is where anarcho-capitalism arguments lead. There are too many intellectual flaws in the objectivist philosophy, and it is unworkable politically. The argument begins with land rights and ends with anarchism defending injustice. We can have that argument if you wish, or you can check out my website first.
etzel33 1 year ago
@mikeshanklin If you're of that mindset why even put this video up?
InTheEndIWasRight 1 year ago
@mikeshanklin Actually the Reconstruction acts destroyed the Constitution. The Radical Republicans took us from a confederated polystate to a centralized monostate. The 13th amendment is the only one we need and it itself only addresses part of the problem it leaves open voluntary servitude/slavery. Being almost universally corporate heads they had to leave that open of course.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@mikeshanklin Amendment 14 is just repeating the freedom all free men are granted by the constitution but also applying the bill of rights to the states. This amendment is the one that changed our confederation of republics. The south had to be divided up into military districts and force at gun point to accept it. Amendment 15 is unnecessary because the constitution states all free men have the right to vote. There is no distinction in the constitution between the races only free and slave.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@etzel33 Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean no order. You can have competing law firms for different regions. The land claim is what sets it apart from the rest. In Anarcho-capitalism (anarchy) all land is private. Corporate land meaning land granted to fictional entities does not exist. Only people can own land.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Luigi84289 And how do you come to "own" land? I hereby claim the planet earth as my own. It's mine, so get off. Find your own planet. Land and natural resources aren't the "fruits of labor". It is Title, exclusive privilege granted by force. The American Indians were all over the US until they were forced off, killed, etc.. By what right? The king of England granted William Penn what is now called Pennsylvania. It wasn't his to grant. You "own" stolen property under that view.
etzel33 1 year ago
@etzel33 Even Adam Smith, John Locke, Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson recognized that land rights weren't absolute and believed that the costs of government should be drawn from the privileges to land. It's more convenient to use quotes of the Founding Fathers when the phrase suits the punditry.
Ayn Rand was mistaken in her views on land ownership.
etzel33 1 year ago
@etzel33 Okay use rights are the only fair way. If you are using the land to sustain yourself then you own that land. As I stated previously but you must not have read you can have law. People are good. What drives people to commit crimes almost all the time is not being able to sustain themselves. Privileges are not a term you use in free societies. Those are temporary. Everyone already wants to feed everyone else look around you if we could all farm and grow our own food we'd be better off.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@etzel33 You didn't just really ask me how to get land. I'm not going to explain every little facet of that form of societal structure. If you want to learn go learn.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
@Luigi84289 "You didn't just really ask me how to get land."
I'm sorry. It's been a long day and I've been arguing with neo-Confederates all day. Funny how easy it is to say a person supports the US Constitution and then freaks out about the 16th amendment. It's been a long day.
etzel33 1 year ago
@Luigi84289 I've learned enough about Anarchism to realize that the issue of territorial ownership nullifies the argument. It's a long discussion if you want to do that here. Consider that Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and John Locke also took this view. If you want to learn go learn :)
etzel33 1 year ago
@etzel33 The American indians were killed by the way by the United States. Normal citizens do not want to go out and kill people in stable conditions. Your version of history is just wrong. The settlers from Europe immigrated first into land that was vacant as the native americans outnumbered them. Hundreds of years later conflicts arose because of the states erections over land but it was always states not the people killing. Average citizens did not just want to go out and kill.like today.
Luigi84289 1 year ago
Comment removed
Luigi84289 1 year ago
ANARCHY!
AustinW90 1 year ago 2