Political Crossfire Forums

[brandalt]

Of course democracy is not good for all, some people prefer a 'just master' to freedom to make choices because they are afraid of responsibility.

Not everyone can live up to the expectations of 'The Anthem'.

[BlackOps]

Roy L wrote: 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.

Rationality to Roy L......Rationality to Roy L......come in Roy L..... do you read me...?......over.....

TAXATION IS THEFT!!! So you propose a solution....and your solution is: A BETTER WAY TO THIEVE!!! Nice one Roy L! Thank god you're not in charge of our, above mentioned, nutritional needs!

[EugenicHegemony]

greeneye wrote: 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.

Are we not our own masters, and who decides who's ready for what and when? Some jingoist imperial entity from a foreign land, no way. I will say this: 99% of everything we do, is anarchic in nature. If it weren't, there'd be chaos in the streets. We live in a cohabited state with other's out of respect for one another and their personal space. Those who can't or won't do that, are shunned by society, and usually wind up in prison, dead, or on the street. That will not change with the erosion of central authority.

greeneye wrote:
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Repeat..... The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan 1979.


Sorry, it was a Liberation. What's good for the goose, well ya know.

Other nations have zero right to invade other countries, and business interests (international or otherwise) are an even worse excuse. Banking institutions are behind wars; did you know that? He who controls the capital (monopoly on it) controls your livelihood.

Over 50% of the new Iraqi banking system are now owned by private foreign institutions since the U.S. imperial jingoist invasion. Did you know that? You wonder why I mentioned Rothchild. Do you care?

All imperialistic war is, is war for business, and a central government is the biggest business on the block. The only time it is legitimate is when they have the ability and are preparing to invade yours. None have that, and only the U.S. and Britain do now. China doesn't even have the capability let alone Iran, and that's a bullsh!t planned war on the horizon.

Terrorists and irregulars do not count as none have ever been caught with a military industrial congressional complex. Surveillance, counter intelligence, and police have been the only successful ways of dealing with these.

All out imperialistic war, is only used to take countries (territory), and their resources. Anyone with the capacity to use their brain can see this, and those who make excuses for this, are weak obedient cattle.

The USSR did not call it an "invasion"; they called it a "liberation". Same as your jingoist government did. That's my point, and that's why I said it. I favor zero government imperialistic invasion just to install their system of rule, and for purely selfish reasons. Anyone with a modicum of decency wouldn't either. Nothing changes the fact your jingoist government built the mujadeen and aided (used) Osama. I wasn't "all over the map" at all. I'm right on the money, and it's (all) related. If you can't see that, then the burden of proof is on you. I'd love for you to enter my "Nationalized Economic Despotism" thread, and see what you can come up with. There were no "Islamofascists" until the U.S. government installed their system of corporatist rule in Central Asia. Now you can use that word with conviction, and thank the U.S. government for it. Be proud, and know the American citizenry's capital was stolen for a worthy cause. Now over 50% of the Iraqi Central bank is owned by foreign banking institutions. Yeah, that freedom sure is grand. There's only a few more nations to enslave under the flag of false freedom. Step into my parlor said the spider to the fly.

peace

smuj wrote: 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.

[Roy L]

BlackOps wrote: Roy L wrote: 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.
Mostly starvation, disease and criminals.

Quote: After all, it's not like the private sector goes around attacking other members of the private sector.
??? :rofl: In fact, of course, almost all murders in the USA are committed by private commercial interests, against their competitors.

Quote: ie. A group of plumbers starts murdering and looting a group of electricians.

<yawn> Do you know anything about history? People tend to murder their competitors, unless government is there to stop them. I.e., drug dealers murder other drug dealers, ranchers murder farmers, etc. Plumbers have no motive to murder electricians, as you would know if you had devoted even a nanosecond's clear thougt to the matter. But plumbers do have a motive to murder other plumbers.

Quote: It's always the criminal class. ie. The governing class or the aspiring governing class.
Garbage. Only a handful of the criminal class aspires to govern. Most of them are cowardly, antisocial loners, and most of the rest are followers, not leaders.
Quote: 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.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: But of course it wasn't "predatory states," was it? It was roving bands of thieves, and then starvation. The barbarians who invaded Western Europe were not states. They governed no territory. All they did was wander around taking what others produced, merely large-scale thieves. When people realize that if they produce, others will simply take, while if they take from those who produce, nothing will be done about it, it does not take them long to figure out that taking is smarter than producing. And the result is mass starvation.

[Roy L]

BlackOps 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 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.
It's not misleading in the least. It's fact.
Quote: First, there's no such thing as "good government." <yawn> Yeah, yeah, government is the worst thing in the world. Except for no government.
Quote: There's only different degrees of brutality, oppression and predation.
In the absence of government, you mean. Right.

Quote: 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.
That's been tried, too. Western Europe in the 5th-7th C. Wasn't pretty, and the result, predictably, was nothing to write home about.
Quote: What was the US like after 12 years of age?
Better than Europe, which was better than anywhere else.
Quote: Would you have left London or Paris to go there?
Sure, as thousandss of people actually did. Paris must have been pretty bad, considering what happened there in 1789.
Quote: What, to run around killing indians? Even your so called "good government," took how long to establish?
Not as long as it would have taken if any significant number of people had opposed having any government whatever.

[Roy L]

BlackOps wrote: Roy L wrote:
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!
Having not been wrong before, and proved it, I could hardly be wrong "again," could I? And in fact I am not wrong, I am completely correct, as usual.
Quote: 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.
That is just nonsense lacking any relationship to reality, or to the analogy.

[Roy L]

BlackOps wrote:
TAXATION IS THEFT!!!
Not when it is a voluntary, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value payment for the benefits the government provides to the taxpayer.
Quote: So you propose a solution....and your solution is: A BETTER WAY TO THIEVE!!! My solution is to stop thieving and starting trading. Why don't you try addressing what I say instead of fabricating stuff and attributing it to me?
Quote: Nice one Roy L! Thank god you're not in charge of our, above mentioned, nutritional needs! <yawn> You are the one who has expressed a desire to live in a society where women's favors would be allocated to you on the basis of mob rule.

[BobbyO]

Quote: [quote="greeneye"]If the objective of a government is to allow freedom and liberty to be exercised by the populace, I believe, some type of democratic republic is currently the only model of government, at least in modern times, that will allow freedom and liberty to survive.

The evidence would not suggest this. During the 20th Century, ALL the great tyrannies were republics, and all insisted upon their democratic credentials. Indeed, freedom and liberty stood up better to the rise of tyranny in monarchies than in republics.


Quote: The U.S. Founding Father's main objective in establishing this democratic republic (USA) was to establish a new government that would allow these two fundamental principles: freedom and liberty to flourish.

The founders despised and feared democracy. They were convinced that democracy inevitably decays into tyranny.

[Mr 1 Percent]

Roy L wrote: In fact, of course, almost all murders in the USA are committed by private commercial interests, against their competitors...
...People tend to murder their competitors, unless government is there to stop them. I.e., drug dealers murder other drug dealers,...

The government is hopeless at stopping murder. Practically anyone can kill anyone with impunity quite easily if they take a little care. Drug murders are a direct result of drugs being illegal.
Medieval Iceland had a very low murder rate.

[greeneye]

BobbyO wrote:
greeneye wrote: The U.S. Founding Father's main objective in establishing this democratic republic (USA) was to establish a new government that would allow these two fundamental principles: freedom and liberty to flourish.

The founders despised and feared democracy. They were convinced that democracy inevitably decays into tyranny.

Yes, of course they did. The Founding Fathers feared a pure democracy because they knew it wouldn't work:
A Democracy
Quote: "A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy."
http://www.devvy.com/democracy_tees.html


That's why they created a democratic republic. John Adams said it well when he said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

Inasmuch as the US does not have a perfect democratic republic form of government because we have shifted off center from its inception, I believe we must work and strive as a people who love freedom to ensure that our country maintains this type of government. Perhaps that's one of the reasons our government has lasted for over 200 years.


A Republic

Quote: A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ "Autobiography" commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:

"By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

[greeneye]

EugenicHegemony wrote:
greeneye wrote:
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Repeat..... The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan 1979.


EugenicHegemony wrote: Sorry, it was a Liberation.
Right.... like north is south

[Mr 1 Percent]

Quote: A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general...

Including the rights of athiests to not believe in "god-given" rights?

[EugenicHegemony]

greeneye wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote:
greeneye wrote:
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Repeat..... The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan 1979.


EugenicHegemony wrote: Sorry, it was a Liberation.
Right.... like north is south

Something to that effect....

The USSR called it a "liberation".

The U.S. called this a "liberation": Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term. And wartime propaganda is usually, if not always, crafted to produce hysteria, the destruction of any sense of proportion. Such words, undefined and unmeasured, are used by people more interested in making us lose our heads than in keeping their own." —Joseph Sobran, paleoconservative Catholic commentator.

Both lied their authoritarian asses off as you can plainly see. :wink: I was making a point, and I made it.

greeneye wrote: The Founding Fathers feared a pure democracy because they knew it wouldn't work:
A Democracy
"A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy."
http://www.devvy.com/democracy_tees.html


A limitlessly powerful central government of the elite, and their special interest's, has forced a Republocratic plutocracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy The same people who pay to elect them, then pay to keep them there as long as they pass legislation that's conducive to their selfish interest's.

[greeneye]

Mr 1 Percent wrote: Quote: A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general...

Including the rights of athiests to not believe in "god-given" rights?
Our republic does not force anyone to believe in God. However, you are still free to enjoy those rights.

[BlackOps]

Roy L wrote: BlackOps wrote: Roy L wrote: 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.
Mostly starvation, disease and criminals.

Quote: After all, it's not like the private sector goes around attacking other members of the private sector.
??? :rofl: In fact, of course, almost all murders in the USA are committed by private commercial interests, against their competitors.

Quote: ie. A group of plumbers starts murdering and looting a group of electricians.

<yawn> Do you know anything about history? People tend to murder their competitors, unless government is there to stop them. I.e., drug dealers murder other drug dealers, ranchers murder farmers, etc. Plumbers have no motive to murder electricians, as you would know if you had devoted even a nanosecond's clear thougt to the matter. But plumbers do have a motive to murder other plumbers.

Quote: It's always the criminal class. ie. The governing class or the aspiring governing class.
Garbage. Only a handful of the criminal class aspires to govern. Most of them are cowardly, antisocial loners, and most of the rest are followers, not leaders.
Quote: 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.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: But of course it wasn't "predatory states," was it? It was roving bands of thieves, and then starvation. The barbarians who invaded Western Europe were not states. They governed no territory. All they did was wander around taking what others produced, merely large-scale thieves. When people realize that if they produce, others will simply take, while if they take from those who produce, nothing will be done about it, it does not take them long to figure out that taking is smarter than producing. And the result is mass starvation.

Quote: Yeah, and that's about 1/10 of the number that would have died if there had been no governments. Quote: Mostly starvation, disease and criminals
Well if ever there was, a blatantly irrational assertion, without any supporting evidence, this is it: 1700 million would have died...because Roy L said so!

Quote: almost all murders in the USA are committed by private commercial interests, against their competitors
More blatant misinformation! Try: Husbands, wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, lovers, friends, family, relatives..... then random xyz...... then maybe....your "murderous plumbers" and "other commercial interests".....

Quote: <yawn>
You really should lay off that booze, Roy L, it keeps making you sleepy.

Quote: Do you know anything about history?
I think you better ask this question to the guy that's staring at you......in the mirror.

Quote: People tend to murder their competitors, unless government is there to stop them.
I see your strong point isn't economics either. So: Wrong again! People tend to peacefully compete with their competitors and not murder them. That is the nature of free trade. Even in the illegal black markets of the world, 95% of transactions are voluntary and without violence, let alone murder. Add to this the fact that peaceful trade existed for thousands of years before anyone even had a conception of 'government' completely disproves your point.

Quote: Plumbers have no motive to murder electricians, as you would know if you had devoted even a nanosecond's clear thougt to the matter. But plumbers do have a motive to murder other plumbers.
Well thanks for the demonstration that you actually did devote just a nanosecond's clear thought to the matter. However, that will not be sufficient. For details why the productive, private sector does not engage in typical government activities, such as murder, here's a site for you: http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2006/01/war-profit-and-state.html

Quote: But of course it wasn't "predatory states," was it? It was roving bands of thieves, and then starvation. The barbarians who invaded Western Europe were not states. They governed no territory. All they did was wander around taking what others produced, merely large-scale thieves.
The origin of the state, ARE roving bands of thieves! The 'barbarians' who invaded Western Europe were de facto states. And they did govern the territory which they invaded, for the time that they were in it. Otherwise, according to you, that criminal, Alexander The 'Great' didn't run a state, much less an empire, he was merely a 'barbarian' passing through... And what objective difference does it make, whether a politician robs you from his fixed office address, or a 'barbarian' on horseback, since in either case, you get robed.

Quote: Garbage. Only a handful of the criminal class aspires to govern. Most of them are cowardly, antisocial loners, and most of the rest are followers, not leaders.
Boy, not only should you cut down on booze, but also on the consumption of all those B-grade Hollywood movies. Objectively, in a free society, all actions defined as criminal, are actions involving the use of force or fraud.
When a government forces you to pay, say tax, that is a criminal act. Those that administer the extortion against your will, under threat of force, are therefore criminals themselves. So much for your 'only a handful of the criminal class aspires to govern...'

[BlackOps]

Roy L wrote: BlackOps 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 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.
It's not misleading in the least. It's fact.
Quote: First, there's no such thing as "good government." <yawn> Yeah, yeah, government is the worst thing in the world. Except for no government.
Quote: There's only different degrees of brutality, oppression and predation.
In the absence of government, you mean. Right.

Quote: 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.
That's been tried, too. Western Europe in the 5th-7th C. Wasn't pretty, and the result, predictably, was nothing to write home about.
Quote: What was the US like after 12 years of age?
Better than Europe, which was better than anywhere else.
Quote: Would you have left London or Paris to go there?
Sure, as thousandss of people actually did. Paris must have been pretty bad, considering what happened there in 1789.
Quote: What, to run around killing indians? Even your so called "good government," took how long to establish?
Not as long as it would have taken if any significant number of people had opposed having any government whatever.

Quote: It's not misleading in the least. It's fact.
Of course it's misleading, remember, that's your specialty. For your information, Somalia is now out pacing its surrounding neighbors economically. And jeez, all without the state....what will they think of next!

Quote: ]<yawn> Say, didn't I already tell you, to lay off that booze? Some people just never learn.....

Quote: Yeah, yeah, government is the worst thing in the world. Except for no government.
Government is institutionalized violence. It is the only group of people in society, which systematically uses violence, against all other groups and individuals. Its opposite is the free market, whose tools are persuasion and trade. And now we know, which camp you belong in, don't we?

Quote: In the absence of government, you mean. Right.
No, wrong! (Again) The free market functions primarily peacefully and always has. There's really no long term benefit in dealing with your family, friends, neighbors, partners, etc., by means of violence. So in case you missed the link last time, here it is again:http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2006/01/war-profit-and-state.html

Quote: That's been tried, too. Western Europe in the 5th-7th C. Wasn't pretty, and the result, predictably, was nothing to write home about.

No kidding, well governments have been tried too, for ooohhh, thousands of years, and with catastrophic bloody results. They still can't even balance their budget, but they sure know how to manufacture and pile up corpses, don't they? In contrast to the free market, which produces values which people objectively need.

Quote: Better than Europe, which was better than anywhere else.
Hmmm, now let me see...Europe, populated, culturally developed, functional, trade across the continent and for thousands of years before, versus the US at 12 years of age... hmmm....Oh I guess given that you were probably drinking champagne out of cristal glasses while dancing to the waltz....in your wooden cabin, that you must be correct, just like all the other times.....

Quote: Sure, as thousandss of people actually did.
And as hundreds of thousands of people actually didn't.

Quote: Paris must have been pretty bad, considering what happened there in 1789.
Yeah, kind of reminds me of the US domestic spat. Strange how in both cases, it involved that benevolent entity, you so admire, the state, don't you think?

Quote: Not as long as it would have taken if any significant number of people had opposed having any government whatever
Agree, though that actually would have been, a blessing in disguise, whether you personally realise that, or not.

[/quote]

[BlackOps]

Roy L wrote: BlackOps wrote: Roy L wrote:
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!
Having not been wrong before, and proved it, I could hardly be wrong "again," could I? And in fact I am not wrong, I am completely correct, as usual.
Quote: 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 specializes in poisons, wholesale.
That is just nonsense lacking any relationship to reality, or to the analogy.

Quote: Having not been wrong before, and proved it, I could hardly be wrong "again," could I? And in fact I am not wrong, I am completely correct, as usual.
Unfortunately for you, I beg to differ.

Quote: That is just nonsense lacking any relationship to reality
The state is a criminal institution, which uses violence as its means of survival. It violates individual rights and is responsible for the greatest extermination and enslavement of human beings on this planet. The statement stands, because while you were pouring cold water over anarchy, you were implying that the government can be reformed (this despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary) my point was that no matter how you slice it and dice it, poison still remains poison. ie. one must not give any group in society, the right to use violence against all others. If you do, then you are sanctioning criminality. No one has a moral right to violate the rights of others and that includes your 'precious' government. (For clarity, read: criminal organization) So yeah, if you want a healthy, free society, turn to free trade and not government!

[BlackOps]

Roy L wrote: BlackOps wrote:
TAXATION IS THEFT!!!
Not when it is a voluntary, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value payment for the benefits the government provides to the taxpayer.
Quote: So you propose a solution....and your solution is: A BETTER WAY TO THIEVE!!! My solution is to stop thieving and starting trading. Why don't you try addressing what I say instead of fabricating stuff and attributing it to me?
Quote: Nice one Roy L! Thank god you're not in charge of our, above mentioned, nutritional needs! <yawn> You are the one who has expressed a desire to live in a society where women's favors would be allocated to you on the basis of mob rule.

Quote: Not when it is a voluntary, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value payment for the benefits the government provides to the taxpayer.

Yet again....Wrong!!! (Man, I should take you to a casino, then whatever you pick, say red, I'll just back black.... you have a phenomenal, consistent track record.....at getting it wrong that is...) If it is voluntary, it no longer is taxation, which by definition is an impost, backed up by the threat of force. The whole nature of the transaction changes. Apart from the fact that no state in history survived on voluntary donations, I truly wish you well, in getting your plan implemented, in fact the sooner the better, as far as I'm concerned. :twisted:
Just let me also know, which services your government will be offering, so that I can enter the same field and start competing with it immediately..... :twisted:

Quote: My solution is to stop thieving and starting trading. Why don't you try addressing what I say instead of fabricating stuff and attributing it to me?
Unless I've missed something, until now, you have never mentioned voluntary payments, or stopping thieving, or starting trading... Hence, the lie about me 'fabricating stuff' is just that, A BRAZEN LIE!!!

Quote: ]<yawn>
OK, that's it, I'm calling AAA, you really need help with that bottle....expect a knock at the door... it's for your own good...or would you prefer a government detox center?

Quote: You are the one who has expressed a desire to live in a society where women's favors would be allocated to you on the basis of mob rule
WOAH!!! Ohhh, I see, desperation creeping in.... Roy L used up all his blanks! The preposterous example I gave, as a joke, on the concept of 'democracy' and 'majority rule,' you seek to use against me, (!) as if it was a genuine expression of my desires (!).... pathetic....just pathetic... you see what booze does to you.... Well, enough of this, there's just too much of your blood on the floor already, and I don't want to be cruel.... Given the above lie and then this misrepresentation, suffice it to say, that I will not be addressing any more of your posts either......

[greeneye]

EugenicHegemony wrote: greeneye wrote: 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.

Are we not our own masters, and who decides who's ready for what and when?

Yes. I live in the United States of America and I have that freedom. (ok, ok... let's leave my freedom debate alone for a while and move on to other interesting stuff....)

Let's create a hypothetical scenario here, Eugenic, for the sake of an ernest arguement and possibly achieving some greater understanding over the philosophical idea of the freedom inherent within of a democratic republic versus an anarchy state. (no central government, no central rule of law, self-rule idea)

Here is the hypothetical.... Now hopefully you can stay focused and not bring in a thousand and one other arguments... :wink:

Here's the scenario:

1. The Soviets have left Afghanistan.

2. The U.S. and other countries have completely stopped funding the Mujahadeen with arms and money and no country is currently politically involved with Afghanistan.

3. The ethnic groups around the country are all fighting as they have done even before the 10-year war.

4. The country currently does not have any type of stable government and its 29 million people are shopping around for a form of government to adopt. (They've looked on Ebay but can't find anything they seems to fit their many different ethnic and religious culture.)

5. Each ethnic group has a slightly different idea of how they want their country to be run but there is no clear consensus. Again they have a long history of internal fighting. However, there is one common and strong agreement among all the groups; the Pashtuns,Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Baluchs, Nuristanis and that is they all want to live in freedom and be free people.. They would also enjoy living in a society that would allow individuals to experience peace and happiness (because they are a religious people they have hope and faith that this is possible). And, of course, many of the farmers and war lords want to continue growing their opium farms and selling heroine as they have done for decades.

6. Continuing now with the hypothetical scenario: You, Eugenic, are one of the greatest salesman in the world And you think you just might have a product for the Afghans that might work, but you're not sure. Your product is really a political philosophy that you believe and support. And you have been asked to come in and share it with heads of the ethnic groups in the country.

7. Taking into account the country is 99% Islam (quite religious) and has many ethnic groups (some of them very aggressive); taking into account all the ethnic groups want to live as a free people in that they most definitely want a system that will support their practice of their faith, Islam freely; taking into account they want to live in peace, raise and grow their families, improve their standard of living and economy, taking into account the Afghans are a people with many traditions; and, of course, taking into account many of the war-torn country's farmers want the freedom to continue growing opium and selling heroin to the world

Can you outline, given the above hypothetical scenario, how a political system based upon "no central government, no rule of law that the populace must follow, but a system based upon self rule would work for Afghanistan?

Present your case as a possible solution to meet the country's current vacuum. (no government model but shopping for one)

[EugenicHegemony]

greeneye wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: greeneye wrote: 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.

Are we not our own masters, and who decides who's ready for what and when?

Present your case as a possible solution to meet the country's current vacuum. (no government model but shopping for one)smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/

Quote: The reason i think its #1 is because its needed to support a large beuracracy

Why a "large bureaucracy"?

Gus wrote: What steps do you think should be taken to guide America toward your ideal, Eugenic?

greeneye asked me the same question about Afghanistan, and I gave him my ideas that I have been circulating the net with. Granted they're just ideas and I'd like other's to come up with their own wishful realistic ideas also. They're on the next page.