Capitalistic greed is the main problem in the U.S.

[paulitician]

Folks who call themselves Christians especially, should always ask 'What would Jesus do?' It's a helpful starting point for deciding on what's right. But if you're not a religious person, just approach issues like this as if you're talking about your own family members. Would you be ok with them dying because they couldn't afford the medication they needed to survive?

Jesus wouldn't involve the government forcing anyone to do anything. He never did.

My family members wouldn't die. I'd do what I needed to do to make sure they had what they needed.

Well, others aren't as fortunate. It's sad, but it is the reality.

 

[Onyx]

Well, others aren't as fortunate. It's sad, but it is the reality.

Correct, and reality does not warrant fantasy.

Despite the unfortunate nature of peasants, they can do great things and achieve self sufficiency nonetheless.

 

[Conservative65]

Folks who call themselves Christians especially, should always ask 'What would Jesus do?' It's a helpful starting point for deciding on what's right. But if you're not a religious person, just approach issues like this as if you're talking about your own family members. Would you be ok with them dying because they couldn't afford the medication they needed to survive?

Jesus wouldn't involve the government forcing anyone to do anything. He never did.

My family members wouldn't die. I'd do what I needed to do to make sure they had what they needed.

Well, others aren't as fortunate. It's sad, but it is the reality.

Well, that's not my problem nor does it make it my responsibility.

 

[paulitician]

Folks who call themselves Christians especially, should always ask 'What would Jesus do?' It's a helpful starting point for deciding on what's right. But if you're not a religious person, just approach issues like this as if you're talking about your own family members. Would you be ok with them dying because they couldn't afford the medication they needed to survive?

The question of what Jesus would do is simple.

He wouldn't go into politics and start telling others what to do and how much they should pay. When he wouldn't be preaching, he would be living an aesthetic lifestyle in praise of God.

Well, others aren't as fortunate. It's sad, but it is the reality.

Correct, and reality does not warrant fantasy.

Despite the unfortunate nature of peasants, they can do great things and achieve self sufficiency nonetheless.

No disagreement there.

 

[paulitician]

Folks who call themselves Christians especially, should always ask 'What would Jesus do?' It's a helpful starting point for deciding on what's right. But if you're not a religious person, just approach issues like this as if you're talking about your own family members. Would you be ok with them dying because they couldn't afford the medication they needed to survive?

Jesus wouldn't involve the government forcing anyone to do anything. He never did.

My family members wouldn't die. I'd do what I needed to do to make sure they had what they needed.

Well, others aren't as fortunate. It's sad, but it is the reality.

Well, that's not my problem nor does it make it my responsibility.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I really am.

 

[Conservative65]

Folks who call themselves Christians especially, should always ask 'What would Jesus do?' It's a helpful starting point for deciding on what's right. But if you're not a religious person, just approach issues like this as if you're talking about your own family members. Would you be ok with them dying because they couldn't afford the medication they needed to survive?

Jesus wouldn't involve the government forcing anyone to do anything. He never did.

My family members wouldn't die. I'd do what I needed to do to make sure they had what they needed.

Well, others aren't as fortunate. It's sad, but it is the reality.

Well, that's not my problem nor does it make it my responsibility.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I really am.

I'm sorry you think it's my place to do for someone else's family member what their own family won't do for them.

 

[sealybobo]

EpiPen can go to hell. My friend has a shellfish allergy that leads to an anaphylactic reaction... Her throat closes up. She can't afford to buy an EpiPen and her insurance doesn't cover it. Further more they expire after a year so she would have to drop $600 for a pen that expires and needs to get tossed after only a year. Instead she doesn't have one and takes a risk every time she eats out. In the mean time the EpiPen execs and laughing their way to the bank

Mylan executives gave themselves raises as they hiked EpiPen prices

I told stupid Republicans that the ceo's that laid the most people off in 2008 got the biggest bonus' and Republicans asked me to prove it. Back in 2009 they argued no connection. Just coincidence they said.

Today we know this CEO made $2 million a year when she started and now make $22 million. That 40,000 pens. Now add up all the extra pay her vp's made.

Republicans think corporations pass on tax breaks to consumers??? No they don't. They charge as much as the market will bare.

 

[Slade3200]

1. Agreed government shouldn't rule by force. Ergo, the citizenry need to posses the force which is why, in the US, we have the Second Amendment.

The state must use force to sustain itself.

If the people are capable of defending themselves without the state, then the existence of the state is not needed.

2) Local militias are fine, but who controls them?

You do not control a militia.

The militia refers to the collective armed citizenry.

Unestablished leaders can be of importance, and should gain their recognition as a leader through voluntary support and influence within their community.

What if several militias compete for "turf"?

Militias do not have turf. The moment they do, they form a state.

States have turf. Governance and force create the state, and the state is what I oppose.

Would you consider the Crips and the Bloods militia? Do you see the problems here?

They are somewhere between thugs and capitalists. When they are not focused on making money through exploitation of the system, they are instilling terror in their communities.

The existence of turf means they fit the definition of a deep state. For that reason I oppose them adamamantly.

As to whether I see any problems with militias, I do not.

3) Thanks for shitting all over career military professionals. Interesting that you think senior officers and senior enlisted personnel are social misfits too incompetent to serve in any other capacity. I'm guessing you didn't serve. If so, I'm sure it didn't appeal to you and you left ASAP.

Okay, settle down.

The incentive to fight should be driven by more than just money, and historically it has been for soldiers in service.

Soldiers should be paid what is affordable, based on the levying of voluntary dues from the free population.

You do realize that your proposition is all theory and can only exist in a land of fairies and unicorns, right? In the real world you will have groups, gangs and militia that fight for turf, power, and wealth. And in the real world you can't just say that you "oppose it" the end result is chaos. Your scenario only works if everybody in the group are like minded. Otherwise, if you want a civilized society there needs to be some form of governement

Onyx, care to address the points in my above statement? How does your society handle crime and conflict resolution (conflicts WILL happen with EVERY issue)

 

[Onyx]

Onyx, care to address the points in my above statement? How does your society handle crime and conflict resolution (conflicts WILL happen with EVERY issue)

What crime?

There are only crimes against humanity, like unprovoked violence against someone else's personhood or property. That act warrants violence in return, in the name of practical self defense.

Conflict resolution can occur in many legitimate ways without a state. In Mayan communities for example, if you steal from somebody, then you pay back what was stolen in full.

 

[Onyx]

Sorry, I missed this post.

[
You do realize that your proposition is all theory and can only exist in a land of fairies and unicorns, right?

No.

On the contrary, the state is broken and destructive, yet we continue to maintain that type of society through the usage of force.

This is just scraping the defective and unnecessary state, and protecting a free society through the usage of force.

In the real world you will have groups, gangs and militia that fight for turf, power, and wealth.

Agreed. They should be killed.

Insurrectionism advocates continuous struggle. Just like forces within the state continuously try and keep the common man down.

And in the real world you can't just say that you "oppose it" the end result is chaos.

All things considered, I have done much more than that.

I have offered principles in which a free and civil society should govern by, solutions on how to deal with violent actors, and plans on how to avoid descending back into the destructive nature of the state.

It is also true that states produce chaos quite often. Just look at what states did to Somalia.

Your scenario only works if everybody in the group are like minded.

No. My ideology is far less collectivist than statism.

States can only survive when they oppress on behalf of the largest like minded population, or as a minority actively oppress the largest like minded population.

It is the difference between majority voting institutions and fascism. A percentage.

Otherwise, if you want a civilized society there needs to be some form of governement

Governance is good.

Established government and the state are evil.

 

[Slade3200]

Onyx, care to address the points in my above statement? How does your society handle crime and conflict resolution (conflicts WILL happen with EVERY issue)

What crime?

There are only crimes against humanity, like unprovoked violence against someone else's personhood or property. That act warrants violence in return, in the name of practical self defense.

Conflict resolution can occur in many legitimate ways without a state. In Mayan communities for example, if you steal from somebody, then you pay back what was stolen in full. So on and so forth.

There will always be crime of all kinds. Violence, abuse, theft, property disputes, business disputes, domestic disputes etc etc etc. there will always be two sides to each story and many crimes will go unpunished unless they are investigated and tried.

Even without crime, there will be arguements about most issues... Do we drill and pollute our environment? Do we let a business mogel monopolize an industry, do we pump antibiotics and preservatives in our food supply, etc etc etc. these issues and more will always have disputes

The more poverty the more crime as that's what many desperate people resort to to get what they need and that is how gang culture grows.

Your utopian society will eventually evolve into a bunch of tribes that battle each other, a survival of the fittest, chaotic society focused more on survival and less on progression. We see this happening in todays third world countries.

I'll state again, you have a fine theory that sounds great for a couple dozen like minded people who want to live a hippy lifestyle in an intentional community... But In the real world and with our modern society, you provide no realistic path or solutions to our problems

 

[Richard-H]

You have a rather starry eyed and childish view of America's history:

First, there was NEVER a time when Americans helped those in need. A very large percentage of Americans lived in absolute poverty before 1960.

Second, gun control dates back to the 1800s in America. In fact, the legal reason for the gun fight at the O.K. corral was gun control. It was against the law for people to carry guns in Tombstone. The gun fight started when Wyatt Earp tried to disarm the Clanton gang.

Please try to grow up!

Comrade. while Earp was acquitted on the charge of murder for shooting William Clanton, Frank and Thomas McLaury, what did Judge Spicer rule in regards to the legality of disarming law abiding men with no mischief apparent?

Oh that's right, that it was unconstitutional and an affront to the spirit of liberty and would endanger that chance of Arizona to be admitted to the union.

So while you believe that SCOTUS has no power to rule on constitutionality, apparently you do believe that some small town 'Justice of the Peace' does have the power to rule on Constitutionality.

You're are a really silly person.

The fact is that the Earps were never charged. They're action were considered lawful and in keeping with Virgil's responsibilities.

It should also be noted the the fame of the gunfight at the O.K. coral is considered by the vast majority of Americans to be one of our greatest historical events...a triumph of law over lawlessness, not a historic abuse of law enforcement..

 

[Onyx]

There will always be crime of all kinds.

No mate.

Crime is a byproduct of established law.

Violence, abuse,

Which warrant self-defense

theft, property disputes, business disputes, domestic disputes

Minor civil conflicts in which the state has no business getting involved in.

there will always be two sides to each story and many crimes will go unpunished unless they are investigated and tried.

Retribution is for fools.

There are good detective agencies though, and there will probably be even more if the free market is ever released from its corporate/statist chokehold.

The more poverty the more crime as that's what many desperate people do to get what they need and that is how gang culture grows.

Poverty is more so because of the state.

8 out of 10 small businesses fail because the corporate lobbyists mandate jaded government policies.

Your utopian society

If I believed in a utopian society, I would call myself a communist.

Utopias do not exist. Human imperfection is a constant.

will eventually evolve into a bunch of tribes that battle each other, a survival of the fittest, chaotic society focused more on survival and less on progression.

No, I don't see it.

If anything, civilian militias and the reactionary forces would be able to easily sweep up thugs and statists.

Self sufficiency is good though. Society needs to work out a peaceful solution, without resorting to the most evil non-solution. That being the state.

We see this happening in todays third world countries.

Which have been destroyed by the state.

But In the real world and with our modern society, you provide no realistic path or solutions to our problems

I have. You do not see them.

So is the way of life.

 

[Afterword]

If anything, civilian militias and the reactionary forces would be able to easily sweep up thugs and statists.

Yet you also say -

Human imperfection is a constant.

What is your civilian militia going to do - just shoot them all and sort out the innocent from the guilty afterward? What kind of authority, structure and training would you have over these scattered militias that would prevent mob rule and at the same time not be exactly like what we have in our police forces and military at present?

Or is mob rule what you want? You mention no jails to hold these thugs and statists, courts of law to judge their innocence or guilt or a prison system to house them, is this because the dead would only require a six foot hole to bury them in?

You are right, human imperfection is a constant. Some, however, are more imperfect than others. This is the very reason we need a populous vote to elect our governing officials - not to make government perfect, but to make it less imperfect.

 

[Onyx]

What is your civilian militia going to do - just shoot them all and sort out the innocent from the guilty afterward?

The NAP is something heavily valued in the anarchist and libertarian community. There are no innocent or guilty. Just hostiles and non-hostiles.

What kind of authority, structure and training would you have over these scattered militias that would prevent mob rule and at the same time not be exactly like what we have in our police forces and military at present?

The militia is the collective armed citizenry. It is persisting. The militia operates only as a loosely based organization dedicated to immediate public defense against violent actors.

The reaction, or the full time organized armed force, does operate closer to a conventional military. The biggest difference is that the force is disconnected from government, because a government with force is a state.

Mob rule breaks the tenets of anarchism. The principles of an anarchic society need to be as widely understood as the bill of rights. Still, I do not support suppressing mobs, because their rule is non-established, and therefore not systematically oppressive.

Most social outrage is perpetrated by politics. There are already groups of peasants running around with torches and pitchforks, and they are the byproducts of the state.

You mention no jails to hold these thugs and statists, courts of law to judge their innocence or guilt or a prison system to house them, is this because the dead would only require a six foot hole to bury them in?

Jails are an evil solution to fix problems attributed to an evil state.

Remember, there is no longer such a thing as innocence and guilt. Just hostiles and non-hostiles.

This is the very reason we need a populous vote to elect our governing officials - not to make government perfect, but to make it less imperfect.

False premise.

The states only powers are to control and appropriate. The state being a social construct, everything it "creates" are nothing more than other social constructs.

It is inherently evil. Forever broken. Never sustainable. Always oppressing. Endlessly corrupt.

 

[Slade3200]

What is your civilian militia going to do - just shoot them all and sort out the innocent from the guilty afterward?

The NAP is something heavily valued in the anarchist and libertarian community. There are no innocent or guilty. Just hostiles and non-hostiles.

What kind of authority, structure and training would you have over these scattered militias that would prevent mob rule and at the same time not be exactly like what we have in our police forces and military at present?

The militia is the collective armed citizenry. It is persisting. The militia operates only as a loosely based organization dedicated to immediate public defense against violent actors.

The reaction, or the full time organized armed force, does operate closer to a conventional military. The biggest difference is that the force is disconnected from government, because a government with force is a state.

Mob rule breaks the tenets of anarchism. The principles of an anarchic society need to be as widely understood as the bill of rights. Still, I do not support suppressing mobs, because their rule is non-established, and therefore not systematically oppressive.

Most social outrage is perpetrated by politics. There are already groups of peasants running around with torches and pitchforks, and they are the byproducts of the state.

You mention no jails to hold these thugs and statists, courts of law to judge their innocence or guilt or a prison system to house them, is this because the dead would only require a six foot hole to bury them in?

Jails are an evil solution to fix problems attributed to an evil state.

Remember, there is no longer such a thing as innocence and guilt. Just hostiles and non-hostiles.

This is the very reason we need a populous vote to elect our governing officials - not to make government perfect, but to make it less imperfect.

False premise.

The states only powers are to control and appropriate. The state being a social construct, everything it "creates" are nothing more than other social constructs.

It is inherently evil. Forever broken. Never sustainable. Always oppressing. Endlessly corrupt.

Girl says guy raped her guy says her didn't... what then happens?

Guy beats up his wife and children what then happens?

Two drunks get in a bar fight and trash the place, what then happens?

Drunk driver runs kills an old lady in a crosswalk, what then happens?

 

[Onyx]

You should of had the answers to these questions based on what I told you already.

Girl says guy raped her guy says her didn't... what then happens?

The girl and the community are justified in using self defence, during the time the victim was being raped, if it happened at all.

After the fact it usually doesn't matter. What happens, happens. You learn to adapt.

Guy beats up his wife and children what then happens?

Self defense is always justified during the actual act. Violent preventive measures are only justified with the repetition of violence.

Two drunks get in a bar fight and trash the place, what then happens?

They get kicked out. If they refuse to leave, then the victim (being the owner) is justified in defending his property.

Drunk driver runs kills an old lady in a crosswalk, what then happens?

That would be very unfortunate for the old lady.

I have seen too many good people be locked up for a bad habit. Hopefully that person would atone, and if not, then the same routines apply.

Easier management of civil conflict is provided by the state. This comes at the cost of trading in our free will and dignity. Most of the plagues in our society can be attributed to the culture that the has state created anyways. There was never a need for a system, when natural law and the human condition were always observable.

Freedom takes responsibility. This is the most honest, proud, and humane path. ​

 

[Slade3200]

You should of had the answers to these questions based on what I told you already.

Girl says guy raped her guy says her didn't... what then happens?

The girl and the community are justified in using self defence, during the time the victim was being raped, if it happened at all.

After the fact it usually doesn't matter. What happens, happens. You learn to adapt.

Guy beats up his wife and children what then happens?

Self defense is always justified during the actual act. Violent preventive measures are only justified with the repetition of violence.

Two drunks get in a bar fight and trash the place, what then happens?

They get kicked out. If they refuse to leave, then the victim (being the owner) is justified in defending his property.

Drunk driver runs kills an old lady in a crosswalk, what then happens?

That would be very unfortunate for the old lady.

I have seen too many good people be locked up for a bad habit. Hopefully that person would atone, and if not, then the same routines apply.

Easier management of civil conflict is provided by the state. This comes at the cost of trading in our free will and dignity. Most of the plagues in our society can be attributed to the culture that the has state created anyways. There was never a need for a system, when natural law and the human condition were always observable.

Freedom takes responsibility. This is the most honest, proud, and humane path. ​

You aren't giving real answers... You say self defense is justified... What does that mean? They can shoot and kill their opposer? Couldn't anybody just kill somebody else and claim self defense? You do realize there are crimes of very different degrees? And not everybody is able to defend themselves. Look at child abuse... Your answer can't simply be that victims have the responsibility to defend themselves in the moment of the crime and if they don't, oh well, the offenders get away with it.

Your theory is fine for small tribal communities. It would work great for native Americans back in the 1700s. There is just no way for it to work in modern society. I hope deep down you know that.

 

[Onyx]

You aren't giving real answers... You say self defense is justified... What does that mean? They can shoot and kill their opposer?

Absolutely. The community can do it as well.

Couldn't anybody just kill somebody else and claim self defense?

Theoretically. It isn't societies role to play judge, jury, and executioner.

Providing for the public defense is way easier when you are only focusing on the psychopaths. That is all it should constitute too.

You do realize there are crimes of very different degrees?

Only within the framework of established law.

And not everybody is able to defend themselves. Look at child abuse... Your answer can't simply be that victims have the responsibility to defend themselves in the moment of the crime and if they don't, oh well, the offenders get away with it.

The community has an inexplicable human obligation to step in and defend their fellow man, when their personhood and property are being violated.

There is just no way for it to work in modern society. I hope deep down you know that.

Not true. It has worked for all of history both unintentionally and intentionally, in societies with millions of people.

It is happening right now throughout the third world, where the overbearing police state does not reach outside the boundaries of the government administrative centers.

The state gives justification for most violence among the civilian population. Look around at your neighbors. They all abuse different degrees of the established law constantly and get away with it, but I would presume that most are generally good people who only care about protecting and providing for their family

A bigger question here though, is why a modern society makes a difference. History has not changed much in terms of inhuman acts. If anything, our society has become more intelligent and enlightened. We lost our self sufficiency, and it is only a matter of getting that back.

 

[Norman]

Lots of dumb speculation and projection going on here.

But let's be honest, those who want big government most likely benefit from its use of force as primary means of attaining resources, just as slave owners did from their slaves. That's why they will lie, lie and lie some more. The democrats said society would collapse if the slaves be freed... who would pick the cotton?