Political Crossfire Forums

[Roy L]

Mr 1 Percent wrote:
Then can you provide a case of "genuine" anarchy that fell apart after a short time? The advent of anarchy is almost a falling apart by definition. The disappearance of Roman government from Western Europe in the 5th C is a classic example.

[EugenicHegemony]

greeneye wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into. Tigers are all pretty much alike. Governments are not. To claim they are is just stupid.
Show me any (initially good) government in history that did not end up an uncontrolable predator.
Show me an anarchist utopia that did not eventually end up with either a government or with quasi-governmental warlords pillaging it.
All governments are necessarily prone to expansion. It is their nature due to the perverse incentives inherent in government power.
Anarchies are not neccessarily prone to defeat. The most powerful government army in history has recently been given a very difficult time by people without a government, (and remember that their previous dictator had disarmed them).

I aksed for an example of a government-less society that survived for a significant period of time.
Medieval Iceland for 290 years
http://www.simplyanarchy.com/studies.htm

Medieval Iceland was not an example of anarcho-capitalism or any other form of anarchy. It was a set of communes, each consisting of a group of family farmers. Membership in a given commune was not voluntary, it was required, as was a contribution of funds for the needs of the commune. Additionally, there was no free market, as prices were set by communal committees. Ultimately, power struggles caused the whole thing fell apart and the leaders of the communes approached the king of Norway to have him take over Iceland.
Then can you provide a case of "genuine" anarchy that fell apart after a short time?

Afghanistan, immediately after the Soviet withdrawal had no government. It quickly descended into a morass of feuding warlords.

You can thank the U.S. government for that and the build up of the Mujadeen. You can also thank them for the aiding of the Somali war lords. You think that a central government is something petty dysfunctional war lords give a damn about? War lord governments like the U.S. do.

greeneye wrote: Amazing conclusion, EugenicHegemony. I'm sorry, I have no idea what I'm talking about... :clap:

EugenicHegemony wrote: Don't be so hard on yourself there, greeneye. :lol:

When the Soviets finally realized they could not win the Afghan war and they pulled out, anarchy followed because of the Soviet-installed Najibullah government. Mohammed Najibullah's overthrow in 1992 finally brought the anti-Soviet resistance groups--the mujahedin--to power. But there was still anarchy because the mujahedin started to fight each other in a brutal civil war that lasted years. The ongoing fighting (anarchy) was due to the fragmentation of power during the years of resistance between the mujahedin and the Soviet Union and the increased ethnic tensions.

Afganistan's September 2005 parlimentary elections were an important milestone marking the progress in the development of a stable democracy vs the anarchy they've had for years.

The very idea of an anarchy government (in the positive sense of the word - 'self rule') could never work in a state like Afghanistan where the people and different ethnic groups would not be able to take the responsibility of being self ruled.

greeneye wrote:

When the Soviets finally realized they could not liberate the Afghani people, their super power was deteriorating with the orchestration of the CIA hooking the USSR soldiers on Afghanistan's plethora of heroin. The Taliban then took control of that country thank's to the aid of the U.S government. Oh, and McDonald's was one of the first cultural imperial icon's to invade once the USSR fell, and was being rebuilt. McArabia will be coming to a colonized Central Asian country near you :wink: That's what your jingoist empire does. It invades and sets up shop. Open for mass consumerist business. No citizens, and just brand spankin new consumers. Who by the way, get their currency value (loaned at interest), and then livelihood's controlled like a kid with an ant farm. Rothchild was a prikC.

Taken from a 1999 Congressional Report on CIA involvement in drug trafficking:

Quote:
"Soviet-backed coup in Afghanistan sets stage for explosive growth in Southwest Asian heroin trade. New Marxist regime undertakes vigorous anti-narcotics campaign aimed at suppressing poppy production, triggering a revolt by semi-autonomous tribal groups that traditionally raised opium for export. The CIA-supported rebel Mujahedeen begins expanding production to finance their insurgency. Between 1982 and 1989, during which time the CIA ships billions of dollars in weapons and other aid to guerrilla forces, annual opium production in Afghanistan increases to about 800 tons from 250 tons. By 1986, the State Department admits that Afghanistan is "probably the world's largest producer of opium for export" and "the poppy source for a majority of the Southwest Asian heroin found in the United States." U.S. officials, however, fail to take action to curb production. Their silence not only serves to maintain public support for the Mujahedeen, it also smooths relations with Pakistan, whose leaders, deeply implicated in the heroin trade, help channel CIA support to the Afghan rebels".


Between 1978-1990s, the US government contributed somewhere between $6 billion and $20 billion worth of arms to the Islamic fundamentalist resistance, who were fighting against the secular PDPA and the USSR. Osama Bin Laden formed al-Qeada in 1987. Thank your dictatorial terrorist government for 911. Without their aid, 911 would have never happened. Our government also supported the Ba’ath party of Saddam in the 1963 Iraqi coup, and continued to support him during the 1980s, supplying him with his weapons of mass destruction programs and other weapons. Halliburton, during that time, was the largest American contractor doing business with Saddam. No partisanship there. The enemy was doing business with an American company and our government, period. Now they are demolishing Central Asia, and forcing you all to pay for it. They will make billion's, and then trillion's. This (all) came about after the Soviet Union fell, because there was no one left to challenge our government, and their imperia. The heroin business, now that the U.S. government has taken over it for good, is now 18x over and beyond what it was prior to the invasion.

I won't even bother with the rest of the new ridiculous installed system in 2005 as there's no need, and it has no bearing on this discussion. Unocal?

Unless you want to talk about who took over the most lucrative poppy business in Central Asia. Look at the wonders your jingoist government has worked in Iraq. It's now a springboard for limitless national socialist control under new management, ergo fascist. People such as you like to call it "freedom on the march". Call it islamofascist now, and be proud that enlisted kids died for more lies. Anywhere decentralized government tries to succeed, you will find the powers that be behind the scenes doing everything in their power to destroy it. Look at Somalia, and how they're trying to steal their wealth of natural resources while using War Lords to keep the chaos in motion.

It's fact my little friend. Argue with your traitorous CIA, and your jingoist government. Then make the necessary jingoist excuses that I know you're so very capable of. And here's some factual information that can be verified on your own time. Have fun.

[Roy L]

Mr 1 Percent wrote:
All governments are necessarily prone to expansion. It is their nature due to the perverse incentives inherent in government power. Claim lacking any factual or logical support.

[Roy L]

Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
I aksed for an example of a government-less society that survived for a significant period of time.
Medieval Iceland for 290 years
http://www.simplyanarchy.com/studies.htm Medieval Iceland certainly had a government. It was just an unusually decentralized and flexible one.

[EugenicHegemony]

Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
I aksed for an example of a government-less society that survived for a significant period of time.
Medieval Iceland for 290 years
http://www.simplyanarchy.com/studies.htm Medieval Iceland certainly had a government. It was just an unusually decentralized and flexible one.

Quote: decentralized and flexible one.

That's what we as a world populace must strive for. Jefferson had wanted this for his fellow man. I'd like to see any Republocrat today shrink government as much as Jefferson did. The more control, regulation, laws, and limitations placed on you, the less freedom you will have, period. I think you said you were a geolibertarian, correct?

Here's a site I like.

This one leans more toward anarchy, and there is just so much knowledgeable information here. I still think you and Rue can appreciate what is contained therein. Great book also, and it can all be read on line. You can also purchase it; I just read it online though.

[Mr 1 Percent]

Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote:
To continue the culinary metaphor, let the baby tiger have it's bottle if you must, but you are responsible for what it turns into. Tigers are all pretty much alike. Governments are not. To claim they are is just stupid.
Show me any (initially good) government in history that did not end up an uncontrolable predator. Iceland, Canada, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, the Bahamas, Switzerland, Eire and Costa Rica are all examples of countries with democratic governments that have shown no inclination to become uncontrolable predators at any time since they became democratic.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Your kidding, right? Take a look at some of their tax rates. That is enough proof for me.

Taxes as % of GDP 1999

Australia 30.6
Canada 38.2
Iceland 36.3
Ireland 32.3
NZ 35.6
Sweden 52.2
Switz' 34.4

source - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=102&Topic2id=95

At what rate would taxes start to become excessive?

[RueTheDay]

EugenicHegemony wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
I aksed for an example of a government-less society that survived for a significant period of time.
Medieval Iceland for 290 years
http://www.simplyanarchy.com/studies.htm Medieval Iceland certainly had a government. It was just an unusually decentralized and flexible one.

Quote: decentralized and flexible one.

That's what we as a world populace must strive for. Jefferson had wanted this for his fellow man. I'd like to see any Republocrat today shrink government as much as Jefferson did. The more control, regulation, laws, and limitations placed on you, the less freedom you will have, period. I think you said you were a geolibertarian, correct?

Here's a site I like.

This one leans more toward anarchy, and there is just so much knowledgeable information here. I still think you and Rue can appreciate what is contained therein. Great book also, and it can all be read on line. You can also purchase it; I just read it online though.

I don't have any problem at all with the sort of government espoused by classical liberals like Jefferson. I just recognize that while they did in fact favor limited government, they were neither anarchists nor minarchist propertarians.

[Roy L]

Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote:
Show me any (initially good) government in history that did not end up an uncontrolable predator. Iceland, Canada, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, the Bahamas, Switzerland, Eire and Costa Rica are all examples of countries with democratic governments that have shown no inclination to become uncontrolable predators at any time since they became democratic.

Your kidding, right? No, I most certainly am not.

Quote: Take a look at some of their tax rates. That is enough proof for me. I am aware that the standard of proof you apply to your own claims is roughly comparable to that of the "moon landings a hoax" crowd.
Quote:
Taxes as % of GDP 1999

Australia 30.6
Canada 38.2
Iceland 36.3
Ireland 32.3
NZ 35.6
Sweden 52.2
Switz' 34.4

source - http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=102&Topic2id=95
Ah. I see. So, when you said "uncontrolable predator" what you actually meant was "popularly controlled and democratically accountable provider of services and infrastructure that lacks a Ministry of Magic whereby to obtain said services and infrastructure."

That about it?

Quote: At what rate would taxes start to become excessive? That depends entirely on what is being taxed, and how.

[EugenicHegemony]

RueTheDay wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
I aksed for an example of a government-less society that survived for a significant period of time.
Medieval Iceland for 290 years
http://www.simplyanarchy.com/studies.htm Medieval Iceland certainly had a government. It was just an unusually decentralized and flexible one.

Quote: decentralized and flexible one.

That's what we as a world populace must strive for. Jefferson had wanted this for his fellow man. I'd like to see any Republocrat today shrink government as much as Jefferson did. The more control, regulation, laws, and limitations placed on you, the less freedom you will have, period. I think you said you were a geolibertarian, correct?

Here's a site I like.

This one leans more toward anarchy, and there is just so much knowledgeable information here. I still think you and Rue can appreciate what is contained therein. Great book also, and it can all be read on line. You can also purchase it; I just read it online though.

I don't have any problem at all with the sort of government espoused by classical liberals like Jefferson. I just recognize that while they did in fact favor limited government, they were neither anarchists nor minarchist propertarians.

Agreed, and I think Jefferson would have welcomed minarchism over what we have today, and are spreading through war. I don't like the fact he was such such a proponent for nationalized schooling, and I think if he saw what it would become then he'd never want this either. I don't see minarchism as anarchy in the least, and think it's a viable option through decentralization. I think that's what decentralization would breed.

What do you think of the mutalist blog, and have you ever read seen it before or heard of his book? Here's the book if you don't mind reading online for hrs on end.

[smuj]

EugenicHegemony wrote:

Taken from a 1999 Congressional Report on CIA involvement in drug trafficking:

Quote:
"Soviet-backed coup in Afghanistan sets stage for explosive growth in Southwest Asian heroin trade. New Marxist regime undertakes vigorous anti-narcotics campaign aimed at suppressing poppy production, triggering a revolt by semi-autonomous tribal groups that traditionally raised opium for export. The CIA-supported rebel Mujahedeen begins expanding production to finance their insurgency. Between 1982 and 1989, during which time the CIA ships billions of dollars in weapons and other aid to guerrilla forces, annual opium production in Afghanistan increases to about 800 tons from 250 tons. By 1986, the State Department admits that Afghanistan is "probably the world's largest producer of opium for export" and "the poppy source for a majority of the Southwest Asian heroin found in the United States." U.S. officials, however, fail to take action to curb production. Their silence not only serves to maintain public support for the Mujahedeen, it also smooths relations with Pakistan, whose leaders, deeply implicated in the heroin trade, help channel CIA support to the Afghan rebels".


Between 1978-1990s, the US government contributed somewhere between $6 billion and $20 billion worth of arms to the Islamic fundamentalist resistance, who were fighting against the secular PDPA and the USSR. Osama Bin Laden formed al-Qeada in 1987. Thank your dictatorial terrorist government for 911. Without their aid, 911 would have never happened. Our government also supported the Ba’ath party of Saddam in the 1963 Iraqi coup, and continued to support him during the 1980s, supplying him with his weapons of mass destruction programs and other weapons. Halliburton, during that time, was the largest American contractor doing business with Saddam. No partisanship there. The enemy was doing business with an American company and our government, period. Now they are demolishing Central Asia, and forcing you all to pay for it. They will make billion's, and then trillion's. This (all) came about after the Soviet Union fell, because there was no one left to challenge our government, and their imperia. The heroin business, now that the U.S. government has taken over it for good, is now 18x over and beyond what it was prior to the invasion.

I won't even bother with the rest of the new ridiculous installed system in 2005 as there's no need, and it has no bearing on this discussion. Unocal?

Unless you want to talk about who took over the most lucrative poppy business in Central Asia. Look at the wonders your jingoist government has worked in Iraq. It's now a springboard for limitless national socialist control under new management, ergo fascist. People such as you like to call it "freedom on the march". Call it islamofascist now, and be proud that enlisted kids died for more lies. Anywhere decentralized government tries to succeed, you will find the powers that be behind the scenes doing everything in their power to destroy it. Look at Somalia, and how they're trying to steal their wealth of natural resources while using War Lords to keep the chaos in motion.

It's fact my little friend. Argue with your traitorous CIA, and your jingoist government. Then make the necessary jingoist excuses that I know you're so very capable of. And here's some factual information that can be verified on your own time. Have fun.

Thank you for that.

Here's some more info to back that up:

CIA Drug fallout

Anyone who thinks america's current government is relatively benign, needs to do a bit of research.

[RueTheDay]

EugenicHegemony wrote: RueTheDay wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
I aksed for an example of a government-less society that survived for a significant period of time.
Medieval Iceland for 290 years
http://www.simplyanarchy.com/studies.htm Medieval Iceland certainly had a government. It was just an unusually decentralized and flexible one.

Quote: decentralized and flexible one.

That's what we as a world populace must strive for. Jefferson had wanted this for his fellow man. I'd like to see any Republocrat today shrink government as much as Jefferson did. The more control, regulation, laws, and limitations placed on you, the less freedom you will have, period. I think you said you were a geolibertarian, correct?

Here's a site I like.

This one leans more toward anarchy, and there is just so much knowledgeable information here. I still think you and Rue can appreciate what is contained therein. Great book also, and it can all be read on line. You can also purchase it; I just read it online though.

I don't have any problem at all with the sort of government espoused by classical liberals like Jefferson. I just recognize that while they did in fact favor limited government, they were neither anarchists nor minarchist propertarians.

Agreed, and I think Jefferson would have welcomed minarchism over what we have today, and are spreading through war. I don't like the fact he was such such a proponent for nationalized schooling, and I think if he saw what it would become then he'd never want this either.

Virtually ALL of the classical liberals were in favor of some sort of public education program or at least to mandate and pay for public education.

Jefferson was also opposed to unlimited immigration, very much at odds with the modern libertarian platform.

Jefferson wanted decentralized government and vehemently opposed increasing the power of the federal government; however, at the state and local level he supported a government pretty far in excess of the minarchist "night watchman state".

Quote: I don't see minarchism as anarchy in the least, and think it's a viable option through decentralization. I think that's what decentralization would breed.

Two completely separate issues - the organization of government (centralized or decentralized) vs the legitimate scope of government in general.

Quote: What do you think of the mutalist blog, and have you ever read seen it before or heard of his book? Here's the book if you don't mind reading online for hrs on end.

I'll take a look when I have some time.

[EugenicHegemony]

RueTheDay wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: RueTheDay wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: RueTheDay wrote:
I aksed for an example of a government-less society that survived for a significant period of time.
Medieval Iceland for 290 years
http://www.simplyanarchy.com/studies.htm Medieval Iceland certainly had a government. It was just an unusually decentralized and flexible one.

Quote: decentralized and flexible one.

That's what we as a world populace must strive for. Jefferson had wanted this for his fellow man. I'd like to see any Republocrat today shrink government as much as Jefferson did. The more control, regulation, laws, and limitations placed on you, the less freedom you will have, period. I think you said you were a geolibertarian, correct?

Here's a site I like.

This one leans more toward anarchy, and there is just so much knowledgeable information here. I still think you and Rue can appreciate what is contained therein. Great book also, and it can all be read on line. You can also purchase it; I just read it online though.

I don't have any problem at all with the sort of government espoused by classical liberals like Jefferson. I just recognize that while they did in fact favor limited government, they were neither anarchists nor minarchist propertarians.

Agreed, and I think Jefferson would have welcomed minarchism over what we have today, and are spreading through war. I don't like the fact he was such such a proponent for nationalized schooling, and I think if he saw what it would become then he'd never want this either.

Virtually ALL of the classical liberals were in favor of some sort of public education program or at least to mandate and pay for public education.

Jefferson was also opposed to unlimited immigration, very much at odds with the modern libertarian platform.

Jefferson wanted decentralized government and vehemently opposed increasing the power of the federal government; however, at the state and local level he supported a government pretty far in excess of the minarchist "night watchman state".

Quote: I don't see minarchism as anarchy in the least, and think it's a viable option through decentralization. I think that's what decentralization would breed.

Two completely separate issues - the organization of government (centralized or decentralized) vs the legitimate scope of government in general.

Quote: What do you think of the mutalist blog, and have you ever read seen it before or heard of his book? Here's the book if you don't mind reading online for hrs on end.

I'll take a look when I have some time.

Quote: Virtually ALL of the classical liberals were in favor of some sort of public education program or at least to mandate and pay for public education.


I still say he would not have wanted the ridiculous uneducation system we have today. This is taken from A Free Republic. It's a conservative site I frequent on a daily basis.

Quote: Jefferson was also opposed to unlimited immigration, very much at odds with the modern libertarian platform.

No one will ever agree with any platform they choose to belong to on every issue. Which is one of the main reasons I don't like the idea of partisan parties.

It was full of Europeans in those days, and now it's a massive melting pot. Our government feign nationalism when they are, in fact, anti-nationalist. There's also no way to stop immigration. End the welfare state, and then see if they decide to flock here with the same vigor.

Quote: Two completely separate issues - the organization of government (centralized or decentralized) vs the legitimate scope of government in general.


Why, neither negates government, and just different forms of it. Minarchism is still a structural system, and yet not concentrated in a central fashion. Nothing is set in stone and we as a world people will always adapt if given the chance to take responsibility for our lives. Now all we have are bad parents, and it's this central authoritarian government that has made everyone dependent on them. I call them bad parents as that's what they act like. They want us to need them, and be wholly dependent on any onerous controls they force on us. Most people think they protect freedom, and I haven't seen any of that. They must protect our borders, and abide by the USC. Anything else they do is counterproductive to liberty. They must never dictate, and only represent as that's what they're there for. Congress has become a lifestyle, and we as a taxpaying citizenry make that lifestyle possible. I like the idea of term limits to quell that ever lasting aristocratic way of life.

[Mr 1 Percent]

Roy L wrote:

Quote: At what rate would taxes start to become excessive? That depends entirely on what is being taxed, and how.

Currently in the U.S. if you effectively resist paying taxes you will be shot. Is that Okay by you?

[Roy L]

Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote:

Quote: At what rate would taxes start to become excessive? That depends entirely on what is being taxed, and how.

Currently in the U.S. if you effectively resist paying taxes you will be shot. Is that Okay by you? It's a direct consequence of taxing the wrong things. If privilege were taxed instead of production, the enforcement would just consist of losing the privilege.

[BlackOps]

Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote:
The best form of government is none. That's been tried, in places like Somalia. The results are alwys grossly inferior to the results in places with good governments. I'm not sure how you prevent yourself from knowing such facts, but I know anarcho-feudalists manage to do it somehow.

Cute, but misleading. First, there's no such thing as "good government."
There's only different degrees of brutality, oppression and predation. As for Somalia and the like, let's give it a few hundred years without government and then see how it's going and not just some 12. What was the US like after 12 years of age? Would you have left London or Paris to go there? What, to run around killing indians? Even your so called "good government," took how long to establish?

[BlackOps]

Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote:
The best form of government is none. That's been tried, in places like Somalia. The results are always grossly inferior to the results in places with good governments. I'm not sure how you prevent yourself from knowing such facts...

Here is a fact for you. Last century governments were responsible for the deaths of 170 million people. Yeah, and that's about 1/10 of the number that would have died if there had been no governments. Do you know what happened in Western Europe when Roman government disappeared in the 5th C? The population declined by 30%. And it wasn't because of contraception.

Quote: Why should we only look at "good" governments? That is a biased sample. I didn't say we should look only at good governments. We need to look at the bad ones too, to learn from their mistakes. As for being a "biased sample," that's kinda the idea. If you want to know how to eat a healthy diet, you look at healthy people. You don't look at all the people who make themselves fat and sick by eating junk food and decide on that account to opt for anorexia.

Quote: Yeah, and that's about 1/10 of the number that would have died if there had been no governments. Really now? So tell me, who exactly would have killed this incredible number of 1700 million people, if not governments. After all, it's not like the private sector goes around attacking other members of the private sector. ie. A group of plumbers starts murdering and looting a group of electricians. It's always the criminal class. ie. The governing class or the aspiring governing class.

Quote: Do you know what happened in Western Europe when Roman government disappeared in the 5th C? The population declined by 30%. And it wasn't because of contraception.
Well thank you for the wonderful example of other predatory states, muscling in on the action, by fighting over the dying carcass of the previous criminal state and in the process wiping out a third of the population.

[greeneye]

EugenicHegemony wrote: When the Soviets finally realized they could not liberate the Afghani people

CIA .... USSR ..... heroin..... Taliban...... McDonald's...... jingoist empire..... mass consumerist business..... Rothchild...... woo ... you're all over the map here Eugenic .....

First, you have quoted me as saying:

Quote: When the Soviets finally realized they could not liberate the Afghani people,their super power was deteriorating with the orchestration of the CIA hooking the USSR soldiers on Afghanistan's plethora of heroin. The Taliban then took control of that country thank's to the aid of the U.S government. Oh, and McDonald's was one of the first cultural imperial icon's to invade once the USSR fell, and was being rebuilt. McArabia will be coming to a colonized Central Asian country near you Wink That's what your jingoist empire does. It invades and sets up shop. Open for mass consumerist business. No citizens, and just brand spankin new consumers. Who by the way, get their currency value (loaned at interest), and then livelihood's controlled like a kid with an ant farm. Rothchild was a prikC.

I did not say that. You did.

Second, your comment: "When the Soviets finally realized they could not liberate the Afghani people..." (if liberate means what I think it means.... we're not on the same playing field ....


The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Repeat..... The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan 1979.

The Soviets did not liberate Afghanistan nor were they trying to liberate Afghanistan. They invaded the country. And when they did, the Afghans were not standing in the streets cheering them on and welcoming their arrival. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4083015.stm

The US, Pakistan, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia supplied money and arms to the Mujahideen for years to help fight them fight to get the Soviets out of their country. They left in 1989. Anarchy followed until the first elections in 2004.

After the Soviets left Afghanistan here's a summary of what happened.

Quote: From February 1989 the pro-Soviet government of Mohammad Najibullah continues to fight the Islamic fundamentalist Mujahideen on it's own ­ the government receives no Soviet Aid, and the US shuts off all contact with their "Freedom Fighters". After three years of battle, the fundamentalists finally win in April of 1992. The Mujahideen refuse, however, to allow any other ethnic tribe to control the nation, and fierce genocidal fighting breaks out among themselves ­ between the Pashtoon, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and Turkmen.

In October, 1994, the Taliban movement is created among former Mujahideen (primarily Pashtoon) with the support of Pakistan, winning their first territory of Kandahar. In August, 1995, the oil company Bridas (which is shortly thereafter bought up by British Petroleum) meets the Taliban government for the first time to discuss building an oil pipeline through the country. In February of 1996, they sign an agreement to build the pipeline, regardless of on-going fighting, beating U.S. oil competitor Unocal which is hesitant about agreeing to the $2.5 billion investment without consolidated Taliban control. In September, 1996, the Taliban secure Kabul, dragging the Socialist Najibullah and his brother, having lived for four years in a United Nations compound, into the streets, hanging them from a traffic light. In the following month, the Taliban enforce Sharia Islamic law in Kabul. All co-ed schooling is strictly forbidden, all girls schools are shut down and boarded up. Women are forced out of the work force entirely, and are stripped nearly all access to health care.
http://www.marxists.org/history/afghanistan/timeline.htm

Here's a time line of the Afghan war.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban-time.html

It is clear from your comments that you do not favor the idea of any type of democratic system in Afghanistan. OK, I understand your position. It is not mine.

Being that this is a forum on Philosophy

and we were discussing the idea of anarchy versus democracy, I would support a democracy over a self rule anarchy system in Afghanistan primarily because in order for a 'self-rule society' to work, people would have to be completely responsible for their actions. Sounds like a noble idea to strive for, but I don't think Afghanistan is ready for it.

[BlackOps]

Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote: Roy L wrote: Mr 1 Percent wrote:
The best form of government is none. That's been tried, in places like Somalia. The results are always grossly inferior to the results in places with good governments. I'm not sure how you prevent yourself from knowing such facts...

Here is a fact for you. Last century governments were responsible for the deaths of 170 million people. Yeah, and that's about 1/10 of the number that would have died if there had been no governments. Do you know what happened in Western Europe when Roman government disappeared in the 5th C? The population declined by 30%. And it wasn't because of contraception.

Quote: Why should we only look at "good" governments? That is a biased sample. I didn't say we should look only at good governments. We need to look at the bad ones too, to learn from their mistakes. As for being a "biased sample," that's kinda the idea. If you want to know how to eat a healthy diet, you look at healthy people. You don't look at all the people who make themselves fat and sick by eating junk food and decide on that account to opt for anorexia.

Quote: If you want to know how to eat a healthy diet, you look at healthy people. You don't look at all the people who make themselves fat and sick by eating junk food and decide on that account to opt for anorexia. Wrong again! If you want to know how to eat a healthy diet, you don't ask for advice, from the biggest criminal on the block, which specialises in poisons, wholesale.

[greeneye]

Mr 1 Percent wrote: People who believe the state can be kept benevolent, regardless of the massive amount of evidence to the contrary, are the true utopians.

Isn't it rather Utopian to consider a society governed with no central government and it's people survive by being self ruled? It's a noble idea, but in man's current stage of enlightenment and evolution, do you actually believe this is possible?

[BlackOps]

canadagal wrote: "Democracy is the best form of government for all the world's inhabitants."

do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

Or to put it another way: Two guys walking down the street, spot an attractive woman.....a stranger to them......they approach her..... they decide to vote..... whether to have sex with her or not.....ahhh.... if only I lived.... in such a democracy....... :twisted: