We Haven’t Had a True Free Enterprise System for Decades

the term "limited government" is an oxymoron.

not at all. Humans have supported all manner of government in the last 10,000 years. The US Constitution is a good example and so is Nazi Germany. This demonstrates that a wide range is possible. Since anarcho capitalism is way way out of range it is insane to support it except perhaps as a tactic to make conservative Republicans look moderate, safe, and reasonable.

Name one government that remained "limited."
 
Only far right reactionary economists such as EB believe in their silly philosophies. If we employed Baiamonte's theories, we would increase world poverty by 10 in the first years. Only the far right thinks that could not happen. But they are far right conservatives, so there you are.
You better be careful, Fakey, your signature is wandering dangerously close to slander.
You mean close to libel.

But it isn't. Ask Vigilante privately.

Calling me a commie is libel. :lol:
 
Only far right reactionary economists such as EB believe in their silly philosophies. If we employed Baiamonte's theories, we would increase world poverty by 10 in the first years. Only the far right thinks that could not happen. But they are far right conservatives, so there you are.
You better be careful, Fakey, your signature is wandering dangerously close to slander.
You mean close to libel.

But it isn't. Ask Vigilante privately.

Calling me a commie is libel. :lol:

How can the truth be libel?
 
See that just's it. You are libeling, and I am telling the truth.

You are one of the Gastric Penguin gang, and this is how emperor penguins treat gastric penguins for being stupid.

 
If you reach that point where there is a functional anarchist society

now thats totally idiotic to even think about. The chances of it happening are less than 0 so what psychological problem would cause you to think about it.

Nice! Straight to the insults! There is no such thing as a possibility of less than zero, and the possibility for an anarchist DOES exist, but it would be difficult to achieve, which I admitted in my previous post. Did you skip that part, or did you just pick the phrase that you could attack?

What I consider idiotic is voting every two years hoping that things will change for the better.

The only way it could be achieved is if there is only one person.
 
Name one government that remained "limited."

More importantly, name one electorate that wanted a limited government

In other words, you can't name one. Your theory that the reason is because the voters didn't want it lacks any visible means of support. What the electorate wants is normally the result of government brainwashing. That's just one more reason the concept of "limited government" is an oxymoron.
 
If you reach that point where there is a functional anarchist society

now thats totally idiotic to even think about. The chances of it happening are less than 0 so what psychological problem would cause you to think about it.

Nice! Straight to the insults! There is no such thing as a possibility of less than zero, and the possibility for an anarchist DOES exist, but it would be difficult to achieve, which I admitted in my previous post. Did you skip that part, or did you just pick the phrase that you could attack?

What I consider idiotic is voting every two years hoping that things will change for the better.

The only way it could be achieved is if there is only one person.

It can be achieved, but not with an entire country the size of the United States. It has to start with small groups that then grow.
 
If you reach that point where there is a functional anarchist society

now thats totally idiotic to even think about. The chances of it happening are less than 0 so what psychological problem would cause you to think about it.

Nice! Straight to the insults! There is no such thing as a possibility of less than zero, and the possibility for an anarchist DOES exist, but it would be difficult to achieve, which I admitted in my previous post. Did you skip that part, or did you just pick the phrase that you could attack?

What I consider idiotic is voting every two years hoping that things will change for the better.

The only way it could be achieved is if there is only one person.

It can be achieved, but not with an entire country the size of the United States. It has to start with small groups that then grow.

No. It can't be achieved. At the point you get three people, two will impose their will upon the third. Then you have a government. The only way to achieve it is to kill everyone.
 
If you reach that point where there is a functional anarchist society

now thats totally idiotic to even think about. The chances of it happening are less than 0 so what psychological problem would cause you to think about it.

Nice! Straight to the insults! There is no such thing as a possibility of less than zero, and the possibility for an anarchist DOES exist, but it would be difficult to achieve, which I admitted in my previous post. Did you skip that part, or did you just pick the phrase that you could attack?

What I consider idiotic is voting every two years hoping that things will change for the better.

The only way it could be achieved is if there is only one person.

It can be achieved, but not with an entire country the size of the United States. It has to start with small groups that then grow.

No. It can't be achieved. At the point you get three people, two will impose their will upon the third. Then you have a government. The only way to achieve it is to kill everyone.

Your view of human nature is even more cynical than mine. That fact is that large numbers of people have lived in towns and cities without any formal government.
 
now thats totally idiotic to even think about. The chances of it happening are less than 0 so what psychological problem would cause you to think about it.

Nice! Straight to the insults! There is no such thing as a possibility of less than zero, and the possibility for an anarchist DOES exist, but it would be difficult to achieve, which I admitted in my previous post. Did you skip that part, or did you just pick the phrase that you could attack?

What I consider idiotic is voting every two years hoping that things will change for the better.

The only way it could be achieved is if there is only one person.

It can be achieved, but not with an entire country the size of the United States. It has to start with small groups that then grow.

No. It can't be achieved. At the point you get three people, two will impose their will upon the third. Then you have a government. The only way to achieve it is to kill everyone.

Your view of human nature is even more cynical than mine. That fact is that large numbers of people have lived in towns and cities without any formal government.

My view of human nature is entirely cynical. Name one.
 
Nice! Straight to the insults! There is no such thing as a possibility of less than zero, and the possibility for an anarchist DOES exist, but it would be difficult to achieve, which I admitted in my previous post. Did you skip that part, or did you just pick the phrase that you could attack?

What I consider idiotic is voting every two years hoping that things will change for the better.

The only way it could be achieved is if there is only one person.

It can be achieved, but not with an entire country the size of the United States. It has to start with small groups that then grow.

No. It can't be achieved. At the point you get three people, two will impose their will upon the third. Then you have a government. The only way to achieve it is to kill everyone.

Your view of human nature is even more cynical than mine. That fact is that large numbers of people have lived in towns and cities without any formal government.

My view of human nature is entirely cynical. Name one.

Jericho.
 
now thats totally idiotic to even think about. The chances of it happening are less than 0 so what psychological problem would cause you to think about it.

Nice! Straight to the insults! There is no such thing as a possibility of less than zero, and the possibility for an anarchist DOES exist, but it would be difficult to achieve, which I admitted in my previous post. Did you skip that part, or did you just pick the phrase that you could attack?

What I consider idiotic is voting every two years hoping that things will change for the better.

The only way it could be achieved is if there is only one person.

It can be achieved, but not with an entire country the size of the United States. It has to start with small groups that then grow.

No. It can't be achieved. At the point you get three people, two will impose their will upon the third. Then you have a government. The only way to achieve it is to kill everyone.

Your view of human nature is even more cynical than mine. That fact is that large numbers of people have lived in towns and cities without any formal government.
Cities and towns in the US are usually entities of the state governments, and the exceptions have governments.
 
Nice! Straight to the insults! There is no such thing as a possibility of less than zero, and the possibility for an anarchist DOES exist, but it would be difficult to achieve, which I admitted in my previous post. Did you skip that part, or did you just pick the phrase that you could attack?

What I consider idiotic is voting every two years hoping that things will change for the better.

The only way it could be achieved is if there is only one person.

It can be achieved, but not with an entire country the size of the United States. It has to start with small groups that then grow.

No. It can't be achieved. At the point you get three people, two will impose their will upon the third. Then you have a government. The only way to achieve it is to kill everyone.

Your view of human nature is even more cynical than mine. That fact is that large numbers of people have lived in towns and cities without any formal government.
Cities and towns in the US are usually entities of the state governments, and the exceptions have governments.

What does that have to do with cities and towns in the past? The state has only existed for 5000 years. Cities and towns have existed for 10,000 years. The claim was made that people can't live together without government. That claim is obviously false.
 
The only way it could be achieved is if there is only one person.

It can be achieved, but not with an entire country the size of the United States. It has to start with small groups that then grow.

No. It can't be achieved. At the point you get three people, two will impose their will upon the third. Then you have a government. The only way to achieve it is to kill everyone.

Your view of human nature is even more cynical than mine. That fact is that large numbers of people have lived in towns and cities without any formal government.

My view of human nature is entirely cynical. Name one.

Jericho.

Seriously? I'll play.... what period are you talking about?
 
The claim was made that people can't live together without government. That claim is obviously false.

John Adams did his thesis at Harvard in the 1750's on "Is Civil Government Necessary". Modern liberals are not fit to understand freedom.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top