You sure about that?Originally Posted by Stevinator
no worries...the thread is not going anywhere.
They do "have a way". I was pleasantly surprised when the daughter of Andrew Lloyd Webber came out fairly vehemently about the latest sham-nesty initiative (she's a frequent guest on RedEye). I've heard VERY few foreigners (both media and personal acquaintance) who are attempting to go through channels having anything positive to say about it, and instead a number of variants about this being the Democrat Party wanting lots of little brown voters' dependency.
That has nothing to do with reforming immigration, but everything to do with both the term "comprehensive" and the implicit Democrat plan for the newly arrived to immediately become wards of the State.
Perhaps valid, perhaps not. "people get weird about them." is putting it mildly.
They don't. Premeditation is factual, and can be shown in actions taken. It's not an attempt to divine intent.
"contradict". Use FireFox.
That's an entirely false perception, and no doubt due to the limitations of your bubble. The "Moral Majority" types aren't much of a stain on the TEA Party's dress, certainly not to the degree that the PaulBots, Birchers, and LaRouchies have been.
Your previous claim had been that both parties are at best equal, then I demonstrated that's completely false, and then you went into some other tangent. It may not be that you're completely Democrat-minded on this, but that hardly supports "exact opposite".
Everyone is partisan.
The second part of your statement was rational, so I've cut it out. Instead, I'll concentrate on your "wrong-itude" here. The GOP <does> have Progressives in it, to be sure, but if you bother to look at the entire, you'll be forced to recognize that the GOP is nominally the party of small Gov't. You can't have a totalitarian small Gov't; it's oxymoronic.
************************************************** *********************************
Who you callin' white?
I know La Raza likes to fabricate claims about the legitimacy of the Gadsden Purchase and other ludicrous lies in support of their openly racist agenda. That hardly makes them legitimate, and in addition to which the concept that we can and should renegotiate international treaties that have reached their conclusion flies in the face of logic. Except, of course, when you're Progressive.
************************************************** **********************************
Pretty damned well, at least for about 180 years. Why?
See, here's why you disgust me: A contract freely entered doesn't constitute slavery. I freely sacrificed many of my rights (up to and including Life, Liberty, and my Pursuit of Happiness) to defend the Constitution. You're calling me nasty names because of that, which may be your right but makes you a total shyteheel in my book.
It's hardly the first time, as you know.
Beyond all that, your "slaves and masters" bullshyte is NOT what Anarchy is. Anarchy is a lack of any rules or mechanism of enforcement. If you have a society, you do not have anarchy, because societies make rules - even if those rules are enforced through extrajudicial or other-than-legal means.
I've seen Anarchy. I'm eager to never see it again.
Not only do you falsely portray my beliefs for purposes of insult (since I'm demonstrably nasty regarding socialism and central planning), but then you strawman my actual beliefs and claim they are what they're not.
There's no reason The Gov't, or often even gov't, needs to provide roads, fire departments, and police services. There are examples of all three being of greater profit in the private sector. However, when they do not, corruption equal to or greater than that provided by gov't can result. The solution is to ensure that there is sufficient legal framework to prevent specific types of corruption by the private sector, particularly those of extortion, monopoly, or certain types of price fixing/gouging that rely upon implicit violence (examples provided currently by Union endeavors).
Furthermore, your lunatic misinterpretation of Anarchy and insult regarding even the smaller concept of gov't ignores all examples beyond that of the U.S. First, many other nations don't have our defensive, environmental, or resource luxuries. Second, despite the gun-grabbers' mantra, we remain a remarkably peaceful, lawful, and moral nation due primarily to our religious heritage, AKA the Christian Nation. Those mores are from our society, not from our laws.
Speaking of, I found this rather interesting, as well as being far more correct than you are.
So your goal is just to have a huge revolution every couple of centuries to reset the parasite and let it get it's footing again?
What contract are we discussing? Surely you're not going to say we have a "social contract", like llad would. That would disappoint me.See, here's why you disgust me: A contract freely entered doesn't constitute slavery.
Literally not possible, since all property must be owned by someone. The cost of enforcing property rights in an anarchic society then becomes a matter of voluntary trade of services on the market. It doesn't mean that property no longer exists.Anarchy is a lack of any rules or mechanism of enforcement.
So your solution to extortion, monopoly, price-fixing, and implicit violence is to set up a violent, extortionist, price-fixing monopoly by decree, and then go one step further and enshrine it as necessary and proper to the preservation of liberty? The mafia may be all of those things as well, but no one ever forgets it or makes kids pledge allegiance to it.The solution is to ensure that there is sufficient legal framework to prevent specific types of corruption by the private sector, particularly those of extortion, monopoly, or certain types of price fixing/gouging that rely upon implicit violence (examples provided currently by Union endeavors).
I can't argue that, really, but doesn't that work in my favor instead of yours? If laws cannot protect you when morals are lost, is not the answer to talk about morals rather than laws?moral nation due primarily to our religious heritage, AKA the Christian Nation. Those mores are from our society, not from our laws.
EDIT:
Here it is, my moment of zen:
Who could have foreseen??
I wish I'd bought it when I saw it, but there was a book about Jefferson's idea of "constant revolution" - every 20-30 years ago a good house-cleaning. It's what our 2-party system was designed to do, since a multi-party system has the tendency to create alliances.
I guess none of the Founders ever thought we'd become so immoral that both parties would have a Progressive constituency.
Furthermore, The Republic would and should curtail the abuses we have now. I think it was simple laziness on the part of our elected officials that allowed changes to the Senate and the Federal overreach that we now see.
Plus, there's something baseline that I doubt you have even recognized. IF we don't restrict certain voting rights to landowners, then the transient population is able to enforce their will upon them, up to and including confiscation/property rights. How would that be improved in any system bordering on anarchy?
I took an oath - a contract - to protect your right to be an asshat. You exercise that right very freely, but IMO you can take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut if you think I have any respect for you & your views when you (and Ash) basically show up to throw a turd or two at me.
I'm not demanding respect from anyone. You, however, cement your image by being far less than respectful to those who have sacrificed for you of their own accord. The Democrat Party found out the hard way back in the 1960's that by spitting upon those who defend them, AKA the sheepdogs, pretty much all decent people wrote them off as filthy scum.
I suspect I understand the concept you mistakenly label "Anarchy", which I compared to the end of Atlas Shrugged - A work of FICTION. A group of freely associating individuals sharing public goods and burdens of their own free will. Without having respect for others, such a system is impossible to achieve. Comparative basis can be found within the survivalist community, who are planning explicitly for the danger of the Anarchy you espouse: every individual cannot be an island, because even Rambo can't pull security round the clock, gather crops, and care for home & offspring.
I suppose you think a stone-age existence is somehow an ideal state? The "Noble Savage" ideology come home to roost?
Worthless twaddle on the level of Atheist fapping. In Anarchy, I'm going to put a bullet in your head, rape your kids, and take your stuff. Nobody's there to stop me. To have a market, which is a system, you must have a setting that allows such a system. These can be self-organizing, but they're still the opposite of Anarchy.
More worthless fapping by you. There is nothing extortionist or price-fixing about free-market capitalism, though the requirement of threat of "violence" remains for those not trading freely.
It <DOES> work in my favor; you weren't paying attention to an earlier discussion with Steve (not that I'd blame you). If you have a moral populace, their self-regulation is greater (AKA SHAME to Steve) and the need for violence lesser - except regarding those who refuse to comply. Such a society remains a system, and not Anarchy; in the "Wild Wild West" (which wasn't), certain mores remained like theft & cheating being worthy of death penalty, women & children being off-limits, churches being non-partisan, and so forth.
You missed all her subsequent equivocation. I actually signed up on Disqus last night to comment:
The Federal Government is so much more approachable and reasonable.
While not a magic-bullet cure for despotism, a decentralized, local government is indeed preferable to centralized government, because it grants more autonomy and power to the individual. Anarchy is just the next logical step from there. The most local government you can have is yourself governing your own property.
The first thing a government does is confiscate, either through eminent domain or taxes. Are you opposed to both in any and all forms?How would that be improved in any system bordering on anarchy?
A 12-year old goat-herder in some theocratic ****hole country that Al Queda pays 10 bucks to take potshots with a rusty AK at the foreign troops occupying their territory is not a threat to my freedoms. Sorry, but I'm not going to bow down before the troops and listen to the star spangled banner with a hand over my heart when a drone blows the kid into meaty chunks with a hellfire missile.I took an oath - a contract - to protect your right to be an asshat.
So when someone tries to score points by spouting the equivalent of "Ye'd all be speakin' dat Iraqi if it wasn't for us!" there's nothing for me to do but roll my eyes. I don't lionize the troops because they aren't "protecting my rights", they are protecting the very system that violates my rights at every turn.
Rand was a minarchist; one of her many failings.I suspect I understand the concept you mistakenly label "Anarchy", which I compared to the end of Atlas Shrugged - A work of FICTION.
That's a silly canard that the left uses frequently (see: "You didn't build that!") I'm surprised to see you spout it here. Of course no man is an island, but trying to paint it as a choice between either government violence or complete isolationism is a false dichomtomy.every individual cannot be an island, because even Rambo can't pull security round the clock, gather crops, and care for home & offspring.
Why would I? Capitalism and free exchange raises quality of living for everyone.I suppose you think a stone-age existence is somehow an ideal state?
Who is there to stop you now? Certainly not the police. They may take some fingerprints and call someone in to mop up the blood after the fact, but they aren't going to be parked outside waiting to stop criminals from hurting me. They have no incentive to, after all. Their paycheck does not depend on keeping citizens happy or safe, and they have more important things to do:In Anarchy, I'm going to put a bullet in your head, rape your kids, and take your stuff. Nobody's there to stop me.
Anarchy = Self organizing.These can be self-organizing, but they're still the opposite of Anarchy.
So let's say I grant you a minimal government: how are you going to fund it without taxes (institutionalized theft, backed up with threats of violence)?There is nothing extortionist or price-fixing about free-market capitalism, though the requirement of threat of "violence" remains for those not trading freely.
Thomas Mallory based argument.
Does Might make right or does Right make might?
Anarchy does not last long without agreed on Human rights codes. Thus Capitilism, Religions, and then Military based governments.
Clearly, you guys have two very different views of anarchy. The type of anarchy Saro is talking about has probably never, ever, ever existed. Thus, you can point to all the horror shows and examples of brutality you want--none of those is the system he's proposing. You're bashing a target that's never been. If it helps, you can call his idea "WXYZ" instead of "anarchy."
WXYZ: an ideal free market capitalistic system of voluntarism with rules but no rulers where, due to enough people finally respecting each other, nothing awful happens.
Note the italicized and bold parts. Heady. But they're important parts of the definition.
The reason WXYZ has never happened before is the same reason they never saw MacGyver, basket balls or airplanes in the 1500's. It wasn't implemented or invented yet.
So at most, you can argue that his idea is a fantasy delusion, and it's completely impossible to ever happen and is fit for the pages of sci fi (because we have no examples to look at). Kind of like how we could call manned flight and space travel impossible because in medieval times, we had no examples to look at.
Obviously, the wise goal is to have enough people respecting each other first, and then try this WXYZ thing. I'll just point out that people have been progressing, and we tend to treat each other better over time, granting longer life spans, better education, etc. It seems there is at least some chance for humanity to improve to the point where full blown anarchy could work, just not right now. No one wants to shut off all the coal power plants overnight. The current systems many uphold now did not exist and sounded impossible or counterproductive at one time. Then, they were developed. It takes a long time to see in the dark.
Just so. Decentralization and devolution of power to the lowest common denominator is the best concept of system management that can be achieved. The same thing is true for Capitalism, since money = power.
Not only is that beyond lunacy, since anarchy is NOT a logical step from decentralization, but it is also not in any way the same as self-governance or property ownership. Self-governance is following "the rules" because they both make sense and are agreed upon. In Anarchy, there are no rules to be followed.
To neither, but I definitely find some forms stupid or even reprehensible.
This isn't true, and you're ignorant. The entire point of the so-called "Bush Doctrine" is that in the newly 'flattened' world, that goat herder is indeed a potential existential threat. IF you hadn't heard, those "goat-herders" are treated as wind-up toys by a core of really nasty dudes who would cheer your stupid belief in Anarchy on - because they've grown accustomed to imposing their will within such environments.
In reality, we're just returning to the really unsafe world that existed about 200 years ago. Nation-states will be warring upon each other, with radicals nibbling around the edges. Seems like your dream existence, except that they will have nuclear warheads and can wipe your pitiful existence off the map (or mine, or Bob's, or Loz').
And I'm the one regarded as offensive around here... :rolleyes: I'm completely sure that all we were doing in Shrub's Magnificent Adventure was destroying 12-year-old goat herders. Moron.
Then you are my enemy, because you're so stupid that you think the troops <are> the "system", rather than victims of it, and frequently unwilling ones at that. If you're anti-Constitution, you should pack your bags and go live in another nation. See how wonderful your Anarchy really is. I have. Again, you're a moron.
Your making of my assertion into a strawman is neither valid nor truthful. While yours is not the false dichotomy (which you accuse me of proposing), yours IS the laughably stupid belief that one absolute can somehow be legitimate. Neither is government equal to complete violence.
Because you inherently do not support free exchange, due to your moronic claim of Anarchy. Again, anarchy means I put a bullet in your head, rape your wife & kids, and steal your stuff.
"False dichotomy", weren't you saying? While "Protect and Serve" is indeed a farce, that doesn't mean that the police do not fill an obvious and needed enforcement role on occasion. You may believe that frontier justice is somehow superior, but that's even more lunatic and moronic - you may dislike her, but you ought to read Coulter's Demonic (I haven't) to see just how dangerous your belief in the mob really is.
An individual can be wise, intelligent, and caring, but People are generally the precise opposite.
No, Anarchy = Chaos. No organization. Self-organizing is completely different, and occurs within a framework of law, the degree of which is dependent upon the context.
First off, "use" taxes are not theft - so that would be a no-brainer. Right up your alley, no brain and all that; deals agreed upon between individuals need not be any different than deals agreed upon between the gov't "collective" or 'co-op'. That way, the public goods receive support or reimbursement as needed, and if they're unneeded, they cease (unlike the Tennessee Valley Authority)
As to violence, there's always a need for violence, particularly in Anarchy. The idea of militia-based defense is silly and unworkable; at a minimum you need a system like those found in Switzerland or Israel (though the entire conscription-based citizenry issue is also questionable).
One of my favorite books is T.H.White's The Once and Future King.
As I recall, White, as well as Tolkien and C.S.Lewis, were Infantrymen or at least served in the military during WW1.
Completely false. Anarchy can last forever, as long as those with Might are unstable in their attempt at rule.
No, he's claiming Anarchy is a good thing, and that "WXYZ" exists in Anarchy. It doesn't. In fact, it likely can't - it's fanciful, infantile belief spurred by things like Rand's stories or "The Gods Must Be Crazy", which romanticize the belief in a world without rules. Humans not only like and need rules, but they are truly horrific creatures when they don't have those rules. The belief that "WXYZ" can be implemented, particularly in The Future, is no different than the belief in True Socialism or True Communism; it requires that people do not act according to their nature.
God, I can't believe you're making me sound like a Statist.
I'm sure the millions of violent dead during the 20th Century would agree... [/sarc]
There's distinct advantages in self-actualization, self-determination, and decentralization. Obama won the election, and the GOP is in full retreat. Europe is gnawing off it's testicles in an attempt to not live within it's means. What makes you believe that such a system development is possible or even feasible?
See, I have the advantage of Christianity. I KNOW that people are evil, and that only morality and civilization, AKA order, prevent Anarchy from turning into Totalitarianism, as one Might emerges to decide what is Right.
Recent footage of a smirking little mother-fecker for added comic relief. Start about 2:11.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks