Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I said fewer specifically because, unless Hong Kong has no regulations, there aren't any current examples of "no regulations", however having no regulations would be optimal in every way.Economies are consistently better in locations with fewer regulations.I'm not for any of the regulations, that includes ones which "help" the economy, as factually the government is incapable of doing anything to help the economy. That includes both 'opening the door to' and the regulations which occur after.Ok. Once you use big government to open the door to corporations existing, corporate guilt in court and corporate bankruptcies you open the door to all kinds of regulations of these new entities big government has created to help artificially spur the economy.
IMO ppl want to have it both ways. No regulations and all the benefits and regulations protecting them.
Now, if you want to remove government interference in the economy, remove it. If you want to have it to some degree but not others we need to discuss the individual regulations (some of which are pointless) not some made up number of papers that need filed.
I do not want the regulations "protecting them", businesses don't need "protections", they need freedom from the government's regulations so they can actually thrive AND without the government stangling out their competition.
I want NO regulations, no degrees or exceptions, I've already traced back every problem with the economy to the government, and explained to you how.
Here is where we sort of agree.
While I think it is a necessary evil, I see the mere creation of a corporation as a big government thing. Why should someone be given the right to create something to remove his obligation to creditors?
Notice I said I think its necessary. Corporations allow greater growth because risks can be spread out over the country as a whole in a very socialist way. In effect it lets us compete better with the Chinese or whoever.
The government uses its power to remove the competition for the corporations, this is not necessary, as it givs consumers fewer options and damages the economy.
The government is not a necessary evil, evil is never necessary, especially when that evil infringes on the rights of individuals and turns the populace into slaves, stealing the fruits of their labor as if it's entitled to it.
You know, on an idealistic level I agree with you.
Also I notice you said fewer regulations not none. I can't see removing them all but heck, I bet we could remove or streamline 10 a day for a year. One of my recent adventures was keeping us at work in the good graces of all the states we drop ship to. Ridiculous. All that paperwork is stupid. We're a business. I'll pay taxes in California if that's the law. Just make it easy to!
In a non-idealistic way I think the "evil" of our government, and the U.S.A. does have an evil side, is less than the evil of men. SOMEHOW these laws and just the way things work smoothly if you are lazy and generally fit in keeps people on the up and up I think. No laws, a madman seems to rise to power and you get some strongman mafia like country or the often cited Germany thing where the normal need protected from the vicious. Or weak from strong or whatever.
Perhaps I was beat down by a few years on the fringe of law enforcement and dealing with folks where I live. We're not very nice here in the Midwest. There is the guy who says "it should be James Earl Ray day!" for example and all the dirty fellows who chuckle along with him giving their quiet recessive support.
The government has no incentive to do anything efficiently, they steal your money regardless of whether you like how they do things or not. That's why doing ANYTHING government-related is a pain.
You say that like the government is NOT made up of men, when in fact it is, and their best interest is to expand their own power and benefits from said power. Those in government are just as evil as you would assume anyone else is, but with the addition of granting themselves extra rights that they don't allow the people to have. As a matter of fact, these laws do not work for reasons I've underlined in previous posts in this very thread, however, if we're expanding that beyond regulations, they're currently trying to steal away our second amendment rights(And basically admitted in court that they believe they can "for the greater good") and were only stopped by "Defense Distributed" putting their schematics online for the 3D Printer. The government also abuses their power to decide which victimless crimes we, the people, are not allowed to commit. For example, an individual doing drugs in their own home They also decide whether they can steal people's children as well.So, no, as a matter of fact, creating a monopoly on violence and coercion which has to infringe on the rights of the people to exist, and expands naturally over time, does not work.
You have exactly 0 examples of a stateless society resulting in a madman rising to power, quit talking out your ass.
Criminal activity is a direct result of the government. Those who are part of the Church of the Omnipotent State believe that legislating something results in it becoming impossible to do that thing, when in fact, prohibition only leads to an expansion of criminal activity. For example, the black market on drugs, and everything Chicago deals with. If it wasn't for the government, the war on drugs and all of the resulting violence would not exist.
Pffft hahahaha. You replied to only one part of my post, and you've been doing that the entire time. I suppose your strongest tactic is NOT addressing the conversation.I said fewer specifically because, unless Hong Kong has no regulations, there aren't any current examples of "no regulations", however having no regulations would be optimal in every way.Economies are consistently better in locations with fewer regulations.I'm not for any of the regulations, that includes ones which "help" the economy, as factually the government is incapable of doing anything to help the economy. That includes both 'opening the door to' and the regulations which occur after.
I do not want the regulations "protecting them", businesses don't need "protections", they need freedom from the government's regulations so they can actually thrive AND without the government stangling out their competition.
I want NO regulations, no degrees or exceptions, I've already traced back every problem with the economy to the government, and explained to you how.
Here is where we sort of agree.
While I think it is a necessary evil, I see the mere creation of a corporation as a big government thing. Why should someone be given the right to create something to remove his obligation to creditors?
Notice I said I think its necessary. Corporations allow greater growth because risks can be spread out over the country as a whole in a very socialist way. In effect it lets us compete better with the Chinese or whoever.
The government uses its power to remove the competition for the corporations, this is not necessary, as it givs consumers fewer options and damages the economy.
The government is not a necessary evil, evil is never necessary, especially when that evil infringes on the rights of individuals and turns the populace into slaves, stealing the fruits of their labor as if it's entitled to it.
You know, on an idealistic level I agree with you.
Also I notice you said fewer regulations not none. I can't see removing them all but heck, I bet we could remove or streamline 10 a day for a year. One of my recent adventures was keeping us at work in the good graces of all the states we drop ship to. Ridiculous. All that paperwork is stupid. We're a business. I'll pay taxes in California if that's the law. Just make it easy to!
In a non-idealistic way I think the "evil" of our government, and the U.S.A. does have an evil side, is less than the evil of men. SOMEHOW these laws and just the way things work smoothly if you are lazy and generally fit in keeps people on the up and up I think. No laws, a madman seems to rise to power and you get some strongman mafia like country or the often cited Germany thing where the normal need protected from the vicious. Or weak from strong or whatever.
Perhaps I was beat down by a few years on the fringe of law enforcement and dealing with folks where I live. We're not very nice here in the Midwest. There is the guy who says "it should be James Earl Ray day!" for example and all the dirty fellows who chuckle along with him giving their quiet recessive support.
The government has no incentive to do anything efficiently, they steal your money regardless of whether you like how they do things or not. That's why doing ANYTHING government-related is a pain.
You say that like the government is NOT made up of men, when in fact it is, and their best interest is to expand their own power and benefits from said power. Those in government are just as evil as you would assume anyone else is, but with the addition of granting themselves extra rights that they don't allow the people to have. As a matter of fact, these laws do not work for reasons I've underlined in previous posts in this very thread, however, if we're expanding that beyond regulations, they're currently trying to steal away our second amendment rights(And basically admitted in court that they believe they can "for the greater good") and were only stopped by "Defense Distributed" putting their schematics online for the 3D Printer. The government also abuses their power to decide which victimless crimes we, the people, are not allowed to commit. For example, an individual doing drugs in their own home They also decide whether they can steal people's children as well.So, no, as a matter of fact, creating a monopoly on violence and coercion which has to infringe on the rights of the people to exist, and expands naturally over time, does not work.
You have exactly 0 examples of a stateless society resulting in a madman rising to power, quit talking out your ass.
Criminal activity is a direct result of the government. Those who are part of the Church of the Omnipotent State believe that legislating something results in it becoming impossible to do that thing, when in fact, prohibition only leads to an expansion of criminal activity. For example, the black market on drugs, and everything Chicago deals with. If it wasn't for the government, the war on drugs and all of the resulting violence would not exist.
"You have exactly 0 examples of a stateless society resulting in a madman rising to power, quit talking out your ass."
Maybe we're going to play a game of words but I'd say madmen rise from revolutions?
Or do you need me to get an example from ore "Ur" history?
Pffft hahahaha. You replied to only one part of my post, and you've been doing that the entire time. I suppose your strongest tactic is NOT addressing the conversation.I said fewer specifically because, unless Hong Kong has no regulations, there aren't any current examples of "no regulations", however having no regulations would be optimal in every way.Economies are consistently better in locations with fewer regulations.Here is where we sort of agree.
While I think it is a necessary evil, I see the mere creation of a corporation as a big government thing. Why should someone be given the right to create something to remove his obligation to creditors?
Notice I said I think its necessary. Corporations allow greater growth because risks can be spread out over the country as a whole in a very socialist way. In effect it lets us compete better with the Chinese or whoever.
The government uses its power to remove the competition for the corporations, this is not necessary, as it givs consumers fewer options and damages the economy.
The government is not a necessary evil, evil is never necessary, especially when that evil infringes on the rights of individuals and turns the populace into slaves, stealing the fruits of their labor as if it's entitled to it.
You know, on an idealistic level I agree with you.
Also I notice you said fewer regulations not none. I can't see removing them all but heck, I bet we could remove or streamline 10 a day for a year. One of my recent adventures was keeping us at work in the good graces of all the states we drop ship to. Ridiculous. All that paperwork is stupid. We're a business. I'll pay taxes in California if that's the law. Just make it easy to!
In a non-idealistic way I think the "evil" of our government, and the U.S.A. does have an evil side, is less than the evil of men. SOMEHOW these laws and just the way things work smoothly if you are lazy and generally fit in keeps people on the up and up I think. No laws, a madman seems to rise to power and you get some strongman mafia like country or the often cited Germany thing where the normal need protected from the vicious. Or weak from strong or whatever.
Perhaps I was beat down by a few years on the fringe of law enforcement and dealing with folks where I live. We're not very nice here in the Midwest. There is the guy who says "it should be James Earl Ray day!" for example and all the dirty fellows who chuckle along with him giving their quiet recessive support.
The government has no incentive to do anything efficiently, they steal your money regardless of whether you like how they do things or not. That's why doing ANYTHING government-related is a pain.
You say that like the government is NOT made up of men, when in fact it is, and their best interest is to expand their own power and benefits from said power. Those in government are just as evil as you would assume anyone else is, but with the addition of granting themselves extra rights that they don't allow the people to have. As a matter of fact, these laws do not work for reasons I've underlined in previous posts in this very thread, however, if we're expanding that beyond regulations, they're currently trying to steal away our second amendment rights(And basically admitted in court that they believe they can "for the greater good") and were only stopped by "Defense Distributed" putting their schematics online for the 3D Printer. The government also abuses their power to decide which victimless crimes we, the people, are not allowed to commit. For example, an individual doing drugs in their own home They also decide whether they can steal people's children as well.So, no, as a matter of fact, creating a monopoly on violence and coercion which has to infringe on the rights of the people to exist, and expands naturally over time, does not work.
You have exactly 0 examples of a stateless society resulting in a madman rising to power, quit talking out your ass.
Criminal activity is a direct result of the government. Those who are part of the Church of the Omnipotent State believe that legislating something results in it becoming impossible to do that thing, when in fact, prohibition only leads to an expansion of criminal activity. For example, the black market on drugs, and everything Chicago deals with. If it wasn't for the government, the war on drugs and all of the resulting violence would not exist.
"You have exactly 0 examples of a stateless society resulting in a madman rising to power, quit talking out your ass."
Maybe we're going to play a game of words but I'd say madmen rise from revolutions?
Or do you need me to get an example from ore "Ur" history?
A madman can't rise in a stateless society, because there's no government to take over, and even if they did, the entire populace can be armed with military-grade weapons. This is why the government prefers the populace disarmed, they're easier to oppress that way.
We've seen popular revolutions where the citizens have as many weapons as their government. What do they do? Install a government. Sometimes with a madman as the head, sometimes under the articles of confederation so to say.
Correct, he can't rise to power, as anyone else can follow the steps he's taking, and even better, other competitors will be trying to take his customers and out-do him. There can never be a central power because no regulations prevent even more businesses from forming, the populace is armed, and one would have to first overcome all of that in order to subjugate the citizens.Pffft hahahaha. You replied to only one part of my post, and you've been doing that the entire time. I suppose your strongest tactic is NOT addressing the conversation.I said fewer specifically because, unless Hong Kong has no regulations, there aren't any current examples of "no regulations", however having no regulations would be optimal in every way.Economies are consistently better in locations with fewer regulations.
The government uses its power to remove the competition for the corporations, this is not necessary, as it givs consumers fewer options and damages the economy.
The government is not a necessary evil, evil is never necessary, especially when that evil infringes on the rights of individuals and turns the populace into slaves, stealing the fruits of their labor as if it's entitled to it.
You know, on an idealistic level I agree with you.
Also I notice you said fewer regulations not none. I can't see removing them all but heck, I bet we could remove or streamline 10 a day for a year. One of my recent adventures was keeping us at work in the good graces of all the states we drop ship to. Ridiculous. All that paperwork is stupid. We're a business. I'll pay taxes in California if that's the law. Just make it easy to!
In a non-idealistic way I think the "evil" of our government, and the U.S.A. does have an evil side, is less than the evil of men. SOMEHOW these laws and just the way things work smoothly if you are lazy and generally fit in keeps people on the up and up I think. No laws, a madman seems to rise to power and you get some strongman mafia like country or the often cited Germany thing where the normal need protected from the vicious. Or weak from strong or whatever.
Perhaps I was beat down by a few years on the fringe of law enforcement and dealing with folks where I live. We're not very nice here in the Midwest. There is the guy who says "it should be James Earl Ray day!" for example and all the dirty fellows who chuckle along with him giving their quiet recessive support.
The government has no incentive to do anything efficiently, they steal your money regardless of whether you like how they do things or not. That's why doing ANYTHING government-related is a pain.
You say that like the government is NOT made up of men, when in fact it is, and their best interest is to expand their own power and benefits from said power. Those in government are just as evil as you would assume anyone else is, but with the addition of granting themselves extra rights that they don't allow the people to have. As a matter of fact, these laws do not work for reasons I've underlined in previous posts in this very thread, however, if we're expanding that beyond regulations, they're currently trying to steal away our second amendment rights(And basically admitted in court that they believe they can "for the greater good") and were only stopped by "Defense Distributed" putting their schematics online for the 3D Printer. The government also abuses their power to decide which victimless crimes we, the people, are not allowed to commit. For example, an individual doing drugs in their own home They also decide whether they can steal people's children as well.So, no, as a matter of fact, creating a monopoly on violence and coercion which has to infringe on the rights of the people to exist, and expands naturally over time, does not work.
You have exactly 0 examples of a stateless society resulting in a madman rising to power, quit talking out your ass.
Criminal activity is a direct result of the government. Those who are part of the Church of the Omnipotent State believe that legislating something results in it becoming impossible to do that thing, when in fact, prohibition only leads to an expansion of criminal activity. For example, the black market on drugs, and everything Chicago deals with. If it wasn't for the government, the war on drugs and all of the resulting violence would not exist.
"You have exactly 0 examples of a stateless society resulting in a madman rising to power, quit talking out your ass."
Maybe we're going to play a game of words but I'd say madmen rise from revolutions?
Or do you need me to get an example from ore "Ur" history?
A madman can't rise in a stateless society, because there's no government to take over, and even if they did, the entire populace can be armed with military-grade weapons. This is why the government prefers the populace disarmed, they're easier to oppress that way.
Just trying to stay focused.
A madman can't rise in a stateless society because there is no government to take over. So since there is no central power he can't rise to power?
You want citizens to have nuclear weapons like the government? A-10's ok? M1's? No wait, you want there to be no government?
Speaking of revolutions and zero examples, if we're not going back to Ur, lets try to think of one where the government has been overthrown and then a few years later one of the factions wins. A big one, about a hundred years ago maybe.
We can go on if you like.
Criminal Activity is a result of the government......True, no government, no laws, murder is not illegal. I can live with legal pot and alcohol for folks who have lives they must be stoned to enjoy. I'm not ready for legal meth or heroin if that is where you are going. Might makes right! No wait, let me form a church and then my almighty makes me right
If you think America sucks that's fine. Our government is far from perfect, I dunno if I hate it though. I just want to tweak it.
As far as places on earth with "smaller government". Where are you thinking about?
Correct, he can't rise to power, as anyone else can follow the steps he's taking, and even better, other competitors will be trying to take his customers and out-do him. There can never be a central power because no regulations prevent even more businesses from forming, the populace is armed, and one would have to first overcome all of that in order to subjugate the citizens.Pffft hahahaha. You replied to only one part of my post, and you've been doing that the entire time. I suppose your strongest tactic is NOT addressing the conversation.I said fewer specifically because, unless Hong Kong has no regulations, there aren't any current examples of "no regulations", however having no regulations would be optimal in every way.You know, on an idealistic level I agree with you.
Also I notice you said fewer regulations not none. I can't see removing them all but heck, I bet we could remove or streamline 10 a day for a year. One of my recent adventures was keeping us at work in the good graces of all the states we drop ship to. Ridiculous. All that paperwork is stupid. We're a business. I'll pay taxes in California if that's the law. Just make it easy to!
In a non-idealistic way I think the "evil" of our government, and the U.S.A. does have an evil side, is less than the evil of men. SOMEHOW these laws and just the way things work smoothly if you are lazy and generally fit in keeps people on the up and up I think. No laws, a madman seems to rise to power and you get some strongman mafia like country or the often cited Germany thing where the normal need protected from the vicious. Or weak from strong or whatever.
Perhaps I was beat down by a few years on the fringe of law enforcement and dealing with folks where I live. We're not very nice here in the Midwest. There is the guy who says "it should be James Earl Ray day!" for example and all the dirty fellows who chuckle along with him giving their quiet recessive support.
The government has no incentive to do anything efficiently, they steal your money regardless of whether you like how they do things or not. That's why doing ANYTHING government-related is a pain.
You say that like the government is NOT made up of men, when in fact it is, and their best interest is to expand their own power and benefits from said power. Those in government are just as evil as you would assume anyone else is, but with the addition of granting themselves extra rights that they don't allow the people to have. As a matter of fact, these laws do not work for reasons I've underlined in previous posts in this very thread, however, if we're expanding that beyond regulations, they're currently trying to steal away our second amendment rights(And basically admitted in court that they believe they can "for the greater good") and were only stopped by "Defense Distributed" putting their schematics online for the 3D Printer. The government also abuses their power to decide which victimless crimes we, the people, are not allowed to commit. For example, an individual doing drugs in their own home They also decide whether they can steal people's children as well.So, no, as a matter of fact, creating a monopoly on violence and coercion which has to infringe on the rights of the people to exist, and expands naturally over time, does not work.
You have exactly 0 examples of a stateless society resulting in a madman rising to power, quit talking out your ass.
Criminal activity is a direct result of the government. Those who are part of the Church of the Omnipotent State believe that legislating something results in it becoming impossible to do that thing, when in fact, prohibition only leads to an expansion of criminal activity. For example, the black market on drugs, and everything Chicago deals with. If it wasn't for the government, the war on drugs and all of the resulting violence would not exist.
"You have exactly 0 examples of a stateless society resulting in a madman rising to power, quit talking out your ass."
Maybe we're going to play a game of words but I'd say madmen rise from revolutions?
Or do you need me to get an example from ore "Ur" history?
A madman can't rise in a stateless society, because there's no government to take over, and even if they did, the entire populace can be armed with military-grade weapons. This is why the government prefers the populace disarmed, they're easier to oppress that way.
Just trying to stay focused.
A madman can't rise in a stateless society because there is no government to take over. So since there is no central power he can't rise to power?
You want citizens to have nuclear weapons like the government? A-10's ok? M1's? No wait, you want there to be no government?
Speaking of revolutions and zero examples, if we're not going back to Ur, lets try to think of one where the government has been overthrown and then a few years later one of the factions wins. A big one, about a hundred years ago maybe.
We can go on if you like.
Criminal Activity is a result of the government......True, no government, no laws, murder is not illegal. I can live with legal pot and alcohol for folks who have lives they must be stoned to enjoy. I'm not ready for legal meth or heroin if that is where you are going. Might makes right! No wait, let me form a church and then my almighty makes me right
If you think America sucks that's fine. Our government is far from perfect, I dunno if I hate it though. I just want to tweak it.
As far as places on earth with "smaller government". Where are you thinking about?
Actually, yes, nobody would have a motivtion to, and they would be very expensive to build and launch. I'm not sure what part of "Any weapons" you don't understand.
"Factions" is not an example of anarchy, it's an example multiple states trying to exert control over the rest of an area. that is, in fact, more statist than a usual state.
I'm not advocating violent revolution, fiat currency is unsustainable and defense distributed has proven even for thick statists that, as a matter of fact, the government is just a bunch of people with extra rights and are not omnipotent. Crypto Currency is also not controllable by the government and is expanding as we speak, and will easily beat out the Dollar because there's no demand for it. Your 'example' was a case in which they formed a communist society, what I'm saying is that a state is not needed, not that one should replace the old one, that would just result in the new state exhibiting tumor-like growth again.
In a stateless society, everyone would do what benefits them, and anything there was formerly a demand for, a business would fulfill. This means private courts, and anyone who does not follow the NAP would either have to pay forviolating another's rights or nobody would associate them, making it impossible to live among them. Basically; "Do you like roads? Then you would pay for roads to be built. Do you like courts? Then you would pay for courts." and the best part would be that unlike the government, they would be cheaper and more efficient, otherwise another busines would be paid instead. However, with the government fulfilling these demands, there are no competitors, and they stel your money through taxes, so they have no incentive to do it well.
I think every government sucks, what are talking about? They're monopolies on violence and coercion, which infringe on our rights by existing, and only have their own best interests in mind.
Those Nordic nations Socialist Economic Illiterates keep pointing at, despite having counterproductive policies like Socialized Healthcare, are actually more economically free than the US. So is Hong Kong. They show that more economic freedom results in better economies.
The Great War? You must be European. The "Great War" was a result of Government, as was the destruction of the World's Economy. Why don't you look at the bigger picture, hmm?Correct, he can't rise to power, as anyone else can follow the steps he's taking, and even better, other competitors will be trying to take his customers and out-do him. There can never be a central power because no regulations prevent even more businesses from forming, the populace is armed, and one would have to first overcome all of that in order to subjugate the citizens.Pffft hahahaha. You replied to only one part of my post, and you've been doing that the entire time. I suppose your strongest tactic is NOT addressing the conversation.I said fewer specifically because, unless Hong Kong has no regulations, there aren't any current examples of "no regulations", however having no regulations would be optimal in every way.
The government has no incentive to do anything efficiently, they steal your money regardless of whether you like how they do things or not. That's why doing ANYTHING government-related is a pain.
You say that like the government is NOT made up of men, when in fact it is, and their best interest is to expand their own power and benefits from said power. Those in government are just as evil as you would assume anyone else is, but with the addition of granting themselves extra rights that they don't allow the people to have. As a matter of fact, these laws do not work for reasons I've underlined in previous posts in this very thread, however, if we're expanding that beyond regulations, they're currently trying to steal away our second amendment rights(And basically admitted in court that they believe they can "for the greater good") and were only stopped by "Defense Distributed" putting their schematics online for the 3D Printer. The government also abuses their power to decide which victimless crimes we, the people, are not allowed to commit. For example, an individual doing drugs in their own home They also decide whether they can steal people's children as well.So, no, as a matter of fact, creating a monopoly on violence and coercion which has to infringe on the rights of the people to exist, and expands naturally over time, does not work.
You have exactly 0 examples of a stateless society resulting in a madman rising to power, quit talking out your ass.
Criminal activity is a direct result of the government. Those who are part of the Church of the Omnipotent State believe that legislating something results in it becoming impossible to do that thing, when in fact, prohibition only leads to an expansion of criminal activity. For example, the black market on drugs, and everything Chicago deals with. If it wasn't for the government, the war on drugs and all of the resulting violence would not exist.
"You have exactly 0 examples of a stateless society resulting in a madman rising to power, quit talking out your ass."
Maybe we're going to play a game of words but I'd say madmen rise from revolutions?
Or do you need me to get an example from ore "Ur" history?
A madman can't rise in a stateless society, because there's no government to take over, and even if they did, the entire populace can be armed with military-grade weapons. This is why the government prefers the populace disarmed, they're easier to oppress that way.
Just trying to stay focused.
A madman can't rise in a stateless society because there is no government to take over. So since there is no central power he can't rise to power?
You want citizens to have nuclear weapons like the government? A-10's ok? M1's? No wait, you want there to be no government?
Speaking of revolutions and zero examples, if we're not going back to Ur, lets try to think of one where the government has been overthrown and then a few years later one of the factions wins. A big one, about a hundred years ago maybe.
We can go on if you like.
Criminal Activity is a result of the government......True, no government, no laws, murder is not illegal. I can live with legal pot and alcohol for folks who have lives they must be stoned to enjoy. I'm not ready for legal meth or heroin if that is where you are going. Might makes right! No wait, let me form a church and then my almighty makes me right
If you think America sucks that's fine. Our government is far from perfect, I dunno if I hate it though. I just want to tweak it.
As far as places on earth with "smaller government". Where are you thinking about?
Actually, yes, nobody would have a motivtion to, and they would be very expensive to build and launch. I'm not sure what part of "Any weapons" you don't understand.
"Factions" is not an example of anarchy, it's an example multiple states trying to exert control over the rest of an area. that is, in fact, more statist than a usual state.
I'm not advocating violent revolution, fiat currency is unsustainable and defense distributed has proven even for thick statists that, as a matter of fact, the government is just a bunch of people with extra rights and are not omnipotent. Crypto Currency is also not controllable by the government and is expanding as we speak, and will easily beat out the Dollar because there's no demand for it. Your 'example' was a case in which they formed a communist society, what I'm saying is that a state is not needed, not that one should replace the old one, that would just result in the new state exhibiting tumor-like growth again.
In a stateless society, everyone would do what benefits them, and anything there was formerly a demand for, a business would fulfill. This means private courts, and anyone who does not follow the NAP would either have to pay forviolating another's rights or nobody would associate them, making it impossible to live among them. Basically; "Do you like roads? Then you would pay for roads to be built. Do you like courts? Then you would pay for courts." and the best part would be that unlike the government, they would be cheaper and more efficient, otherwise another busines would be paid instead. However, with the government fulfilling these demands, there are no competitors, and they stel your money through taxes, so they have no incentive to do it well.
I think every government sucks, what are talking about? They're monopolies on violence and coercion, which infringe on our rights by existing, and only have their own best interests in mind.
Those Nordic nations Socialist Economic Illiterates keep pointing at, despite having counterproductive policies like Socialized Healthcare, are actually more economically free than the US. So is Hong Kong. They show that more economic freedom results in better economies.
Look bigger picture. After the great war the rest of the world was destroyed. Whatever economy we had was going to do great for 30 years.
It is also possible to suck dollars off a larger more wealthy nation or continent.
I got your point about America being terrible btw. Singapore is the world power? Or is it a playground allowed to exist?
The Great War? You must be European. The "Great War" was a result of Government, as was the destruction of the World's Economy. Why don't you look at the bigger picture, hmm?Correct, he can't rise to power, as anyone else can follow the steps he's taking, and even better, other competitors will be trying to take his customers and out-do him. There can never be a central power because no regulations prevent even more businesses from forming, the populace is armed, and one would have to first overcome all of that in order to subjugate the citizens.Pffft hahahaha. You replied to only one part of my post, and you've been doing that the entire time. I suppose your strongest tactic is NOT addressing the conversation."You have exactly 0 examples of a stateless society resulting in a madman rising to power, quit talking out your ass."
Maybe we're going to play a game of words but I'd say madmen rise from revolutions?
Or do you need me to get an example from ore "Ur" history?
A madman can't rise in a stateless society, because there's no government to take over, and even if they did, the entire populace can be armed with military-grade weapons. This is why the government prefers the populace disarmed, they're easier to oppress that way.
Just trying to stay focused.
A madman can't rise in a stateless society because there is no government to take over. So since there is no central power he can't rise to power?
You want citizens to have nuclear weapons like the government? A-10's ok? M1's? No wait, you want there to be no government?
Speaking of revolutions and zero examples, if we're not going back to Ur, lets try to think of one where the government has been overthrown and then a few years later one of the factions wins. A big one, about a hundred years ago maybe.
We can go on if you like.
Criminal Activity is a result of the government......True, no government, no laws, murder is not illegal. I can live with legal pot and alcohol for folks who have lives they must be stoned to enjoy. I'm not ready for legal meth or heroin if that is where you are going. Might makes right! No wait, let me form a church and then my almighty makes me right
If you think America sucks that's fine. Our government is far from perfect, I dunno if I hate it though. I just want to tweak it.
As far as places on earth with "smaller government". Where are you thinking about?
Actually, yes, nobody would have a motivtion to, and they would be very expensive to build and launch. I'm not sure what part of "Any weapons" you don't understand.
"Factions" is not an example of anarchy, it's an example multiple states trying to exert control over the rest of an area. that is, in fact, more statist than a usual state.
I'm not advocating violent revolution, fiat currency is unsustainable and defense distributed has proven even for thick statists that, as a matter of fact, the government is just a bunch of people with extra rights and are not omnipotent. Crypto Currency is also not controllable by the government and is expanding as we speak, and will easily beat out the Dollar because there's no demand for it. Your 'example' was a case in which they formed a communist society, what I'm saying is that a state is not needed, not that one should replace the old one, that would just result in the new state exhibiting tumor-like growth again.
In a stateless society, everyone would do what benefits them, and anything there was formerly a demand for, a business would fulfill. This means private courts, and anyone who does not follow the NAP would either have to pay forviolating another's rights or nobody would associate them, making it impossible to live among them. Basically; "Do you like roads? Then you would pay for roads to be built. Do you like courts? Then you would pay for courts." and the best part would be that unlike the government, they would be cheaper and more efficient, otherwise another busines would be paid instead. However, with the government fulfilling these demands, there are no competitors, and they stel your money through taxes, so they have no incentive to do it well.
I think every government sucks, what are talking about? They're monopolies on violence and coercion, which infringe on our rights by existing, and only have their own best interests in mind.
Those Nordic nations Socialist Economic Illiterates keep pointing at, despite having counterproductive policies like Socialized Healthcare, are actually more economically free than the US. So is Hong Kong. They show that more economic freedom results in better economies.
Look bigger picture. After the great war the rest of the world was destroyed. Whatever economy we had was going to do great for 30 years.
It is also possible to suck dollars off a larger more wealthy nation or continent.
I got your point about America being terrible btw. Singapore is the world power? Or is it a playground allowed to exist?
Not sure what this has to do with anything, and I once again want to point out that you're failing to address every point I'm making. Again, likely because you can't.
Singapore is another example of a mostly free economy, and while they do well, better than America, they don't need to be a "Superpower" to have a working economy. In fact, America isn't close to being economically free, and isn't the best, despite sitting on tons of resources. You an thank government for preventing America from booming as well as it could. Another example of government regulation is freaking Venezuela, they have tons of resources, yet their economy is garbage.
Strong government is exactly what causes that kind of uprising, as strong government only infringes further on your rights than a government which merely exists. I also want to point out that if it wasn't for government in the first place, the economies wouldn't have gone downhill due to regulations, tariffs, and changing over to an unsustainable fiat currency.The Great War? You must be European. The "Great War" was a result of Government, as was the destruction of the World's Economy. Why don't you look at the bigger picture, hmm?Correct, he can't rise to power, as anyone else can follow the steps he's taking, and even better, other competitors will be trying to take his customers and out-do him. There can never be a central power because no regulations prevent even more businesses from forming, the populace is armed, and one would have to first overcome all of that in order to subjugate the citizens.Pffft hahahaha. You replied to only one part of my post, and you've been doing that the entire time. I suppose your strongest tactic is NOT addressing the conversation.
A madman can't rise in a stateless society, because there's no government to take over, and even if they did, the entire populace can be armed with military-grade weapons. This is why the government prefers the populace disarmed, they're easier to oppress that way.
Just trying to stay focused.
A madman can't rise in a stateless society because there is no government to take over. So since there is no central power he can't rise to power?
You want citizens to have nuclear weapons like the government? A-10's ok? M1's? No wait, you want there to be no government?
Speaking of revolutions and zero examples, if we're not going back to Ur, lets try to think of one where the government has been overthrown and then a few years later one of the factions wins. A big one, about a hundred years ago maybe.
We can go on if you like.
Criminal Activity is a result of the government......True, no government, no laws, murder is not illegal. I can live with legal pot and alcohol for folks who have lives they must be stoned to enjoy. I'm not ready for legal meth or heroin if that is where you are going. Might makes right! No wait, let me form a church and then my almighty makes me right
If you think America sucks that's fine. Our government is far from perfect, I dunno if I hate it though. I just want to tweak it.
As far as places on earth with "smaller government". Where are you thinking about?
Actually, yes, nobody would have a motivtion to, and they would be very expensive to build and launch. I'm not sure what part of "Any weapons" you don't understand.
"Factions" is not an example of anarchy, it's an example multiple states trying to exert control over the rest of an area. that is, in fact, more statist than a usual state.
I'm not advocating violent revolution, fiat currency is unsustainable and defense distributed has proven even for thick statists that, as a matter of fact, the government is just a bunch of people with extra rights and are not omnipotent. Crypto Currency is also not controllable by the government and is expanding as we speak, and will easily beat out the Dollar because there's no demand for it. Your 'example' was a case in which they formed a communist society, what I'm saying is that a state is not needed, not that one should replace the old one, that would just result in the new state exhibiting tumor-like growth again.
In a stateless society, everyone would do what benefits them, and anything there was formerly a demand for, a business would fulfill. This means private courts, and anyone who does not follow the NAP would either have to pay forviolating another's rights or nobody would associate them, making it impossible to live among them. Basically; "Do you like roads? Then you would pay for roads to be built. Do you like courts? Then you would pay for courts." and the best part would be that unlike the government, they would be cheaper and more efficient, otherwise another busines would be paid instead. However, with the government fulfilling these demands, there are no competitors, and they stel your money through taxes, so they have no incentive to do it well.
I think every government sucks, what are talking about? They're monopolies on violence and coercion, which infringe on our rights by existing, and only have their own best interests in mind.
Those Nordic nations Socialist Economic Illiterates keep pointing at, despite having counterproductive policies like Socialized Healthcare, are actually more economically free than the US. So is Hong Kong. They show that more economic freedom results in better economies.
Look bigger picture. After the great war the rest of the world was destroyed. Whatever economy we had was going to do great for 30 years.
It is also possible to suck dollars off a larger more wealthy nation or continent.
I got your point about America being terrible btw. Singapore is the world power? Or is it a playground allowed to exist?
Not sure what this has to do with anything, and I once again want to point out that you're failing to address every point I'm making. Again, likely because you can't.
Singapore is another example of a mostly free economy, and while they do well, better than America, they don't need to be a "Superpower" to have a working economy. In fact, America isn't close to being economically free, and isn't the best, despite sitting on tons of resources. You an thank government for preventing America from booming as well as it could. Another example of government regulation is freaking Venezuela, they have tons of resources, yet their economy is garbage.
I view the Great Patriotic War as the result of a couple failed governments which weren't strong enough. Thank goodness a big western nation developed a strong central governments and could respond. I'm not sure Stalin's Russia could have pulled it out with only England and her Commonwealth as an Ally.
These blanket statements (of yours also) are too vague to effectively argue about. What's your least favorite business regulation in your country? You'd think there would be plenty we could agree need removal.
Heck, make a few points suggesting killing spotted owls is necessary to compete with the growing economy of big government China and we can have a reasonable discussion on it.
a 1600 square foot home is not a very big house.
I need some verbiage fellow board members.
Looking around I see a bunch of people with well fed bellies, 1600+ square foot houses in a desirable neighborhood (with few of THEM here as these folks say, not me), ridiculously new cars not a wrench one in the garage, paid servants to mow their status symbol lawns for them and needlessly expensive cell phone plans.
This isn't exactly a small part of town either.
So when I hear them complaining about taxes or something it isn't that they don't have a right to complain, we all do, but it seems somewhat....something.
What is the phrase I'm looking for?
I also need a qualifier because at some point even the rich can complain about the system they got rich under or in spite of.
a 1600 square foot home is not a very big house.
I got a degree in architectural design in 1976. Back then house designs were averaging 1200 to 1400 square feet. While you are correct, I believe that this post covers that as well, ala, what are people complaining about when 40 years ago a house was about half the size of the ones we live in today?
Mark
