Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 98

Thread: Anarchy Means Only No Rule, No Rulers; In Other Words -- Freedom

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    They got this $#@! down to a $#@!in' science.

    .
    Psychological Manipulation is a Science.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    It's this $#@!ing soft tyranny. Enough tyranny to make you feel like a miserable prick, but not enough tyranny to actually to do something about it.

    They got this $#@! down to a $#@!in' science.

    We're all house nigggers, is what we are.
    And there you have it.

    No more complicated than that.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    I really wish leftists who say anarchy is a bad thing actually take the time to read the definiton.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    I really wish leftists who say anarchy is a bad thing actually take the time to read the definiton.
    Where in the definition of anarchy is free healthcare, UBI, etc?
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    I really wish leftists who say anarchy is a bad thing actually take the time to read the definiton.
    Have you seen Portland Oregon?

    Black Blok is real enough. https://www.counterextremism.com/supremacy/black-bloc

    Any Patriot group in DC will have to deal with them,,and the Police Protect them.
    Remember Fusion Centers.

    They run the Black Bloc. antifa is a related offshoot.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    Anarchy simply means without rule or without rulers;
    There's no such thing. Force exists.

    Name one place on earth where people are not controlled by force in some way.

    The only solution is to try to make the rulers better. In my opinion anarchists come off as whiney. They don't have any actual workable specific solutions.

    I think the biggest flaw is the way we elect rulers. There needs to be some sort of restrictions on who gets to vote. It needs to be some version of only allowing net taxpayers to vote. I think mobocracy is the driving force for every country that elects their rulers. That's why we have a communist progressive tax system. That's why business owners don't get equal protection under the law. It's why we're bankrupt.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I think the biggest flaw is the way we elect rulers. There needs to be some sort of restrictions on who gets to vote.
    This is an actual, workable solution? Oligarchy?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    And?
    Dems cheat.
    Trump stopped them cheating.

    A clear case of Liberty preserving authoritarianism.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    There's no such thing. Force exists.

    Name one place on earth where people are not controlled by force in some way.
    I agree. The history of humankind agrees. As long as there are humans on this planet, some of them will always want to rule the others. It is never more obvious in places like Somalia, Afghanistan, Afrika, etc where they topple central governments and replace them with warlords who fight each other for more resources, lands and ultimate control. Cavemen had tribes that did the same. Native Americans, the same. It's human nature to kill or be killed. Another 1000 years will still fail to undo the conditioning. Eventually we will make this planet uninhabitable with our wars or skynet becomes aware......we will make great pets, possibly even food...the plump ones are the juiciest.....lol
    Last edited by showpan; 10-05-2022 at 12:28 PM.
    Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you.
    Thomas Jefferson

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    This is an actual, workable solution? Oligarchy?

    Why would a net taxpayer voting system be an oligarchy? Are you saying rich business owners are the only ones who pay taxes?

    What's your solution?

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by showpan View Post
    I agree. The history of humankind agrees. As long as there are humans on this planet, some of them will always want to rule the others. It is never more obvious in places like Somalia, Afghanistan, Afrika, etc where they topple central governments and replace them with warlords who fight each other for more resources, lands and ultimate control. Cavemen had tribes that did the same. Native Americans, the same. It's human nature to kill or be killed. Another 1000 years will still fail to undo the conditioning. Eventually we will make this planet uninhabitable with our wars or skynet becomes aware......we will make great pets, possibly even food...the plump ones are the juiciest.....lol
    I agree, although I'm a little more optimistic.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Why would a net taxpayer voting system be an oligarchy? Are you saying rich business owners are the only ones who pay taxes?

    What's your solution?
    The Articles of Confederation weren't so bad...
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    And?
    Dems cheat.
    Trump stopped them cheating.

    A clear case of Liberty preserving authoritarianism.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    The Articles of Confederation weren't so bad...
    What is it about the Articles of Confederation that you like more than the Constitution?

    One idea I've heard (I think it was from Walter Williams) is that they should've not even had the Bill of Rights. Just a list of things the Federal government can do and that's it. I think the idea is that the bill of rights gave big government a wedge to increase power by adding a bunch of fake rights. Like the right to health care and social security.

    My belief is that any voting system that allows the majority of voters to steal from the minority is a massively flawed system. That's why I don't think people on welfare should be allowed to vote. It's a conflict of interest. If you want to vote, don't take welfare.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    What is it about the Articles of Confederation that you like more than the Constitution?
    ARTICLE II. Each State retains its Sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and
    right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.
    It's an interesting notion. It seems to me that the Tenth Amendment is reasonably clear, but the AoC makes the statement stronger and even more clear.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    And?
    Dems cheat.
    Trump stopped them cheating.

    A clear case of Liberty preserving authoritarianism.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    The Articles of Confederation weren't so bad...
    Exactly.

    This was the foundation for a group of independent states to live in close proximity, have their own laws, & help each other in things like trade or crisis.

    The CONstitution was the Hamiltonian coup to make the states into a single country ruled by a powerful central governmental monarchy.
    Last edited by Ender; 10-05-2022 at 04:49 PM.
    There is no spoon.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Exactly.

    This was the foundation for a group of independent states to live in close proximity, have their own laws, & help each other in things like trade or crisis.

    The CONstitution was the Hamiltonian coup to make the states into a single country ruled by a powerful central governmental monarchy.
    I agree. The idea is basically to have competing governments. As long as there's just one government in each geographic area.

  19. #46
    Last edited by PAF; 10-06-2022 at 07:34 AM.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    An Agorist Primer

  20. #47

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    If agreed upon that is consensual and fine. But if I or you or she or he chooses not to participate or play, taxes are not forcefully collected and that person may freely walk away. They are also free to engage in another consensual agreement, or not.
    Hmmm. So Democrats agree to the rules of “Democracy” and voting, and when they don't win, they choose not to participate. Democrats are anarchists!

    Interesting to look at the rules analogy with regard to voting. Democrats change rules midstream to benefit themselves. Have they broken the contract, or have they chosen to engage in a new social contract? Voting is a simple and basic consensual contract. What happens when one side doesn’t abide by the results?
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Hmmm. So Democrats agree to the rules of “Democracy” and voting, and when they don't win, they choose not to participate. Democrats are anarchists!

    Interesting to look at the rules analogy with regard to voting. Democrats change rules midstream to benefit themselves. Have they broken the contract, or have they chosen to engage in a new social contract? Voting is a simple and basic consensual contract. What happens when one side doesn’t abide by the results?

    Voting is a multi-lateral contract. Let's say 3 people are single-issue voters. One person votes against abortion, but doesn't care about or never bothered to look at foreign policy. Another person votes against the MIC, but doesn't care about or never bothered to look at subsidies for farmers. A third person votes against funding the Pharm complex, but doesn't care about or never bothered to look at funding the MIC. When people cast votes and the candidates are narrowed down, eventually leading to 1 winner, how is everybody individually represented?

    The game is futile. Certainly voting has gone on for a very long time and people are conditioned that it is a duty, responsibility, patriotic even, but all people really do when they vote is transfer their power and wealth to other people and "the system".

    Play the game and vote, then stop complaining when things don't go your way. Be thrilled that your side won, and accept the fact that others who vote, even in your own party, may have different views or objectives than you. An example is that while you and I may object to funding the MIC and nation-building overseas, there are many in-your-own-party who rely on those everyday jobs and will vote accordingly.

    I do not vote because I do not consent. I do call representatives, both R and D, to express my concern about issues. When I call the Democrat line, I simply tell them that I am a constituent [adj: component] in the state, never letting on that I do not vote. Same thing when I call the Republican line.
    Last edited by PAF; 10-06-2022 at 12:20 PM.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    An Agorist Primer

  24. #50
    ///
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    Voting is a multi-lateral contract. Let's say 3 people are single-issue voters. One person votes against abortion, but doesn't care about or never bothered to look at foreign policy. Another person votes against the MIC, but doesn't care about or never bothered to look at subsidies for farmers. A third person votes against funding the Pharm complex, but doesn't care about or never bothered to look at funding the MIC. When people cast votes and the candidates are narrowed down, eventually leading to 1 winner, how is everybody individually represented?

    The game is futile. Certainly voting has gone on for a very long time and people are conditioned that it is a duty, responsibility, patriotic even, but all people really do when they vote is transfer their power and wealth to other people and "the system".

    Play the game and vote, then stop complaining when things don't go your way. Be thrilled that your side won, and accept the fact that others who vote, even in your own party, may have different views or objectives than you. An example is that while you and I may object to funding the MIC and nation-building overseas, there are many in-your-own-party who rely on those everyday jobs and will vote accordingly.

    I do not vote because I do not consent. I do call representatives, both R and D, to express my concern about issues. When I call the Democrat line, I simply tell them that I am a constituent [adj: component] in the state, never letting on that I do not vote. Same thing when I call the Republican line.
    Bump.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    An Agorist Primer

  26. #52
    The articles of confederation are not so different from the constitution. You can lay them side by side in a word processor - with appropriate spacing between missing things, and see where large chunks from both are similar to each other. You can also make the argument the articles of confederation are still in effect, and the constitution was just a treaty between states so ratifying it - treaty making between states was one thing the constitution restricted more - perhaps in a self interested way in recognition to how it was constructed.

    That theory isn't easily ignored, because the establishment is still trying - ever more frequently, to subvert the constitution to what amounts to treaties between states - illegally, as opposed to amendments. It is still occurring. The latest attempt at subverting the electoral college is an example. Likewise all the attempts to claim that the country can sign away powers by treaty, or get rid of the necessity of declaring war by treaty are examples. The constitution itself may be an early example of this.

    It probably is too early to say "repeal the constitution" - and bring back the articles of confederation to full power, and unshackled by other agreements - without a lot of blank stares. Nevertheless, I think this has more historical truth to it than given credit, as well as being true to present attempts to do such things today.

    fyi - I was going to post a quote from the 1776 constitution of Pennsylvania on this thread for a different topic, but decided against it. I can't help thinking it is a lot more precise about many things, so here is a link to it: https://www.paconstitution.org/texts...tution/1776-2/
    Last edited by SpiritOf1776_J4; 10-07-2022 at 12:14 AM.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Why would a net taxpayer voting system be an oligarchy?
    Because in that system, voters get to decide who is a voter.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Liberty preserving authoritarianism.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    In any human polity - libertarian or otherwise - there will always be rules of some kind, and so also of course the application of those rules. [1]

    Thus, there will always be appliers of those rules (i.e., "rulers") - whether they be called "princes" or "presidents" or "CEOs of private security firms" or what-have-you. Even under a voluntaryist polity, there will necessarily be systems and networks of collectively cooperative deference that will result in a hierarchy of such "rulers" [2]. (That they may not be explicitly identified or thought of as "rulers" is a matter of semantics and narrative framing.)



    Sadly, that day will never come.

    At an absolute minimum, there will always be at least some number of sociopathic types who have no compunctions when it comes to violating the rules (whatever the rules might be, including the NAP). And even beyond those, there will always be non-sociopaths who will nevertheless support (or at least not oppose) aggression - because [reasons (e.g., "it's for the children")].

    Fortunately, the achievement and maintenance of a libertarian polity does not require that "every single person accepts and lives by the NAP". Indeed, it does not even require that a majority does so - or even a plurality. for that matter. It only requires that enough people do so (however much that might be [3]). More specifically, it requires that enough of the right people in the right positions - enough of the aforementioned "appliers of rules", in other words - do so. Under those circumstances, the question of whether Joe Rando is a believer in the NAP or not becomes irrelevant, or at most secondary.



    [1] In fact, it is the nature and substance of those rules which determine whether (and to what extent) a given polity can be deemed to be "libertarian or otherwise" in the first place.

    [2] To invoke an analogy used earlier in this thread, even in a voluntaryist game of "pick up" baseball, the umpire (i.e., "ruler") must necessarily be deferred to by all the players if the game is to occur or continue - even when (or rather, especially when) some of them think his strike zone is too big or too small.

    [3] Ante facto, there is no way of knowing what this quantity is, and it will surely vary widely according to time, place, and other contingent factors.


    If that was likely, we wouldn't have gotten in this mess we are in. I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said, Let no more be said about faith in man, but bind him down from mischief with the hands of the Constitution. We didn't enforce it. So, w/out it, we would just be counting on a few good well-placed people? How do you think that would work out any better?
    ================
    Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.

    Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America

    The Property Basis of Rights

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    The game is futile. Certainly voting has gone on for a very long time and people are conditioned that it is a duty, responsibility, patriotic even, but all people really do when they vote is transfer their power and wealth to other people and "the system".
    Correct, the main purpose of voting is to grant legitimacy to a system that is inherently illegitimate.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  30. #56
    What's most interesting about anarchy is it is proposed primarily by individualists but would result in a collectivism worse than Communism. Fidel Casto's Cuba was probably freer than Somalia.

    There would be no trade, at least not in the way it happens now. Objective laws with a court system to settle disputes and punish fraud are necessary for people who don't know each other to transact on a large scale. The law provides a level of trust. You could have small scale trade like you see on Amazon or eBay or like you had on Silk Road but no one would risk large amounts of money with no legal protection. You would have a situation like how drug dealers operate now, where if there is a problem they solve disputes by killing each other.

    That's the funny thing about anarchism. It opposes government because it is violent for having laws. But anarchism is inherently violent. It reduces people to acting on the level of an ape where people form gangs and the most violent and vicious will survive.

    You can be "free" in anarchist Somalia where you will live to be 45. Or you can live to be 90 under the "tyranny" of Singapore where everything is neat and clean and there is no crime.

    Average lifespan Somali - 57.4
    Average lifespan Singapore -83.5

    Somalia per capita income- $446
    Singapore per capita income. - $72,794
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 10-09-2022 at 11:44 AM.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    If that was likely, we wouldn't have gotten in this mess we are in.
    I didn't say it was likely.

    It might be, but in fact, it is entirely possible - perhaps even probable - that it is unlikely.

    Fortunately, though, "unlikely" does not mean "impossible".

    "It is possible that we may lose. It is impossible that we must lose." -- Michael Malice

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    I agree with Thomas Jefferson when he said, Let no more be said about faith in man, [...]
    I agree with TJ about that, too - and I certainly don't endorse putting any "faith in man". (My view of man is tragic, not utopian.)

    All "appliers of rules" should always be regarded with a wary and gimlet eye.

    But "appliers of rules" will always exist in some form or another, and they cannot be dispensed with.

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    [...] but bind him down from mischief with the hands of the Constitution. We didn't enforce it.
    But who, exactly, will "bind him down"? Who, exactly, will supply those "hands"? Who is the "we" who could have enforced it?

    There must necessarily be some particular persons in the right positions to be able to effectuate those things - not just some vague, general "we".

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    So, w/out it, we would just be counting on a few good well-placed people? How do you think that would work out any better?
    If you do not have at least "a few good well-placed people" (such as Ron Paul, for one example) when and where it really matters (and with the ability to apply their will effectively), then you are inevitably going to end up exactly where we find ourselves now - namely, at the mercy of bad but well-placed people. It matters nothing that a lot of people might "support" or agree with a thing if none of them have the position and power necessary to actually and effectively do anything about it.

    But if you do have enough people with the requisite position and power, then you don't necessarily need the support of a lot of people - certainly not the support of "all people", nor even of "most people". Recall that my remarks on this matter were made in the context of Anti Federalist's lament for a "day [...] when every single person accepts and lives by the NAP" (underline emphasis added). Unfortunately, such a day is never going to come. Fortunately, though, it doesn't need to. All that is required is enough people - however much that might be - who are willing to enforce the NAP (or the Constitution, if you prefer - the point remains the same, either way) and who have sufficient power and position to do so effectively. Under those circumstances, "most people" simply won't matter for that purpose.

    This dynamic is always and everywhere in effect, regardless of whether we're talking about mass democracies, or constitutional republics, or absolute monarchies, or communist dictatorships - or even ostensibly "rulerless" anarchies. IOW: Majorities are nice to have, if and when you can get them, but when it comes right down to it, minorities lead and majorities follow - and even within any minority, there are leaders and there are followers (the former being the "appliers of rules" with whom my first post in this thread was concerned). For example, neither American nor Bolshevik revolutionaries were majorities in their own countries (and even among their respective minorities, the "appliers of rules" - such as Washington and Lenin - were fewer still).
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 10-09-2022 at 01:17 PM.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Because in that system, voters get to decide who is a voter.
    That's how it works now. Not everyone is allowed to vote. Criminals, minors and non-citizens for example.

    How would you fix the huge problem we have where the majority steals from the minority? I believe one of the biggest problems we have is unequal protection under the law, one of the most flagrant and damaging examples is progressive taxation.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    What's most interesting about anarchy is it is proposed primarily by individualists but would result in a collectivism worse than Communism. Fidel Casto's Cuba was probably freer than Somalia.

    There would be no trade, at least not in the way it happens now. Objective laws with a court system to settle disputes and punish fraud are necessary for people who don't know each other to transact on a large scale. The law provides a level of trust. You could have small scale trade like you see on Amazon or eBay or like you had on Silk Road but no one would risk large amounts of money with no legal protection. You would have a situation like how drug dealers operate now, where if there is a problem they solve disputes by killing each other.

    That's the funny thing about anarchism. It opposes government because it is violent for having laws. But anarchism is inherently violent. It reduces people to acting on the level of an ape where people form gangs and the most violent and vicious will survive.

    You can be "free" in anarchist Somalia where you will live to be 45. Or you can live to be 90 under the "tyranny" of Singapore where everything is neat and clean and there is no crime.

    Average lifespan Somali - 57.4
    Average lifespan Singapore -83.5

    Somalia per capita income- $446
    Singapore per capita income. - $72,794
    I was at a park and talking to this guy who recently came from Somalia. He was talking about how great it is here that we can walk around safely in public. He said "If you were in Somalia we'd be figuring out how to rob you and you wouldn't make it 100 yards." It was kinda weird the matter of fact way he said "we" like that's just what everybody does there.

    My main argument against anarchy is that there's no such thing. Even in Somalia you've got warlords. They're ruling you with force so that's still government. So your best course of action is to create the best government you can.

    But I also agree with you that peaceful people need government to resolve disputes. If you're a CEO figuring out where to locate your factory, Somalia is not your first choice.

    If you look at one of those websites where they rank economic freedom, you can order countries by the various factors that they use for the ranking like taxation level, size of government, regulations, etc. I always thought size of government would be the most important factor but it's not. By far the strongest correlation that makes a country desirable is rule of law. There is a correlation with size of government, smaller being better obviously, but it's weak compared to rule of law. I was actually disappointed when I first saw that many years ago but it is what it is.

    If anarchies were really superior they'd be breaking out all over the place.

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    What's most interesting about anarchy is it is proposed primarily by individualists but would result in a collectivism worse than Communism. Fidel Casto's Cuba was probably freer than Somalia.

    There would be no trade, at least not in the way it happens now. Objective laws with a court system to settle disputes and punish fraud are necessary for people who don't know each other to transact on a large scale. The law provides a level of trust. You could have small scale trade like you see on Amazon or eBay or like you had on Silk Road but no one would risk large amounts of money with no legal protection. You would have a situation like how drug dealers operate now, where if there is a problem they solve disputes by killing each other.

    That's the funny thing about anarchism. It opposes government because it is violent for having laws. But anarchism is inherently violent. It reduces people to acting on the level of an ape where people form gangs and the most violent and vicious will survive.

    You can be "free" in anarchist Somalia where you will live to be 45. Or you can live to be 90 under the "tyranny" of Singapore where everything is neat and clean and there is no crime.

    Average lifespan Somali - 57.4
    Average lifespan Singapore -83.5

    Somalia per capita income- $446
    Singapore per capita income. - $72,794
    Freedom is messy, without a doubt.

    Animals in captivity, in a zoo, routinely live longer than those in the wild.

    Life in a cage, even in a gilded, safe, comfortable cage, is not life...not for a free man anyway.

    I think what Western Civilization created and culminated here, with our founding documents, strikes the best possible balance the world has ever seen.

    Which is why I am no hurry to burn it all down, but I am willing to fight to protect or to separate it from the people or peoples, that are actively trying to destroy it.
    "Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Nevada rule changes means what?
    By Agorism in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-18-2012, 05:40 PM
  2. Do we ever really get out of Anarchy? [No rulers, does not mean no rules]
    By Conza88 in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 02-16-2012, 07:48 AM
  3. Anarchy = Mob Rule = Democracy (Wisconsin Unions vs Shays Rebellion)
    By Matt Collins in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-12-2011, 10:50 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-04-2007, 02:29 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-04-2007, 02:02 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
  •