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 didn't take it as picking a fight, we're good. Everything you say is reasonable. And certainly since you've been there there you have a great experience I do not have. You can tell me, but maybe we're talking about different meanings of anarchy. Anarchy can mean chaos, and anarchy can be a political structure with no recognized government.
I am referring to the latter. When I refer to anarchists, I am referring to people who want no recognized government. People are social, and most of them are followers. I have no doubt that if we eliminated a commonly recognized government, that Somalia is the inevitable destination. People will not live on farms with their family in their community in governmentless harmony as anarchists envision, they will join a fief or be destroyed.
In anarchy, we have government, but we do not have any consistency. If you've read the thread, you know I keep saying I don't want to live my entire life within 10 miles of where my great grandfather is born. And while the fiefs may have education, criminal justice and so forth, they are limited.
You can tell me if I misunderstood, but I took your post to mean I think anarchy is chaos. That isn't what I meant.
I'm an anarchist because I believe the phrase "good government" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "limited government."
People have lived under government for so long that no one can comprehend how anarchy cold work or be stable, but the fact is that prior to the creation of the state farming communities existed for thousands of years without any kind of formal government. They established property rights and resolved crimes without the usual apparatus of oppression. If you want to read how it could work in a modern context then read some Hans Herman Hoppe and what he calls "the private law society."
But that really didn't work out very well. Genghis Khan is a good example, as is Alexander the Great. Without some sort of common defense, the hippie "private law society" communes get overrun.
TARP helped to prevent our economy from entering a depression. If the banks had failed our economy would have collapsed
TARP was a smoke screen, the real bail out came at the discount window of the Federal Reserve. To a tune of 16.1 Trillion Dollars. Why do you continue to post this Lie?
Then they paid off TARP after borrowing from the Federal Reserve at .25%.
I've proved this many times.
Ok, you are a wingnut. AND?
Yes, they used $16 trillion to save US from ANOTHER GOP great depression. What was the cost to US?
Yeah, it was Gov't NOT private Banksters that created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST 2000-2007, aided by Dubya's regulator failure in the US
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/362889-facts-on-dubya-s-great-recession.html
Yawn. All were to blame, but you only blame one side. The TOO Big Too Fail were created by the Graham Leahy Act.........Signed by Clinton and pushed by the scum bag Graham. They decided that these Banks and Investment firms would be Self Regulated. So the Regulators were put out of the loop. They then used Fractional Banking in the Commercial Sector to fund their Investments in the Markets, which was part of the Glass Steaghall Act in lessons learned by the Great Depression.
You also forget that the GOP tried to regulate it, as they saw what was happening only to laughed at by the Dems in committee. Today, we have another Bubble Machine that is ready to pop using the same dang things that crashed it last time.
YAWN
"The TOO Big Too Fail were created by the Graham Leahy Act.........Signed by Clinton and pushed by the scum bag Graham."
Sure, that GOP bill did it NOT Dubya's regulator failure *shaking head*
Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.
There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagalls restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.
As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securitiesinvestments they had always been free to engage in.
Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes
" You also forget that the GOP tried to regulate it, as they saw what was happening only to laughed at by the Dems in committee.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.
Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding
354 Billion Dollars this year on interest on the debt. 3 months to go. This is why we need a limited Gov't.
We cannot afford the Feel Good Programs that this Gov't continues to fund. This interest payment will go higher and higher, unless we put the brakes on and DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM. Kicking it down the road is quite Frankly TREASON.
Weird, less interest today than 2007
DUBYA TOOK US TO KOREAN WAR LEVELS OF REVENUES!
"Starving the beast" is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.
Before his election as President, then-candidate Ronald Reagan foreshadowed the strategy during the 1980 US Presidential debates, saying "John Anderson tells us that first we've got to reduce spending before we can reduce taxes. Well, if you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker."
Yawn. All were to blame, but you only blame one side. The TOO Big Too Fail were created by the Graham Leahy Act.........Signed by Clinton and pushed by the scum bag Graham. They decided that these Banks and Investment firms would be Self Regulated. So the Regulators were put out of the loop. They then used Fractional Banking in the Commercial Sector to fund their Investments in the Markets, which was part of the Glass Steaghall Act in lessons learned by the Great Depression.
You also forget that the GOP tried to regulate it, as they saw what was happening only to laughed at by the Dems in committee. Today, we have another Bubble Machine that is ready to pop using the same dang things that crashed it last time.
YAWN
"The TOO Big Too Fail were created by the Graham Leahy Act.........Signed by Clinton and pushed by the scum bag Graham."
Sure, that GOP bill did it NOT Dubya's regulator failure *shaking head*
Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.
There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagalls restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.
As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securitiesinvestments they had always been free to engage in.
Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes
" You also forget that the GOP tried to regulate it, as they saw what was happening only to laughed at by the Dems in committee.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.
You are a tool. First they allowed Commercial and Investment banks to merge assets. Thus allowing the Commercial Fractional Banking system to be used through loan after loan after loan in to the INVESTMENT SECTOR. Glass Steagall BANNED THIS in the lessons learned of the Great Depression.
I don't fell like pulling up the vote, but a hell of a lot of Democrats SIGNED IT, including Clinton. Spare me the my side is innocent routine. Sell that to someone who isn't informed on this subject.
YAWN
"The TOO Big Too Fail were created by the Graham Leahy Act.........Signed by Clinton and pushed by the scum bag Graham."
Sure, that GOP bill did it NOT Dubya's regulator failure *shaking head*
Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists
We're members at the Ayn Rand Center, covering economics and liberty.
There is zero evidence this change unleashed the financial crisis. If you tally the institutions that ran into severe problems in 2008-09, the list includes Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, none of which would have come under Glass-Steagalls restrictions. Even President Obama has recently acknowledged that there is not evidence that having Glass-Steagall in place would somehow change the dynamic.
As for the FDIC-insured commercial banks that ran into trouble, the record is also clear: what got them into trouble were not activities restricted by Glass-Steagall. Their problems arose from investments in residential mortgages and residential mortgage-backed securitiesinvestments they had always been free to engage in.
Why The Glass-Steagall Myth Persists - Forbes
" You also forget that the GOP tried to regulate it, as they saw what was happening only to laughed at by the Dems in committee.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PRETTY PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.
You are a tool. First they allowed Commercial and Investment banks to merge assets. Thus allowing the Commercial Fractional Banking system to be used through loan after loan after loan in to the INVESTMENT SECTOR. Glass Steagall BANNED THIS in the lessons learned of the Great Depression.
I don't fell like pulling up the vote, but a hell of a lot of Democrats SIGNED IT, including Clinton. Spare me the my side is innocent routine. Sell that to someone who isn't informed on this subject.
Not to nitpick, but you misspelled "troll".
Roads can easily be provided by private companies, especially today when cars can be equipped with transponders and billed for usage without the driver even having to slow down. Most roads are privately built as it is. All the roads in the subdivision where you live were built by a private contractor. Only the major thoroughfares were built by the government. Private corporations were building private toll roads right after the Revolution. They started building limited access tollways in the 1920s.
There are already private fire departments, so that doesn't need to be explained.
Perhaps you don't realize it, but private security provides most of our protection from criminals. The government police only show up after a crime has been committed to take down names and record the incident. If private roads enforced their own rules of the road, then government police become almost totally superfluous.
The subject of the military, the courts and the law is too big to discuss in this forum. Hans Hermann Hoppe has proposed a solution that he calls "the private law society." If you are really interested, then I suggest you put him on your reading list. The first book I recommend is "Democracy: the god that failed."
Roads can easily be provided by private companies, especially today when cars can be equipped with transponders and billed for usage without the driver even having to slow down. Most roads are privately built as it is. All the roads in the subdivision where you live were built by a private contractor. Only the major thoroughfares were built by the government. Private corporations were building private toll roads right after the Revolution. They started building limited access tollways in the 1920s.
That we could have dirt roads through our communities isn't counter to anything I've ever argued. However, they are paved by developers, but then are turned over to government for maintenance. Government builds and maintains all the main streets and the highways as well and has the economies of scale to pave and maintain neighborhood streets.
So let's say you decide to be the Henry Ford of roads. To build one 10 mile road, you would have to go through countless communities.
1) They may welcome you, they may shoot at you when you approach them
2) They tell you what land they control, but you have no way to verify that
3) You need to reach an agreement with every community along your 10 mile roadway
4) You need to keep the agreement with each in place while you pave the roads
5) You need to acquire equipment and materials, which you get from where exactly?
6) You have to go around any community that says no
7) You have to pay off or go around every community that tries to extort you because you need their land and have agreements with everyone in that line
8) You have to deal with every community that you need because you are going around one that is nuts.
9) You have to continuously defend the 10 mile road and prevent criminals from trying to extort people working or travelling on it.
You have no:
- Police to go to for true criminals
- Money to pay anyone with you have to barter
- Courts to enforce contracts
And every distribution system for the materials you buy has all the same challenges you do.
I like anarchists way better than liberals, but you are just as naive and have no real business or management experience or you would realize how impossible this is. And the more successful you are the more distributed you get and the more insane the logistics of holding that all together becomes.
Perhaps you don't realize it, but private security provides most of our protection from criminals. The government police only show up after a crime has been committed to take down names and record the incident. If private roads enforced their own rules of the road, then government police become almost totally superfluous.
Someone comes in your home while you're in the fields and kills your family and leaves. Good luck with that.
The subject of the military, the courts and the law is too big to discuss in this forum. Hans Hermann Hoppe has proposed a solution that he calls "the private law society." If you are really interested, then I suggest you put him on your reading list. The first book I recommend is "Democracy: the god that failed."
Anarchists are always waiving their hands and telling me to read a book.
You didn't address criminal courts, management of limited resources or recognition of property rights. Without the last one, there is no market for real estate and no stock market for companies, capitalism is restricted to bartering at the local store.
Liberals like to say they don't know what a small government libertarian is. I believe it's pretty clear. No, we are not all the same, but I think when I talk to small government libertarians these are generally agreed upon. Please comment those of you who consider yourself small government libertarian on what you agree and disagree on.
Definition: Note I said "small government" libertarian. I realize many anarchists call themselves "libertarian." I'm not knocking them and of course they are free to participate, I am just not speaking about anarchy here, I am speaking about those of us who want government minimized, not eliminated.
So, here is my definition. I believe these should be the primary functions of government:
1) Military - protecting the country entire country.
2) Police - Enforcing the laws.
3) Civil courts - To resolve contractual and other disputes between citizens.
4) Criminal courts & prisons - to dispense justice for fraud and other criminal acts
5) Roads - To acquire and manage the massive land requirements to move freely about the country
6) Management of limited resources - Access to and distribution of things like water
7) Recognition of property rights - Land, possessions and so forth.
Having these expand my liberty and they only work when there is general recognition of how they are managed. For example, having to sit in a tower all day with a gun to protect my land and my family, courts ruling's not being accepted except voluntarily, people putting toll booths on roads going through their own property, people hoarding water and extorting their neighbors and an inability to sell my home because there is no generally accepted recognition of my borders would reduce and not expand my liberty.
Issues I see the most disagreement on:
1) Abortion. I am like most libertarians I know pro-choice. However, I do see a lot of libertarians who are pro-life. While I do understand their view the baby is a life, I do not understand their view government can force the mother to provide her body to it. However, I understand they do believe it's murder and therefore the job of the criminal justice system.
2) Military. Most libertarians I know think the military should be used only for defense. Almost all libertarians think we use our military far to excessively. However, I do see disagreement with how far we should go in being proactive. I personally think our proactive policies frequently cause that which they were meant to avoid, but it is an area I see disagreement.
3) Taxes. All libertarians I know think our current system is preposterous. Libertarians generally would eliminate the income tax. I support the fair tax, that is not universally accepted by libertarians, which I don't understand because it is the most logical, economically efficient tax. All taxes are taxes on the economy. Therefore, it is logical to have one flat tax on the economy rather than a myriad of indirect taxes. But for whatever reason many libertarians don't grasp that. Libertarians who do support income tax in my experience always support a flat tax.
We are not Republicans because:
1) Social - we are against government morality laws, with the exception of some pro-lifers discussed above.
2) Military - we want smaller, less used military
3) Fiscal - we are fiscal conservatives, we don't just talk about fiscal conservatism.
Liberals are authoritarian leftists, we have nothing in common with them. They believe government force is the solution to every problem.
My view. Please comment.
Someone that lets businesses do as they damn well please and hates maintaining the country...
Pretty much someone that thinks the corporate world should do it all.
You don't grasp free markets. In free markets, companies can do what they want. When they do bad things, their customers leave them, their employees quit, and they are replaced by companies that don't do that.
In your socialist system, bad companies get bailed out by government and thrive by paying them off and contributing to their campaigns. It is in reality you who victimizes people by propping up bad companies with the force of government.
Liberals like to say they don't know what a small government libertarian is. I believe it's pretty clear. No, we are not all the same, but I think when I talk to small government libertarians these are generally agreed upon. Please comment those of you who consider yourself small government libertarian on what you agree and disagree on.
Definition: Note I said "small government" libertarian. I realize many anarchists call themselves "libertarian." I'm not knocking them and of course they are free to participate, I am just not speaking about anarchy here, I am speaking about those of us who want government minimized, not eliminated.
So, here is my definition. I believe these should be the primary functions of government:
1) Military - protecting the country entire country.
2) Police - Enforcing the laws.
3) Civil courts - To resolve contractual and other disputes between citizens.
4) Criminal courts & prisons - to dispense justice for fraud and other criminal acts
5) Roads - To acquire and manage the massive land requirements to move freely about the country
6) Management of limited resources - Access to and distribution of things like water
7) Recognition of property rights - Land, possessions and so forth.
Having these expand my liberty and they only work when there is general recognition of how they are managed. For example, having to sit in a tower all day with a gun to protect my land and my family, courts ruling's not being accepted except voluntarily, people putting toll booths on roads going through their own property, people hoarding water and extorting their neighbors and an inability to sell my home because there is no generally accepted recognition of my borders would reduce and not expand my liberty.
Issues I see the most disagreement on:
1) Abortion. I am like most libertarians I know pro-choice. However, I do see a lot of libertarians who are pro-life. While I do understand their view the baby is a life, I do not understand their view government can force the mother to provide her body to it. However, I understand they do believe it's murder and therefore the job of the criminal justice system.
2) Military. Most libertarians I know think the military should be used only for defense. Almost all libertarians think we use our military far to excessively. However, I do see disagreement with how far we should go in being proactive. I personally think our proactive policies frequently cause that which they were meant to avoid, but it is an area I see disagreement.
3) Taxes. All libertarians I know think our current system is preposterous. Libertarians generally would eliminate the income tax. I support the fair tax, that is not universally accepted by libertarians, which I don't understand because it is the most logical, economically efficient tax. All taxes are taxes on the economy. Therefore, it is logical to have one flat tax on the economy rather than a myriad of indirect taxes. But for whatever reason many libertarians don't grasp that. Libertarians who do support income tax in my experience always support a flat tax.
We are not Republicans because:
1) Social - we are against government morality laws, with the exception of some pro-lifers discussed above.
2) Military - we want smaller, less used military
3) Fiscal - we are fiscal conservatives, we don't just talk about fiscal conservatism.
Liberals are authoritarian leftists, we have nothing in common with them. They believe government force is the solution to every problem.
My view. Please comment.
Typical "conservative" bullshit.
Someone that lets businesses do as they damn well please and hates maintaining the country...
Pretty much someone that thinks the corporate world should do it all.
You don't grasp free markets. In free markets, companies can do what they want. When they do bad things, their customers leave them, their employees quit, and they are replaced by companies that don't do that.
In your socialist system, bad companies get bailed out by government and thrive by paying them off and contributing to their campaigns. It is in reality you who victimizes people by propping up bad companies with the force of government.
In your socialist system, bad companies get bailed out by government and thrive by paying them off and contributing to their campaigns. It is in reality you who victimizes people by propping up bad companies with the force of government.
Ah, so it's like capitalism with Wall Street, across both "conservative" and "liberal" adminstrations. hmmmmmmmmmm.
Liberals like to say they don't know what a small government libertarian is. I believe it's pretty clear. No, we are not all the same, but I think when I talk to small government libertarians these are generally agreed upon. Please comment those of you who consider yourself small government libertarian on what you agree and disagree on.
Definition: Note I said "small government" libertarian. I realize many anarchists call themselves "libertarian." I'm not knocking them and of course they are free to participate, I am just not speaking about anarchy here, I am speaking about those of us who want government minimized, not eliminated.
So, here is my definition. I believe these should be the primary functions of government:
1) Military - protecting the country entire country.
2) Police - Enforcing the laws.
3) Civil courts - To resolve contractual and other disputes between citizens.
4) Criminal courts & prisons - to dispense justice for fraud and other criminal acts
5) Roads - To acquire and manage the massive land requirements to move freely about the country
6) Management of limited resources - Access to and distribution of things like water
7) Recognition of property rights - Land, possessions and so forth.
Having these expand my liberty and they only work when there is general recognition of how they are managed. For example, having to sit in a tower all day with a gun to protect my land and my family, courts ruling's not being accepted except voluntarily, people putting toll booths on roads going through their own property, people hoarding water and extorting their neighbors and an inability to sell my home because there is no generally accepted recognition of my borders would reduce and not expand my liberty.
Issues I see the most disagreement on:
1) Abortion. I am like most libertarians I know pro-choice. However, I do see a lot of libertarians who are pro-life. While I do understand their view the baby is a life, I do not understand their view government can force the mother to provide her body to it. However, I understand they do believe it's murder and therefore the job of the criminal justice system.
2) Military. Most libertarians I know think the military should be used only for defense. Almost all libertarians think we use our military far to excessively. However, I do see disagreement with how far we should go in being proactive. I personally think our proactive policies frequently cause that which they were meant to avoid, but it is an area I see disagreement.
3) Taxes. All libertarians I know think our current system is preposterous. Libertarians generally would eliminate the income tax. I support the fair tax, that is not universally accepted by libertarians, which I don't understand because it is the most logical, economically efficient tax. All taxes are taxes on the economy. Therefore, it is logical to have one flat tax on the economy rather than a myriad of indirect taxes. But for whatever reason many libertarians don't grasp that. Libertarians who do support income tax in my experience always support a flat tax.
We are not Republicans because:
1) Social - we are against government morality laws, with the exception of some pro-lifers discussed above.
2) Military - we want smaller, less used military
3) Fiscal - we are fiscal conservatives, we don't just talk about fiscal conservatism.
Liberals are authoritarian leftists, we have nothing in common with them. They believe government force is the solution to every problem.
My view. Please comment.
Typical "conservative" bullshit.
It is? What did I say that is conservative and not libertarian?
Someone that lets businesses do as they damn well please and hates maintaining the country...
Pretty much someone that thinks the corporate world should do it all.
You don't grasp free markets. In free markets, companies can do what they want. When they do bad things, their customers leave them, their employees quit, and they are replaced by companies that don't do that.
In your socialist system, bad companies get bailed out by government and thrive by paying them off and contributing to their campaigns. It is in reality you who victimizes people by propping up bad companies with the force of government.
In your socialist system, bad companies get bailed out by government and thrive by paying them off and contributing to their campaigns. It is in reality you who victimizes people by propping up bad companies with the force of government.
Ah, so it's like capitalism with Wall Street, across both "conservative" and "liberal" adminstrations. hmmmmmmmmmm.
I want to prop up companies? You are ... full ... of ... shit and just making it up as you go. I want companies that are failing hitting the pavement without a net. You're just making up your shit
Liberals like to say they don't know what a small government libertarian is. I believe it's pretty clear. No, we are not all the same, but I think when I talk to small government libertarians these are generally agreed upon. Please comment those of you who consider yourself small government libertarian on what you agree and disagree on.
Definition: Note I said "small government" libertarian. I realize many anarchists call themselves "libertarian." I'm not knocking them and of course they are free to participate, I am just not speaking about anarchy here, I am speaking about those of us who want government minimized, not eliminated.
So, here is my definition. I believe these should be the primary functions of government:
1) Military - protecting the country entire country.
2) Police - Enforcing the laws.
3) Civil courts - To resolve contractual and other disputes between citizens.
4) Criminal courts & prisons - to dispense justice for fraud and other criminal acts
5) Roads - To acquire and manage the massive land requirements to move freely about the country
6) Management of limited resources - Access to and distribution of things like water
7) Recognition of property rights - Land, possessions and so forth.
Having these expand my liberty and they only work when there is general recognition of how they are managed. For example, having to sit in a tower all day with a gun to protect my land and my family, courts ruling's not being accepted except voluntarily, people putting toll booths on roads going through their own property, people hoarding water and extorting their neighbors and an inability to sell my home because there is no generally accepted recognition of my borders would reduce and not expand my liberty.
Issues I see the most disagreement on:
1) Abortion. I am like most libertarians I know pro-choice. However, I do see a lot of libertarians who are pro-life. While I do understand their view the baby is a life, I do not understand their view government can force the mother to provide her body to it. However, I understand they do believe it's murder and therefore the job of the criminal justice system.
2) Military. Most libertarians I know think the military should be used only for defense. Almost all libertarians think we use our military far to excessively. However, I do see disagreement with how far we should go in being proactive. I personally think our proactive policies frequently cause that which they were meant to avoid, but it is an area I see disagreement.
3) Taxes. All libertarians I know think our current system is preposterous. Libertarians generally would eliminate the income tax. I support the fair tax, that is not universally accepted by libertarians, which I don't understand because it is the most logical, economically efficient tax. All taxes are taxes on the economy. Therefore, it is logical to have one flat tax on the economy rather than a myriad of indirect taxes. But for whatever reason many libertarians don't grasp that. Libertarians who do support income tax in my experience always support a flat tax.
We are not Republicans because:
1) Social - we are against government morality laws, with the exception of some pro-lifers discussed above.
2) Military - we want smaller, less used military
3) Fiscal - we are fiscal conservatives, we don't just talk about fiscal conservatism.
Liberals are authoritarian leftists, we have nothing in common with them. They believe government force is the solution to every problem.
My view. Please comment.
Typical "conservative" bullshit.
It is? What did I say that is conservative and not libertarian?
Some of you folks being embarrassed about being “conservative” have attempted to rebrand yourselves, and that is all.
I didn't take it as picking a fight, we're good. Everything you say is reasonable. And certainly since you've been there there you have a great experience I do not have. You can tell me, but maybe we're talking about different meanings of anarchy. Anarchy can mean chaos, and anarchy can be a political structure with no recognized government.
I am referring to the latter. When I refer to anarchists, I am referring to people who want no recognized government. People are social, and most of them are followers. I have no doubt that if we eliminated a commonly recognized government, that Somalia is the inevitable destination. People will not live on farms with their family in their community in governmentless harmony as anarchists envision, they will join a fief or be destroyed.
In anarchy, we have government, but we do not have any consistency. If you've read the thread, you know I keep saying I don't want to live my entire life within 10 miles of where my great grandfather is born. And while the fiefs may have education, criminal justice and so forth, they are limited.
You can tell me if I misunderstood, but I took your post to mean I think anarchy is chaos. That isn't what I meant.
I'm an anarchist because I believe the phrase "good government" is an oxymoron. So is the phrase "limited government."
People have lived under government for so long that no one can comprehend how anarchy cold work or be stable, but the fact is that prior to the creation of the state farming communities existed for thousands of years without any kind of formal government. They established property rights and resolved crimes without the usual apparatus of oppression. If you want to read how it could work in a modern context then read some Hans Herman Hoppe and what he calls "the private law society."
But that really didn't work out very well. Genghis Khan is a good example, as is Alexander the Great. Without some sort of common defense, the hippie "private law society" communes get overrun.
Conquerors like Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great conquered existing empires with the machinery of control and subjugation already in place. On the other hand, the British spend 1000 years trying to subjugate the Irish, who had no formal government, and they never really succeeded.
However, Hans Hermann Hoppe has come up with a solution to the problem.
Someone that lets businesses do as they damn well please and hates maintaining the country...
Pretty much someone that thinks the corporate world should do it all.
You don't grasp free markets. In free markets, companies can do what they want. When they do bad things, their customers leave them, their employees quit, and they are replaced by companies that don't do that.
In your socialist system, bad companies get bailed out by government and thrive by paying them off and contributing to their campaigns. It is in reality you who victimizes people by propping up bad companies with the force of government.
In your socialist system, bad companies get bailed out by government and thrive by paying them off and contributing to their campaigns. It is in reality you who victimizes people by propping up bad companies with the force of government.
Ah, so it's like capitalism with Wall Street, across both "conservative" and "liberal" adminstrations. hmmmmmmmmmm.
I want to prop up companies? You are ... full ... of ... shit and just making it up as you go. I want companies that are failing hitting the pavement without a net. You're just making up your shit
And that certainly does not happen under "conservatives" or "liberals" here, does it now. Because everyone in the american political game ultimately serves the same cohort, the aristocracy.
