Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 112

Thread: The Rule Of Law Is A Myth

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Exactly. Just look at the arguments.

    Statists argue that anarchy will lead to warlordism as local warlords seize power. Let us assume this is true. Small time warlords with small time armies either must give the people they rule great benefits or they will be overwhelmed by the much larger population. At the very least people will have more power over their lives and who rules them.

    On the other hand, the State is warlordism taken to the Nth degree. Your local mayor? Nothing but a warlord who uses the local military force -the police- to maintain power. And if you ever threaten the warlord's state the warlord can call in greater and overwhelming force from an even more powerful warlord above them -the Governor and state National Guard- unlike in anarchy where there would be no greater power and no ability to overwhelm the people with brute might. And if that fails, your local warlord and his boss warlord can call in their master -the Head of State, the President in the USA- who will declare your local demands for justice and liberty to be a "rebellion" and send in the might of the national military to devastate and dominate you, murdering you into submission.

    Can anarchy get bad? Absolutely. But even at its worst anarchy is a far better system than the State at its best. Anarchist societies have less violence, less war, less destruction, whereas the State can only exist by and through those things.
    And what is the success rate of tribal societies without the support of a more advanced state successfully defending their freedom against a more advanced conqueror?

    Anarchist societies live in a constant state of war and violence, they may have smaller instances of tyranny and violence but they make up for it by having no respite, and they always give way to bigger nastier tyrants unless good people create a government to defend against it.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    If you cannot distinguish between someTHING and someONE then you've got a serious problem.
    brilliant!

    you win the interwebs tonight.
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  4. #63
    I think that Pierz is likely a tree hugger. I can't say for sure, but likely so.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-16-2017 at 07:43 PM.

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    And what is the success rate of tribal societies without the support of a more advanced state successfully defending their freedom against a more advanced conqueror?

    Anarchist societies live in a constant state of war and violence, they may have smaller instances of tyranny and violence but they make up for it by having no respite, and they always give way to bigger nastier tyrants unless good people create a government to defend against it.
    your logic is infallible..
    however.. it does not address the central premise of RPF's.

    how can one achieve. and wear.. the noble robes of "most pure Anarchist"
    on these self same pages?

    I humbly submit that my own level of "pure" Anarchy is NOT stringent enuff...
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I think that Pierz is likely a tree hugger.
    Reported.

    I like trees.
    the trees helped merry and Pippen.
    Frodo would have never made it without them and Samwise.
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    Reported.

    I like trees.
    the trees helped merry and Pippen.
    Frodo would have never made it without them and Samwise.
    Ents are one thing but what about old man willow?
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Ents are one thing but what about old man willow?
    to properly honor the OP.
    those are "Myths" Sir.

    the "rule of Law" is not. this is the foundation of our Republic.

    I get pissed when someone suggests that I live in a "Democracy"
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    And what is the success rate of tribal societies without the support of a more advanced state successfully defending their freedom against a more advanced conqueror?

    Anarchist societies live in a constant state of war and violence, they may have smaller instances of tyranny and violence but they make up for it by having no respite, and they always give way to bigger nastier tyrants unless good people create a government to defend against it.
    Technology has nothing to do with being more tribal or less tribal or even more free and less free. China is one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet. Singapore is one of the richest. Neither rank anywhere near the freest.

    Further, it doesn't matter how big or small you are if the conqueror has far superior technology if your only method of resistance is violence. You're going to lose. It doesn't matter if you're a state or not. Being a state in fact grants no great possibility of success or failure in warfare.

    The Inca and Aztec both were highly developed states with more well-trained men, more organization, and a greater knowledge of the territory than their Spanish conquerors. Yet the Inca and Aztec still lost. Sometimes in insanely lopsided battles. At the Battle of Cajamarca, for example, around 180 Spanish soldier defeated anywhere between 3,000-8,000 highly trained Incan warriors. Why? Cannons and steel. It has nothing to do with Anarchy vs. the State and everything to do with technology.

    In fact, if you want to compare, the Native Americans of the US and Canada, even though they were smaller groups, more anarchic groups, were able to put off total domination by their more advanced invaders by hundreds of years. Whereas the highly statists Aztecs and Incans fell in a matter of years, it took centuries for the English and Americans to totally pacify the Natives. You still have isolated Native resistance as late as 1924 in America!

    So, being a state has nothing to do with success or failure at war. But if we look at which groups are able to continue fighting the longest, even against technologically superior foes with greater numbers, it seems the more anarchic the better. Anarchy proves superior.

    And lets assume you argument that anarchist societies live in constant warfare -a statement that is not true, but for the sake of argument let us assume- how is that any different than the state?

    Just look at America as an example. America has been constantly at war since its birth, 93% of the time – 222 out of 239 years – since 1776. If you added up all the years the US has without any wars it only adds up to 21 years, total. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/...ince-1776.html

    That is truly war without respite, without peace. And since you have already acknowledged that anarchist societies "have smaller instances of tyranny and violence" we can see that not only do states cause more death and tyranny, but they are also in a constant state of unending warfare. They are constantly at war and more people die in their wars than in anarchist conflicts.

    So even if anarchists societies are, as you said, constantly engage din low levels of conflict, they are still better than statist ones.

    And of course, the above statistics are concerned solely with military conflicts. They do not take into account how the State is constantly waging war against its civilian population through constantly applied police violence and terror. Through its domestic military occupation arm -the police- the state is constantly at war with the people of the country themselves.

    Creating a State- a violent tyrannical force constantly seeking to expand its control over all- in order to defeat a tyrant makes as little sense as ingesting cyanide to counteract the deadly dose of arsenic you swallowed.

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Technology has nothing to do with being more tribal or less tribal or even more free and less free. China is one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet. Singapore is one of the richest. Neither rank anywhere near the freest.

    Further, it doesn't matter how big or small you are if the conqueror has far superior technology if your only method of resistance is violence. You're going to lose. It doesn't matter if you're a state or not. Being a state in fact grants no great possibility of success or failure in warfare.

    The Inca and Aztec both were highly developed states with more well-trained men, more organization, and a greater knowledge of the territory than their Spanish conquerors. Yet the Inca and Aztec still lost. Sometimes in insanely lopsided battles. At the Battle of Cajamarca, for example, around 180 Spanish soldier defeated anywhere between 3,000-8,000 highly trained Incan warriors. Why? Cannons and steel. It has nothing to do with Anarchy vs. the State and everything to do with technology.

    In fact, if you want to compare, the Native Americans of the US and Canada, even though they were smaller groups, more anarchic groups, were able to put off total domination by their more advanced invaders by hundreds of years. Whereas the highly statists Aztecs and Incans fell in a matter of years, it took centuries for the English and Americans to totally pacify the Natives. You still have isolated Native resistance as late as 1924 in America!

    So, being a state has nothing to do with success or failure at war. But if we look at which groups are able to continue fighting the longest, even against technologically superior foes with greater numbers, it seems the more anarchic the better. Anarchy proves superior.
    I was not referring to technology, the Romans conquered all of the tribal peoples within their reasonable reach with no significant technological advantages, it was their superior organization.
    The only thing that delayed the conquest of some North American Indians was the Europeans chosen pace of expansion



    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    And lets assume you argument that anarchist societies live in constant warfare -a statement that is not true, but for the sake of argument let us assume- how is that any different than the state?

    Just look at America as an example. America has been constantly at war since its birth, 93% of the time – 222 out of 239 years – since 1776. If you added up all the years the US has without any wars it only adds up to 21 years, total. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/...ince-1776.html

    That is truly war without respite, without peace. And since you have already acknowledged that anarchist societies "have smaller instances of tyranny and violence" we can see that not only do states cause more death and tyranny, but they are also in a constant state of unending warfare. They are constantly at war and more people die in their wars than in anarchist conflicts.

    So even if anarchists societies are, as you said, constantly engage din low levels of conflict, they are still better than statist ones.

    And of course, the above statistics are concerned solely with military conflicts. They do not take into account how the State is constantly waging war against its civilian population through constantly applied police violence and terror. Through its domestic military occupation arm -the police- the state is constantly at war with the people of the country themselves.
    America's "small wars" are not significantly different from anarchy and we have had far less crime and tyranny at home than anarchy or tribalism would have produced, and you are ignoring other countries like Switzerland and the many cases of major atrocities committed by anarchic or tribal societies.

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Creating a State- a violent tyrannical force constantly seeking to expand its control over all- in order to defeat a tyrant makes as little sense as ingesting cyanide to counteract the deadly dose of arsenic you swallowed.
    Anarchy can't last and is rife with injustice and tribal societies are always tyrannical, therefore you must create a government designed to limit tyranny in order to come as close to perfection as is possible in this corrupt world.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Technology has nothing to do with being more tribal or less tribal or even more free and less free. China is one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet. Singapore is one of the richest. Neither rank anywhere near the freest.
    What country would you rank as the freest?

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    What country would you rank as the freest?
    Why settle for "freest"? 'Tis a bit like saying, "Which one of these scoops of ice cream would you like, the one with a handful of dog $#@! in it, the one with a marble sized amount of dog $#@! in it, or this one with a pebble size amount of dog $#@! in it?"

    You all are arguing over how much $#@! is too much $#@! when the correct answer is you shouldn't be eating $#@! at all.

  14. #72
    Responses in bold

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I was not referring to technology, the Romans conquered all of the tribal peoples within their reasonable reach with no significant technological advantages, it was their superior organization.

    I know you weren't referring to technology. You were trying to argue that Statist organization offered superior form over anarchist social forms. I pointed out that this isn't true, it is technology that allowed such advances.

    The Romans had serious technological advances over the mostly Germanic tribes of Europe, including steel armor, weapons, siege weapons, even Greek Fire. Even with those they were never able to take anything past the Rhine or north of Hadrian's Wall. Rome was very successful at defeating variously organized states -Carthage, Egypt, the city-states of Greece, Persia, etc.- but never was able to truly pacify the tribes of Western Europe -the Germanics, Ireland, Scotland, etc.- or the Eastern European tribes -such as the Huns, Magyars, etc.


    The only thing that delayed the conquest of some North American Indians was the Europeans chosen pace of expansion

    Yeah, and that thing that set the pace? Native American resistance.

    America's "small wars" are not significantly different from anarchy and we have had far less crime and tyranny at home than anarchy or tribalism would have produced, and you are ignoring other countries like Switzerland and the many cases of major atrocities committed by anarchic or tribal societies.

    Statist wars are always different from anarchy. Indeed, most of America's "small wars" were highly organized military campaigns ordered by the central national authority.

    Far less tyranny? Tell that to the millions of slaves with no rights, the millions of women held just higher than slaves with few to no rights, to all those forced into subservience and poverty by Jim Crow and burned alive for the crime of talking to a white woman, those who have suffered and died since the planting of Fascism in America during WWI and the establishment of American Fascism during the Great Depression, the millions drafted and murdered by the State for its pleasure and power, the 317 million today who live in a police state. Far less tyranny? You're delusional. At no time has America ever been a "free" country.

    I'm not ignoring the limits of anarchist society. Anarchists aren't utopians. They recognize that humans are capable of great evil. Which is why you don't give them power in the first place. The only one ignoring the reality are those utopians who keep trying to justify the existence of the State.


    Anarchy can't last and is rife with injustice and tribal societies are always tyrannical, therefore you must create a government designed to limit tyranny in order to come as close to perfection as is possible in this corrupt world.
    Just the opposite. Tribe place huge limitations on the power of chiefs. For example, chiefs could not compel you to obey them. They had to prove they were worth following by first bestowing some gift upon the family. In order to act they had to have the approval of the tribal elders, who in turn had to have the approval of the clans. If individuals in a clan did not wish to follow the elder or chief they did not have to do so. Even in war a war chief could not compel you to serve them nor punish you for not doing so. They had to win soldiers by distributing gifts and presenting their strategy, convincing others it would be successful.

    If you want to talk about societies where those in authority have the power to beat, torture, and murder you for refusing to obey them, you're talking about a Statist society. You're talking about Presidents, Kings, and Generals. I can think of no better illustration than this:

    In war if you try to leave a European army the general could have you shot for "cowardice" or "treason." In a Native war band you could not be compelled to stay. You could certainly lose face for backing out of the fight after committing, but you would not be harmed by the War Chief for doing so.

    Again, you demonstrate that the very essence of the State is tyranny.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Why settle for "freest"? 'Tis a bit like saying, "Which one of these scoops of ice cream would you like, the one with a handful of dog $#@! in it, the one with a marble sized amount of dog $#@! in it, or this one with a pebble size amount of dog $#@! in it?"

    You all are arguing over how much $#@! is too much $#@! when the correct answer is you shouldn't be eating $#@! at all.
    Duh, you're the one ranking them. If you claim China and Singapore rank low on the scale, who ranks high?

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx
    Technology has nothing to do with being more tribal or less tribal or even more free and less free. China is one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet. Singapore is one of the richest. Neither rank anywhere near the freest.

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    I know you weren't referring to technology. You were trying to argue that Statist organization offered superior form over anarchist social forms. I pointed out that this isn't true, it is technology that allowed such advances.

    The Romans had serious technological advances over the mostly Germanic tribes of Europe, including steel armor, weapons,

    siege weapons, even Greek Fire.
    They did not have Steel and the Byzantines invented Greek fire.


    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Even with those they were never able to take anything past the Rhine or north of Hadrian's Wall. Rome was very successful at defeating variously organized states -Carthage, Egypt, the city-states of Greece, Persia, etc.- but never was able to truly pacify the tribes of Western Europe -the Germanics, Ireland, Scotland, etc.- or the Eastern European tribes -such as the Huns, Magyars, etc.
    They conquered Italy, Gaul, Iberia and Britain, and many other tribal areas, those they did not were simply beyond their reasonable reach.
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Yeah, and that thing that set the pace? Native American resistance.
    LOL
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Statist wars are always different from anarchy. Indeed, most of America's "small wars" were highly organized military campaigns ordered by the central national authority.
    That is not a significant difference.
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Far less tyranny? Tell that to the millions of slaves with no rights, the millions of women held just higher than slaves with few to no rights, to all those forced into subservience and poverty by Jim Crow and burned alive for the crime of talking to a white woman, those who have suffered and died since the planting of Fascism in America during WWI and the establishment of American Fascism during the Great Depression, the millions drafted and murdered by the State for its pleasure and power, the 317 million today who live in a police state. Far less tyranny? You're delusional. At no time has America ever been a "free" country.
    Tribal societies have done all those things.
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    I'm not ignoring the limits of anarchist society. Anarchists aren't utopians. They recognize that humans are capable of great evil. Which is why you don't give them power in the first place. The only one ignoring the reality are those utopians who keep trying to justify the existence of the State.
    Anarchy has no means to prevent people from seizing power, a properly designed state can limit it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Just the opposite. Tribe place huge limitations on the power of chiefs. For example, chiefs could not compel you to obey them. They had to prove they were worth following by first bestowing some gift upon the family. In order to act they had to have the approval of the tribal elders, who in turn had to have the approval of the clans. If individuals in a clan did not wish to follow the elder or chief they did not have to do so. Even in war a war chief could not compel you to serve them nor punish you for not doing so. They had to win soldiers by distributing gifts and presenting their strategy, convincing others it would be successful.

    If you want to talk about societies where those in authority have the power to beat, torture, and murder you for refusing to obey them, you're talking about a Statist society. You're talking about Presidents, Kings, and Generals. I can think of no better illustration than this:

    In war if you try to leave a European army the general could have you shot for "cowardice" or "treason." In a Native war band you could not be compelled to stay. You could certainly lose face for backing out of the fight after committing, but you would not be harmed by the War Chief for doing so.

    Again, you demonstrate that the very essence of the State is tyranny.
    Only some tribes behaved as you describe, and they were tyrannical in other ways, they also were constantly at war to supply booty to bribe their members.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post

    Anarchy has no means to prevent people from seizing power, a properly designed state can limit it.
    Proper "anarchy" has the most excellent way of preventing people from seizing power... It's called personal possession of weapons (what is laughingly called here the 2nd AM.)...

    There is no society where the "people" are armed to any extent that they wish to be, and has been "conquered". There is no way to conquer an armed society (with or without a goonerment) because you will get shot at from every bush and tree. It's the reason we cannot "conquer" some of these little tiny countries. They have guns and they DON'T want us there. We kill lots of them but that just makes the ones who survive more angry.

    ALL the examples you can point to supporting your argument that anarchy does not work are simply because you have not used an anarchy to support your claim. In fact, I can't cite any true example of anarchy in history (I'm sure there must have been some) but none of what you cite are anarchy...
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    Proper "anarchy" has the most excellent way of preventing people from seizing power... It's called personal possession of weapons (what is laughingly called here the 2nd AM.)...

    There is no society where the "people" are armed to any extent that they wish to be, and has been "conquered". There is no way to conquer an armed society (with or without a goonerment) because you will get shot at from every bush and tree. It's the reason we cannot "conquer" some of these little tiny countries. They have guns and they DON'T want us there. We kill lots of them but that just makes the ones who survive more angry.

    ALL the examples you can point to supporting your argument that anarchy does not work are simply because you have not used an anarchy to support your claim. In fact, I can't cite any true example of anarchy in history (I'm sure there must have been some) but none of what you cite are anarchy...
    Human History is replete with examples of Anarchy.
    in fact, pure Anarchy was.. the very first form of Human goonerment!

    Anarchy is the rule of law...
    and always occurs, after any major conflict or calamity...
    until order is restored.

    pure Democracy and pure Anarchy are only apart by degrees of confusion. in truth. they are one and the same.
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  20. #77
    me, myself and I.
    Pontificate thusly,

    I hereby nominate phill4paul to be the most badass Anarchist on RPF's.
    that guy...
    lives by the seat of his pants... he has no boss and answers to NONE.
    he pays no taxes to support his imprisonment.
    he has no debts. and lives life by his own rules.

    this guy accepts NO excuses. from ANY other wannabe Anarchists.
    he understands the rule of law. because he lives by it each and everyday.
    he will probably sleep in tomorrow if he wants to...
    (or needs to)
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  21. #78
    ^ lolol

    I nominate this as their theme song:

    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    Human History is replete with examples of Anarchy.
    in fact, pure Anarchy was.. the very first form of Human goonerment!

    Anarchy is the rule of law...
    and always occurs, after any major conflict or calamity...
    until order is restored.

    pure Democracy and pure Anarchy are only apart by degrees of confusion. in truth. they are one and the same.
    Certainly the "rule of law" is anarchy. "They" (the goonerment) trick the little people into thinking the "law" exists but only those at the top seem to realize that it's all a shell game. There's nothing under the cup. Law is a joke and doesn't apply to the "important" people. This is anarchy. This is a point I've made for years but there are only a few who "get it". Welcome to the club!
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    Certainly the "rule of law" is anarchy. "They" (the goonerment) trick the little people into thinking the "law" exists but only those at the top seem to realize that it's all a shell game. There's nothing under the cup. Law is a joke and doesn't apply to the "important" people. This is anarchy. This is a point I've made for years but there are only a few who "get it". Welcome to the club!
    true that Sir.
    a debt based service economy...
    is based upon Unicorns $#@!ting rainbow Skittles....
    and upon this fact.. we can certainly agree.

    do you have a new roommate? and how young is she?
    or do you not remember talking about.. who you invite into your home?
    you teach at a school. and are very coy about what it is you are teaching...

    reveal to me, what it is that you pretend to be...
    and I will rip you a new Azzhole.
    welcome to the club.
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Except the whole point of the Cultural Revolution was to brainwash the masses so he wouldn't need the gun.

    Guns ultimately fail. You murder enough people long enough and they eventually revolt. Look at the USSR for example.

    In order to endure you need people to believe you are right. People will endure anything if they believe it. Make them think they matter? And they'll follow you into Hell itself.
    The school is ultimately more effective than the gun, but the school (i.e. the monopoly, tax-financed school) requires the gun.

    Culture/Ideology is downstream from power.

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    If you oppose teh idea of might makes right then you're halfway to being an anarchist.
    "Might makes right" can be understood normatively or descriptively. Anarchism isn't unique in denying that might makes right in the normative sense; every libertarian denies that might ought to make right. Anarchists are only unique in denying that might makes right in a descriptive sense; i.e. that the fellow with the guns will in fact make the rules, right or wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    There is no such thing as a good State. The very basic foundation of any and all States is tyranny. And they will only become more and more tyrannical. Ther eis not a single State in all of history that has ever reduced tyranny.
    That's absurd, and I know that you, as a student of history, know that.

    Not all states are equally oppressive; states do sometimes become less oppressive over time.

    The absolute dichotomy "anarchy or tyranny" is an impediment to thought.

    It is possible that violence and bloodshed could happen in an anarchist society. But this is so in all forms of human organization. Anarchists realize though that anarchy gives the least bloodshed and causes the least harm for the most people. It is not perfect, nothing is perfect. But it is better in every realistic case and example you can conjure than the State, any type of State.
    No, anarchists believe that, contrary to both theory and the empirical evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Anarchist societies live in a constant state of war and violence, they may have smaller instances of tyranny and violence but they make up for it by having no respite, and they always give way to bigger nastier tyrants unless good people create a government to defend against it.
    Precisely

    As societies become more complex, war becomes more destructive per episode but also much less frequent.

    The overall result of this increasing political centralization is less violence.




    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Exactly. Just look at the arguments.

    Statists argue that anarchy will lead to warlordism as local warlords seize power. Let us assume this is true. Small time warlords with small time armies either must give the people they rule great benefits or they will be overwhelmed by the much larger population. At the very least people will have more power over their lives and who rules them.
    If there must be a state (and there must), it is better that it be as secure as possible. An insecure state is more irrational and dangerous than a secure state. Compare relatively stable democracies in the West with unstable democracies in the third world. Compare Rome c. 1 AD with Rome c. 400 AD. This is true for the same reason that private property owners manage their property better when they aren't worried about it being stolen. It's a function of time preference.

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Technology has nothing to do with being more tribal or less tribal or even more free and less free. China is one of the most technologically advanced nations on the planet. Singapore is one of the richest. Neither rank anywhere near the freest.

    Further, it doesn't matter how big or small you are if the conqueror has far superior technology if your only method of resistance is violence. You're going to lose. It doesn't matter if you're a state or not. Being a state in fact grants no great possibility of success or failure in warfare.

    The Inca and Aztec both were highly developed states with more well-trained men, more organization, and a greater knowledge of the territory than their Spanish conquerors. Yet the Inca and Aztec still lost. Sometimes in insanely lopsided battles. At the Battle of Cajamarca, for example, around 180 Spanish soldier defeated anywhere between 3,000-8,000 highly trained Incan warriors. Why? Cannons and steel. It has nothing to do with Anarchy vs. the State and everything to do with technology.
    Technological development is a function of capital accumulation, which is a function of the security of property.

    The state makes for more secure property, thereby accelerating capital accumulation and technological development.

    The Amerindians were less developed because, for various reasons, they developed state societies later (or never).

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    The Romans had serious technological advances over the mostly Germanic tribes of Europe, including steel armor, weapons, siege weapons, even Greek Fire. Even with those they were never able to take anything past the Rhine or north of Hadrian's Wall. Rome was very successful at defeating variously organized states -Carthage, Egypt, the city-states of Greece, Persia, etc.- but never was able to truly pacify the tribes of Western Europe -the Germanics, Ireland, Scotland, etc.- or the Eastern European tribes -such as the Huns, Magyars, etc.
    Less a lack of ability than a lack of inclination

    The semi-nomadic peoples of those regions weren't worth conquering (no/insufficient taxable surplus).

    ...which is the same reason that they didn't form recognizable, territorial states of their own.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-18-2017 at 07:49 PM.

  26. #82
    I currently.. live in a "state" of Arkansas...
    will it always be so?
    how did this land.. become the "state" of Arkansas?
    I KNOW what it means...
    [I]The Kansa tribe of Native Americans are closely associated with the Sioux tribes of the Great Plains. The word "Arkansas" itself is a French pronunciation ("Arcansas") of a Quapaw (a related "Kaw" tribe) word, akakaze, meaning "land of downriver people" or the Sioux word akakaze meaning "people of the south wind". [/I]

    should I be mad at the Natives for creating this "State"?
    and what is Arkansas today? is it in a "State" of Bill and Hillary Clinton?
    or Sam Walton?
    if we join Texas... will we still be in a "STATE" of Arkansas?
    or will we be in a state of Texas?
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The overall result of this increasing political centralization is less violence.






    That's some mighty impressive data you borrowed there. I went to the cite to find what their "sources" were. Really, do you expect me to believe all that info can be "extracted" from a few books? How in the world do you expect to extract that info from societies that lived many hundreds or even thousands of years ago?? Did they leave statistics for us? Perhaps this data was on their hard drives which we found intact.

    Use common sense. These people (and there were only a couple of source books) have an agenda. I'm certainly not saying that I have "better" data because I'm simply pointing out the difficulty of getting accurate data at all. You could dig up a few graves but so what? You might have found graves from a war site. That would mess up the data. Violent death rates of 55%?? How does the society even reproduce with that kind of crazy number?
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    That's some mighty impressive data you borrowed there. I went to the cite to find what their "sources" were. Really, do you expect me to believe all that info can be "extracted" from a few books? How in the world do you expect to extract that info from societies that lived many hundreds or even thousands of years ago?? Did they leave statistics for us? Perhaps this data was on their hard drives which we found intact.

    Use common sense. These people (and there were only a couple of source books) have an agenda. I'm certainly not saying that I have "better" data because I'm simply pointing out the difficulty of getting accurate data at all. You could dig up a few graves but so what? You might have found graves from a war site. That would mess up the data. Violent death rates of 55%?? How does the society even reproduce with that kind of crazy number?
    In the case of long extinct societies, it's based on archaeological evidence (e.g. what % of bodies were found to have had spear-heads in their chest cavities). For others (both some of the non-state societies and some of the state societies), there is historical (i.e. written) evidence of causalities. Some of the stateless societies listed existed in the 19th/20th centuries, and Western scholars were present to record their horrific, unceasing feuds over goats and so forth. Then, for the the modern state societies, we have a pretty good idea (round to the nearest million) how many people were slaughtered in various wars. Take it as you will.

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by ChristianAnarchist View Post
    Violent death rates of 55%?? How does the society even reproduce with that kind of crazy number?
    Just breed a few times before you die, the analogy would be the meat industry, their herds reproduce with a near 100% violent death rate.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Just breed a few times before you die, the analogy would be the meat industry, their herds reproduce with a near 100% violent death rate.
    Indeed..

    For ~500,000 years, the human population of Earth was flat..

    ..wasn't because of wolves.

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Indeed..

    For ~500,000 years, the human population of Earth was flat..

    ..wasn't because of wolves.
    Yes, and lots of disease, predatory animals, and of course some murder. We will never know what the rate was...
    BEWARE THE CULT OF "GOVERNMENT"

    Christian Anarchy - Our Only Hope For Liberty In Our Lifetime!
    Sonmi 451: Truth is singular. Its "versions" are mistruths.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChristianAnarchist

    Use an internet archive site like
    THIS ONE
    to archive the article and create the link to the article content instead.

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    No but they reduce tyranny compared to anarchy, and a lack of longevity is a fatal flaw in anarchy, it is always replaced with tyranny unless good people replace it with good government. See above.
    I want you to read this very carefully, and slowly; and you really should spend some time thinking before you post a reply...

    Did you not read the text in the posted image? Higgs EXPLICITY stated that all of the evil that statists tell us will befall humanity in a world without the State is ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE, yet there are REAL, ACTUAL, MIND-BOGGLING HORRORS CARRIED OUT BY (AND HERE'S A PARTICULARLY RELEVANT FACT) FANATICS OF THIS-OR-THAT CAPITAL 'S' STATE. FOR EMPHASIS AND CLARIFICATION, I'LL RE-ITERATE - THESE WERE NOT ACTS CARRIED OUT COINCIDENTALLY BY STATISTS... THEY WERE BY AND LARGE CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THEIR PARTICULAR STATE.

    Thus, you cannot make the statement that you just made (in essence, that "well statelessness would be worse"). I mean, you can make that statement, but you seem to be a chimpanzee when you do so. It is so that there are few examples of stateless societies; and as such there is little documented record of how they would behave, or deal with the world around them. However there is ABUNDANT evidence of how statist societies behave and deal with the world around them and that record is HORRENDOUSLY SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD.

    This is a matter of the historical record. This is not conjecture. This is not speculation. This is fact.

    It is BIZARRE to me, the level of antagonism given to advocates of statelessness, here.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    I want you to read this very carefully, and slowly; and you really should spend some time thinking before you post a reply...

    Did you not read the text in the posted image? Higgs EXPLICITY stated that all of the evil that statists tell us will befall humanity in a world without the State is ENTIRELY SPECULATIVE, yet there are REAL, ACTUAL, MIND-BOGGLING HORRORS CARRIED OUT BY (AND HERE'S A PARTICULARLY RELEVANT FACT) FANATICS OF THIS-OR-THAT CAPITAL 'S' STATE. FOR EMPHASIS AND CLARIFICATION, I'LL RE-ITERATE - THESE WERE NOT ACTS CARRIED OUT COINCIDENTALLY BY STATISTS... THEY WERE BY AND LARGE CARRIED OUT IN THE NAME OF THEIR PARTICULAR STATE.

    Thus, you cannot make the statement that you just made (in essence, that "well statelessness would be worse"). I mean, you can make that statement, but you seem to be a chimpanzee when you do so. It is so that there are few examples of stateless societies; and as such there is little documented record of how they would behave, or deal with the world around them. However there is ABUNDANT evidence of how statist societies behave and deal with the world around them and that record is HORRENDOUSLY SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD.

    This is a matter of the historical record. This is not conjecture. This is not speculation. This is fact.

    It is BIZARRE to me, the level of antagonism given to advocates of statelessness, here.
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post


    And statelessness is impossible anyway, you will be conquered and you will be worse off than if you formed your own government.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  35. #90
    You didn't reply to what I said, but that's fine. That's exactly what happens every time one makes a point around here anymore, so $#@! it.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-22-2015, 03:42 PM
  2. Tom Woods : Rule of Law is a Myth
    By ClydeCoulter in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-19-2014, 08:11 AM
  3. Replies: 50
    Last Post: 08-24-2012, 07:13 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-21-2011, 08:08 PM
  5. Rule by Fear or Rule by Law? - Former Congressman Dan Hamburg
    By RlxdN10sity in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-22-2008, 10:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •