Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 87

Thread: Culture Wars?

  1. #1

    Culture Wars?



    My thoughts (done up quick):

    The Enlightenment was by no means a leap forward, only the closing of a philosophical Zero: where the end meets the beginning. The Enlightenment promised all the joys and terrors of civilization - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness - if only our forefathers bowed to the State. Not since Enki-Satan visited the Mother of All in the salt marshes of E'din, had mankind been guaranteed what we already had in exchange for eternal bondage to the State. We sail the passage of time in Uruk's luxury and lucre to this day; we make war on enemies of our own creation, coveting instead of trading, giving our property to the fictional gods of traitor-priests. Politics is a devil's paradox, a Pandora's Box: our smallest hope is not to play the game.

    Political Theory is an ancient, imperial and Statist conceit. Theoreticians presuppose all members of the body, or citizens in society at large, can be governed from the center out - like a city shining from a Hill - regardless of the peoples' religion, creed, and origin. Nanny Statists define it's members, in the broadest possible terms (e.g. white, black, liberal, conservative, etc), because larger populations are easier to control from the center than individuals or natural groups (e.g. tribes, ethnicities, and one street, one-church towns). Everyone belongs to a granfalloon, which all belong to the State, if they desire representation on the Hill. The promise is everyone will be represented this way, but on who's terms?

    As the USG imposes it's arbitrary will further and further from the Hill, incorporating more individuals, among more varied groups, its imperialism paradoxically manufactures the problem of applying law to vastly divergent peoples, and more or less intemperate individuals: this is the problem of assimilation and integration. Assimilation and integration are no problem, when individuals are free to govern themselves - be their choice to remain in their community, or to make their own way. Assimilation only becomes an issue, when people are systematically re-educated, to do violence against their natures for the purposes of the Hill, by incorporating into the official granfalloon, whichever group that would be, based on their ideology and how they feel today.

    The "Culture Wars" are a false dilemma fought in the twilight of civilizations, where the end meets the beginning below the Hill. The cultures of Western liberalism have been too long defined by and learned from the State, and the Hill cannot hold. Wherever you look, there is no real beginning or end to the dimensions of this warfare-welfare, leaving the only true answer: govern one's self. Liberty begins with the individual, the natural center of passion and reason, not with the phony granfalloons of race and progress. Ethno-Religion is the largest, natural state with any meaning and humanity. Ethnicity teaches us to love thy neighbor, religion to love thy God; taken together we learn to love thy nature. Without one or the other humans become sheep to the slaughter, carte blanch for the State to cash it's warfare-welfare.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    @Raginfridus

    Are you proposing anarchy?

  4. #3
    The state is necessary and unavoidable, in tribal societies the chiefs are "the state", the best idea is to keep the state small and weak and allow secession of any group large enough to control it's own territory that wants to secede.

    Culture and assimilation are not the purview of the state except when it comes to limiting immigration and naturalization to defend the interests of the citizens.
    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

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    @Raginfridus

    Are you proposing anarchy?
    Blasphemy!
    "The Patriarch"

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The state is necessary and unavoidable, in tribal societies the chiefs are "the state", the best idea is to keep the state small and weak and allow secession of any group large enough to control it's own territory that wants to secede.

    Culture and assimilation are not the purview of the state except when it comes to limiting immigration and naturalization to defend the interests of the citizens.
    Is this one of those things that if you repeat it often enough it becomes true?
    "The Patriarch"

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    @Raginfridus

    Are you proposing anarchy?
    I'll be the first to admit there are times and places, where "going it alone" might be very, very stupid! I'm saying that people must govern themselves first. I don't believe the decision to obey that command is exclusive to Anarchy, Republics, or Monarchies - ultimately self-governance rests in the individual. (Even Atheists can respect the principle.)

    Its when the Hill enter exclusive treaties, special intrigues, and wage endless war that they doom their own Sovereignty. Is it wise to belong to an arrogant, self-destructive State, who've quit their spiritual mission? When the "Mandate of Heaven" leaves them, and their rulers return to the license, security, and ease of first Uruk? ...

    I don't think so. Better to return to salt marshes of E'din, than to gain the whole world and lose my soul. Hopefully I can make good on that belief in couple years.


    This is E'din, mother of worlds:



    This is Uruk, first of Cities:

    Last edited by Raginfridus; 09-18-2017 at 02:18 PM.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Raginfridus View Post
    I'll be the first to admit there are times and places, where "going it alone" might be very, very stupid! I'm saying that people must govern themselves first. I don't believe the decision to obey that command is exclusive to Anarchy, Republics, or Monarchies - ultimately self-governance rests in the individual. (Even Atheists can respect the principle.)

    Its when the Hill enter exclusive treaties, special intrigues, and wage endless war that they doom their own Sovereignty. Is it wise to belong to an arrogant, self-destructive State, who've quit their spiritual mission? When the "Mandate of Heaven" leaves them, and their rulers return to the license, security, and ease of first Uruk? ...

    I don't think so. Better to return to salt marshes of E'din, than to gain the whole world and lose my soul. Hopefully I can make good on that belief in couple years.
    Would you explain what you're proposing in more concrete terms?

    If not anarchism of some kind, then some reform of the state?

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Is this one of those things that if you repeat it often enough it becomes true?
    It's the eternal delusion. There never has been nor ever will be a "small State." Even the early American State was absolutely tyrannical as it held millions in abject and absolute chattel slavery. If the US government did so today we would be frothing at the mouth but because it did it a century and a half ago that means it is a free country? Bollocks.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    There never has been nor ever will be a "small State."
    I guess that depends on how you define "small," but it's indisputable that some states have been/are much smaller than others.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    It's the eternal delusion. There never has been nor ever will be a "small State."
    The State itself is the delusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Would you explain what you're proposing in more concrete terms?

    If not anarchism of some kind, then some reform of the state?
    I don't know the terms, or I'd use those terms. The terms I know don't satisfy me. It isn't anarchy, though.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Raginfridus View Post
    The State itself is the delusion.

    I don't know the terms, or I'd use those terms. The terms I know don't satisfy me. It isn't anarchy, though.
    Exactly.


    I prefer the term voluntaryism. All associations, including government, should be voluntary in nature.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post


    I prefer the term voluntaryism. All associations, including government, should be voluntary in nature.
    Hm. Okay. Well here's a question, Pierz. If a guy is hanging onto your pole in order to save his own life, are you justified in knocking him off of it just because it's your pole?

    Second part of the question is that, if so, then what primary foundation for moral code gives you that justification to dictate such?

    Third part of my question is very simple. Is whatever is voluntary also ethical? If so, again, based on what?

    As a note, do we agree that voluntaryism is the polar opposite of dictatorship?

    Thanks.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-18-2017 at 06:51 PM.

  15. #13
    Anarchy would lead to a similar amount of freedom people had in the Soviet Union, which is to say no freedom. The government is like a sports league. You need somebody to set up the playing field and rules and someone to enforce the rules. Once that is taken care of, then people are free to do as they please as long as they operate within the playing field.

    The United States is wealthy because we have a fairly strong rule of law and enforced fairly (at least in the context of world history). Predictable rules and institutions creates trust among strangers which lowers the cost of doing business. Anarchy would lead to jungle rule where trust declines and brains are replaced by who is strongest physically. People bitch about this country but 2017 in the United States is still the best time and place to be alive in world history.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 09-18-2017 at 06:14 PM.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Raginfridus View Post
    I don't know the terms, or I'd use those terms. The terms I know don't satisfy me. It isn't anarchy, though.
    Either there's a state or there isn't. Either you're in favor of a stateless society or you're not.

    If you're not in favor of a stateless society, what kind of state would you like to see?

    E.G. Democratic or non-democratic, federalized or centralized, large scale or small scale (geographically)?

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Either there's a state or there isn't. Either you're in favor of a stateless society or you're not.

    If you're not in favor of a stateless society, what kind of state would you like to see?

    E.G. Democratic or non-democratic, federalized or centralized, large scale or small scale (geographically)?
    I suspect that you agree that there will always be a hierarchy, no matter what the culture. Always.

    So this alone requires us to understand the nature of obedience. Whether it is willing obedience or unwilling obedience, the fact remains that any hierarchy cannot thrive absent obedience. A hierarchy contradicts anarchism, voluntaryism, and most other half-thought out isms, really. Just because something is voluntary doesn't make it consentual. Coercion is coercion is coercion.

    The point is that it's laughable to even flirt with any notion otherwise. It's intellectual dishonesty for the voluntarist to say that his system would be the exception. To be fair, in most cases it's simply because one hasn't thought it through all the way. And that's okay.

    Generally speaking, it's a good idea. But the positives negate the nature of man.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-18-2017 at 07:03 PM.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I suspect that you agree that there will always be a hierarchy, no matter what the culture. Always.

    So this alone requires us to understand the nature of obedience. Whether it is willing obedience or unwilling obedience, the fact remains that any hierarchy cannot thrive absent obedience. A hierarchy contradicts anarchism, voluntaryism, and most ther half-thought out isms, really. Just becuse something is voluntary doesn't make it consentual. Coercion is coercion is coercion.
    Indeed



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Hm. Okay. Well here's a question, Pierz. If a guy is hanging onto your pole in order to save his own life, are you justified in knocking him off of it just because it's your pole?

    Second part of the question is that, if so, then what primary foundation for moral code gives you that justification to dictate such?

    Third part of my question is very simple. Is whatever is voluntary also ethical? If so, again, based on what?

    As a note, do we agree that voluntaryism is the polar opposite of dictatorship?

    Thanks.
    I'll let you know if such a meaningless hypothetical ever happens. I'll also let you know if aliens come down and declare Buddah is the One True God of Zurgtopia.

    In terms of ethics, Not everything voluntary is necessarily moral. But what is always immoral is using violence to force your rule upon the lives of others. Voluntaryism may not always give perfect moral outcomes, but at least it allows for them. Statism doesn't even allow for that.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Anarchy would lead to a similar amount of freedom people had in the Soviet Union, which is to say no freedom. The government is like a sports league. You need somebody to set up the playing field and rules and someone to enforce the rules. Once that is taken care of, then people are free to do as they please as long as they operate within the playing field.

    The United States is wealthy because we have a fairly strong rule of law and enforced fairly (at least in the context of world history). Predictable rules and institutions creates trust among strangers which lowers the cost of doing business. Anarchy would lead to jungle rule where trust declines and brains are replaced by who is strongest physically. People bitch about this country but 2017 in the United States is still the best time and place to be alive in world history.
    Sure, but you don't need someone to use violence to set up or maintain those rules. Returning to your sports example, children play games that they both invent and invent the rules to all the time. Mass agreement among players is achieved without the need to beat, torture, or kill anybody.

    And what you seem to ignore is that rule by the strongest is exactly what you endorse. That is exactly what the State is, the biggest, most violent, cruelest, most terrifying bully on the playground who will torture, rape, and murder you if you refuse to give him whatever he wants. There is nothing civilized, peaceful, or just about it. The joke is that you somehow think this is peace when the US military murders to uphold American hegemony abroad and domestic police forces violently oppress millions to maintain state hegemony domestically. At least in anarchy you ahve teh chance to compete. You don't even get that in the State. You either submit like a slave or you die.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I suspect that you agree that there will always be a hierarchy, no matter what the culture. Always.

    So this alone requires us to understand the nature of obedience. Whether it is willing obedience or unwilling obedience, the fact remains that any hierarchy cannot thrive absent obedience. A hierarchy contradicts anarchism, voluntaryism, and most other half-thought out isms, really. Just because something is voluntary doesn't make it consentual. Coercion is coercion is coercion.

    The point is that it's laughable to even flirt with any notion otherwise. It's intellectual dishonesty for the voluntarist to say that his system would be the exception. To be fair, in most cases it's simply because one hasn't thought it through all the way. And that's okay.

    Generally speaking, it's a good idea. But the positives negate the nature of man.
    You seem to have not thought out anything.

    First, anarchy is not opposed to order. It is opposed to organizations which maintain their existence and through the use of force to compel obedience. Order is in fact the natural result of anarchy. It is the State which introduces violence, which in turn sparks rebellion and chaos. The State is the element of disorder in existence.

    Second, to argue force is necessary to maintain organization is foolish and easily demonstrated to be false. 1 billion people, more than any government other than China, are Catholics, accepting Catholics rules and living their lives accordingly, without anyone using violence to make them be Catholics. Every day hundreds of millions of people voluntarily uses services like Amazon, Google, and Uber to organize their lives, all without compulsion. Amazon alone employs more than 350,000 people, all who voluntarily agree to work for the company and follow its rules without compulsion. In fact, most everything you do, you do with a startling lack of violent force.

    Society organizes it self without the State. This is something we all recognize. Going back to Locke he argued that rights, liberty, and order pre-exist the government and government is instituted by people voluntarily to protect their rights. Everything the State is supposed to provide actually pre-exist the State and provides the structure through which the State functions. The State is nothing more than a leech stealing your rights and selling them back to you. It tells you that you cannot drive without its licenses, eat without its testing, or live without its housing regulations. All so it can justify the lie that you need it.

    Third, perhaps you do not understand the term "voluntary." All organizations that are voluntary are voluntary, no matter if they have a well organized leadership or not. Again, you can choose to be Catholic, or you could become a Buddhist, Mormon, Zoroastrian, or even Atheist. There are many to choose from, or you could choose none at all. Some of those are highly organized -like Mormonism and Catholicism- and some are not -like Atheism and Buddhism. But they are all voluntary.

    You also seem to be one of those who argue that any amount fo social disapproval is coercion and would equate social ostracization with violence. This si false and is a conflation of separate ideas. Coercion is:

    1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

    2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/coercion?s=ts
    Notice what the singular element in those definitions is? The use of violence to force others to obey. It is not the refusal to associate or trade with. That my actions may result in being cut off from whatever current society I am in does not equate to coercion. Coercion is violence. Voluntaryism is not.

    And finally, you are the only one ignoring the nature of man. You imagine a world where you can give men the power to abuse, beat, steal from, rape, torture, and kill others and expect him to not do it just because you wrote the equivalent of "be good" on a piece of paper. It is laughably naive. Statism is a Utopian fantasy that can only be accepted as a belief when the believer is totally ignorant of human nature and human history, which is fully of the tyranny and terror that is the inevitable result of statism.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    And what you seem to ignore is that rule by the strongest is exactly what you endorse. That is exactly what the State is, the biggest, most violent, cruelest, most terrifying bully on the playground who will torture, rape, and murder you if you refuse to give him whatever he wants.
    What's ironic is that the state creates the warlords that it's supposed to prevent.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  24. #21
    The State is the negation of government.

    •The State is a monopoly that initiates force under the pretense of governing
    •The State compels obedience on matters far beyond the scope of legitimate government

    •The State uses threats of violence to extort submission
    •The State uses actual violence to harm people who resist its dictates

    All of this is crime, not governance.

    You will avoid contradictory thinking if you distinguish between government and The State.
    •Governing is a service that protects your rights by only using force defensively
    •But The State initiates force in nearly everything it does, and is therefore NOT a government
    •This constant use of initiated force means that The State is really an organized criminal gang

    There is a long habit of NOT thinking about The State in this way, but we must stop using a double standard. We must come to judge The State by the same moral principles we apply to all other human institutions.

    Don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows

  25. #22
    Fallen man's sinful nature is the problem, and there's no running away from it.

    Individuals in families can't even get along, and government has grown and adapted to accommodate and perpetuate the ass-hat behavior that morally upright families will not put up with.

    If it's accountable, government works as well as it can be expected to. As soon as it's not accountable, government fails and makes things worse.

    Keep government small -like family small, or don't even bother.
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    First, anarchy is not opposed to order. It is opposed to organizations which maintain their existence and through the use of force to compel obedience.
    Every social order, including anarcho-capitalism, is maintained by force. In anarcho-capitalism, private defense agencies enforce the social order; in minarchism, the state enforces the social order. The crux of our disagreement concerns how those who wield the force will behave. Anarcho-capitalists predict that they will voluntarily adhere to the rules of the market. Minarchists predict that they will use the force at their disposal for selfish, criminal purposes (as those who presently wield the force do).

    Society organizes it self without the State. This is something we all recognize.
    No society of any consequence has ever, in human history, organized itself without the state. Anarcho-capitalists assume that, absent the state, private persons/businesses would just continue doing what they're doing (i.e. interacting fairly peacefully). Minarchists appreciate that the only thing preventing certain greedy and powerful people from bullying the rest of us is the existence of any even bigger bully, who doesn't like competition.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    I'll let you know if such a meaningless hypothetical ever happens. I'll also let you know if aliens come down and declare Buddah is the One True God of Zurgtopia.

    In terms of ethics, Not everything voluntary is necessarily moral. But what is always immoral is using violence to force your rule upon the lives of others. Voluntaryism may not always give perfect moral outcomes, but at least it allows for them. Statism doesn't even allow for that.
    Pierz, you didn't answer my question, bud.

    Wuh hah hapen wuh, I had asked if a guy is hanging onto your pole in order to save his own life, are you justified in knocking him off of it just because it's your pole?

    So. Are you? Yes or no? It's a rather direct question.

    Second part of the question was that, if so, then what primary foundation for moral code gives you that justification to dictate such?

    You didn't answer that question either.

    With regard to my question about whether whatever is voluntary also ethical, agreed. Not everything voluntary is necessarily moral. Now this presents a problem for you. I'll tell you why. Immoral is the wrong word. Immoral demands that one have a foundation for moral code with an understanding of right and wrong.

    The correct word is anti-moral. The reason that is the correct word is because any heirarchy demands obedience. Again, obedience is obedience regardless of whether it is willing obedience or unwilling obedience.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-19-2017 at 05:25 PM.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    What's ironic is that the state creates the warlords that it's supposed to prevent.
    Actually, the state is everything that is supposed to prevent. We can't have warlords demanding protection money from people, so we have government agents do it. We can't have criminals stealing and looting and killing, so we have police do it.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Pierz, you didn't answer my question, bud.

    Wuh hah hapen wuh, I had asked if a guy is hanging onto your pole in order to save his own life, are you justified in knocking him off of it just because it's your pole?

    So. Are you? Yes or no? It's a rather direct question.

    Second part of the question was that, if so, then what primary foundation for moral code gives you that justification to dictate such?

    You didn't answer that question either.
    To answer your idiotic question, yes you have the right to knock them off of your pole. The justification is that it is your pole and you are the sovereign decision maker of what happens to it. The moral justification has nothing to do with the pole, but with your property in general. If you own property, then you are the sovereign decision maker of what happens to it.

    The individual action of knocking the person to their death is not moral, whether or not you have the right to do it. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it morally acceptable. And if you are despicable person that would do such a thing, then the rest of society has the right to make life difficult on you, deny service in their establishments, pressure your employer to terminate you, etc.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Actually, the state is everything that is supposed to prevent. We can't have warlords demanding protection money from people, so we have government agents do it. We can't have criminals stealing and looting and killing, so we have police do it.
    The point I was making is that we HAVE criminal warlords, extortion, looting, and killing, even though there is a state to "prevent" these activities. So we get it from both ends.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Wuh hah hapen wuh,
    about sums it up.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  33. #29
    To repeat what Rev has said here, every social order, including anarcho-capitalism, is maintained by force.

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    You seem to have not thought out anything.

    First, anarchy is not opposed to order. It is opposed to organizations which maintain their existence and through the use of force to compel obedience. Order is in fact the natural result of anarchy. It is the State which introduces violence, which in turn sparks rebellion and chaos. The State is the element of disorder in existence.

    Second, to argue force is necessary to maintain organization is foolish and easily demonstrated to be false. 1 billion people, more than any government other than China, are Catholics, accepting Catholics rules and living their lives accordingly, without anyone using violence to make them be Catholics. Every day hundreds of millions of people voluntarily uses services like Amazon, Google, and Uber to organize their lives, all without compulsion. Amazon alone employs more than 350,000 people, all who voluntarily agree to work for the company and follow its rules without compulsion. In fact, most everything you do, you do with a startling lack of violent force.

    Society organizes it self without the State. This is something we all recognize. Going back to Locke he argued that rights, liberty, and order pre-exist the government and government is instituted by people voluntarily to protect their rights. Everything the State is supposed to provide actually pre-exist the State and provides the structure through which the State functions. The State is nothing more than a leech stealing your rights and selling them back to you. It tells you that you cannot drive without its licenses, eat without its testing, or live without its housing regulations. All so it can justify the lie that you need it.

    Third, perhaps you do not understand the term "voluntary." All organizations that are voluntary are voluntary, no matter if they have a well organized leadership or not. Again, you can choose to be Catholic, or you could become a Buddhist, Mormon, Zoroastrian, or even Atheist. There are many to choose from, or you could choose none at all. Some of those are highly organized -like Mormonism and Catholicism- and some are not -like Atheism and Buddhism. But they are all voluntary.

    You also seem to be one of those who argue that any amount fo social disapproval is coercion and would equate social ostracization with violence. This si false and is a conflation of separate ideas. Coercion is:



    Notice what the singular element in those definitions is? The use of violence to force others to obey. It is not the refusal to associate or trade with. That my actions may result in being cut off from whatever current society I am in does not equate to coercion. Coercion is violence. Voluntaryism is not.

    And finally, you are the only one ignoring the nature of man. You imagine a world where you can give men the power to abuse, beat, steal from, rape, torture, and kill others and expect him to not do it just because you wrote the equivalent of "be good" on a piece of paper. It is laughably naive. Statism is a Utopian fantasy that can only be accepted as a belief when the believer is totally ignorant of human nature and human history, which is fully of the tyranny and terror that is the inevitable result of statism.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    The point I was making is that we HAVE criminal warlords, extortion, looting, and killing, even though there is a state to "prevent" these activities. So we get it from both ends.
    Ah, well, it's a good thing we have a state to take care of that then. I didn't read the whole thread anyway, so I may have missed it. I can't rep you anyway, so I'll owe you one.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Peter Thiel at RNC: ‘Fake culture wars’ distract from broken economy
    By jct74 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-23-2016, 12:35 PM
  2. Replies: 73
    Last Post: 02-27-2012, 02:38 AM
  3. Culture wars!: Dutch to Abandon Multiculturalism
    By Agorism in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-25-2011, 09:13 PM
  4. Culture Wars vs. Censorship: What's a Social Network to Do?
    By BlackTerrel in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2010, 02:04 PM
  5. Glen Beck wars, Palin wars, Anarchy wars
    By klamath in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-27-2009, 05:54 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
  •