Only modern day statism can wage wars like they do.

[Antiderivative]

The state is violent in their goals and they have been open with us as they take our civil liberties from us.

Only more federalism and displacement of power will solve this, not more. However, most modern day people "feel" the need to be rule over by distance bureaucrats and legislatures who act on "their" behalf.

Gotta love "American Democracy" where they call you traitors for questioning the plutocrats who bought their power.

Repukes are good at this. Dems are shady at this.

 

[Antiderivative]

The state is a violent force in of itself. That is why it will continue to perpetuate violent atrociousness upon unfounded war and erosion of civil liberties.

 

[editec]

The state is violent in their goals and they have been open with us as they take our civil liberties from us.

Only more federalism and displacement of power will solve this, not more. However, most modern day people "feel" the need to be rule over by distance bureaucrats and legislatures who act on "their" behalf.

Gotta love "American Democracy" where they call you traitors for questioning the plutocrats who bought their power.

Repukes are good at this. Dems are shady at this.

Mankind didn't have any problem fighting wars that went on for decades BEFORE there was a modern state.

If we abadon the concept of rule by representational governments in favor of rule by corporations (and that is where we're headed is it not?) you can expect that wars will them be conducted, much as they were during fuedal times, by the masters of property ...except in this case they're calling themselves CEOs, rather than Kings, and their domains are called corporations rather than Kingdoms.

 

[Antiderivative]

Wars have been always product of the states, not individuals.

 

[editec]

Wars have been always product of the states, not individuals.

You truly do not know what you are talking about.

What STATE did William the Conqueror represent?

After he took over England who OWNED the whole nation?

William, lad.

Everybody else (including the peers of his realm!) was a tenant on HIS land.

 

[bripat9643]

Wars have been always product of the states, not individuals.

You truly do not know what you are talking about.

What STATE did William the Conqueror represent?

He was the Duke of Normandy, dipstick.

After he took over England who OWNED the whole nation?

William, lad.

Everybody else (including the peers of his realm!) was a tenant on HIS land.

You have merely redefined "owner" to be the same as "ruler." Does the President of the United States own the country?

 

[Sallow]

Man you guys sure do get hot under the collar when your favorite terrorists get offed or are in the process of getting ousted from power.

 

[Liability]

Purelyderivative is all worked up about "statism" but does not appear to even understand the basic concept.

Tool.

There is, indeed, a coercive power in "the state." It is pretty difficult to imagine any government that doesn't have a handle on some level of coercive power. It it has no such power, people will in all likelihood feel perfectly content in ignoring the "laws" promulgated by any such government. To an anarchist, that might be a blissful utopia. But whatever else it is, it is not a functioning government.

 

[skookerasbil]

Man you guys sure do get hot under the collar when your favorite terrorists get offed or are in the process of getting ousted from power.

s0n......where ya been?????????

 

[Antiderivative]

Oh, dickhead chimed in. You ranted on about something, but I wasn't paying attention.

 

[Liability]

Oh, dickhead chimed in. You ranted on about something, but I wasn't paying attention.

Chimed in?

You STARTED this thread, asshole.

 

[Antiderivative]

Oh, dickhead chimed in. You ranted on about something, but I wasn't paying attention.

Chimed in?

You STARTED this thread, asshole.

I am fully aware that I started this thread, but I still think you are a dickhead.

Your point?

 

[editec]

Wars have been always product of the states, not individuals.

You truly do not know what you are talking about.

What STATE did William the Conqueror represent?

He was the Duke of Normandy, dipstick.

Yup....The owner of the land called Normandy, amigo.

After he took over England who OWNED the whole nation?

William, lad.

Everybody else (including the peers of his realm!) was a tenant on HIS land.

You have merely redefined "owner" to be the same as "ruler." Does the President of the United States own the country?

No, not the same thing AT ALL. the POTUS doesn't own America.

The basic underpinning of monarchism is the premise that the monarch OWNS the property and anybody living on it does so at the pleasure of the monarch

Why do think they went to all the trouble to create the DOOMSDAY book?

 

[Antiderivative]

Liberty begins with self-ownership.

Yes?

 

[Antiderivative]

The whole idea that a "President" can rule an individual is absurd, yet this is how Americans treat their "rulers" who bow down to tyrants.

That is liberty....in the modern day sense.

 

[editec]

Liberty begins with self-ownership.

Yes?

True.

 

[Antiderivative]

Lets cut off our source from Abdullah. Lets cut of our source of where the 9/11 came from.

But no, we subsidize them.

Only in America do we subsidize terrorists.

 

[Sallow]

Purelyderivative is all worked up about "statism" but does not appear to even understand the basic concept.

Tool.

There is, indeed, a coercive power in "the state." It is pretty difficult to imagine any government that doesn't have a handle on some level of coercive power. It it has no such power, people will in all likelihood feel perfectly content in ignoring the "laws" promulgated by any such government. To an anarchist, that might be a blissful utopia. But whatever else it is, it is not a functioning government.

Notice..no is packing their bags to move to Somalia.

 

[Antiderivative]

Notice..no is packing their bags to move to Somalia.

Somalia is a failed communistic country.

 

[Liability]

Oh, dickhead chimed in. You ranted on about something, but I wasn't paying attention.

Chimed in?

You STARTED this thread, asshole.

I am fully aware that I started this thread, but I still think you are a dickhead.

Your point?

I don't give a crap what a shitforbrainmotherfuckingdickhead like you thinks, ass-munch.

The point, again, is that YOU are the dickhead and you didn't chime in, you idiot. You STARTED the thread.

You are a tool. You are a dickhead. You are confused. And you are woefully ignorant.

Kindly drool elsewhere.

With all due respect,

your pal,

Liaibility