Can anyone tell me about Politics....

[Flopper]

Lol I mean trust me I agree it’s for the best you are so independent and to some degree that should feel good, but you just aren’t as special as you like to think you are I hate to say it. Again the unemployment rate is 3% under Trump. You have statistics that say this is an epidemic under the supposedly tough businessman who is really just a complete sack of shit.

Since the unemployment rate hit record lows (the lowest in nearly 50 years) shouldn't everybody who is physically and mentally capable of working be working?

Where do you get "I'm special" in my argument? I never said nor Implied that.

And let me tell you, if not for Republican Governors who instituted requirements for receiving food stamps, the usage would be much higher today.

Lol are you implying that all that 3% are on food stamps? No. Again, most able bodied adults on food stamps have jobs. They just can’t support the dependents they have with their dirt income. Also consider who MOST of the people on food stamps are; kids, disabled adults such as veterans, and the elderly. Those people make up 2/3 of all of those on food stamps. These are the facts you are willfully ignoring.

Really? My father is 87, and he's never been on food stamps. Neither has my mother. Neither have my late grandparents.

Correct, it is tough to support children when you have no trade or career. That's why you shouldn't have children unless you are secure financially and will be in the future.

Disability pays enough so you don't need food stamps. One of my tenants who has been with me eight years is on disability, and he can't even receive food stamps because he makes over the maximum income with his SS check.

Dude I didn’t say most old people were on food stamps. I said that most people on food stamps are elderly, kids, and the disabled.

Yes, we have established that the woman should have never have had kids she couldn’t afford. The kid still exists either way right? Something must be spent on taking care of the kid. Also, like me and Flopper have already explained to you, mothers can’t always foresee the future. Perhaps she had the kid when she was financially stable, but she got ill or she got laid off. Maybe the father left her high and dry. You know, life happens. Unexpected shit can happen. Have some basic empathy in that regard. She isn’t some terrible person just because shit goes wrong.

I'm sure there are people like that. And if that's the only people that got food stamps or any kind of welfare, it wouldn't be a problem. But I would say people that get benefits from a situation like that are like what, about one or two percent of recipients?

However it is a problem when we see able bodied people who are not working and receiving benefits, or we see how the system is being abused.

A former coworker of mine told us a story about his wife. They were in need for more family income so she got a job working at a convenience store. She was chatting with some of her new coworkers about why she took the job. One of her coworkers replied that she's doing it all wrong.

She said she went to welfare and told them her husband had left her and she was left with the kids cold and dry. They furnished her with all kinds of government goodies. Why is that a scam? Because her husband never went anywhere. He was an employee at the GM plant and made a great income. However free goodies are as good as any goodies, and they got this plan from one of their closest friends. They said they've been doing it for years, and the government never checks up or investigates any of their stories.

I would say it is a lot more than 1 or 2%. 25% of recipients of food stamps are families with one adult. Yes, it is a problem for able bodied people to not be working and living off the government. However, 80% of the recipients of food stamps are workers. What you prefer to ignore is that people are poor, not because they don't work but because they can't earn enough money to provide for themselves and their family.

I'm well aware of the welfare queen who drives her fancy car around town mocking us stupid slobs who support her luxurious lifestyle. I'm also aware that it's a fantasy created in the 80's to justify cutting taxes for the wealthy and middle class. And it's all to support the idea that people that people who can not work or unable to a keep job will somehow, find a way to support themselves and their family when faced with starvation and homelessness.

 

[Flopper]

Lol man you and I have argued this specific point for years now on this board. I mean this goes back several times to at least a couple of years. Women do not have kids in order to get welfare. That economically does not make any goddamn sense. Their kid would get like $150 per month in food stamps. That’s it. You do know that the monthly cost of raising a kid is far more than that right? The overall cost itself of raising a kid til 18 is astronomical when you factor in other costs that don’t accumulate on a monthly basis but over the years. Also, that kid does eat, right? Therefore it stands to reason that $150 per month is spent on the kid’s food. How do we know this? Because the single mother would have to be dirt poor to even qualify for food stamps.

The problem is that you’re making welfare into this epidemic when you aren’t even paying attention the facts. Food stamps per year cost like 60 billion which is a fraction of the overall welfare budget that includes SS, Medicare, and Medicaid and other small programs in comparison like Section 8 or TANF. It’s not that people wouldn’t want to game the system if they had the chance, it’s that economically it really isn’t possible for most of the people on food stamps to attempt.

Food stamps is just one program they use. Trust me, they use others as well. Why is it when I'm grocery shopping, the people who don't use any government assistance usually have one or two children with them, but the people on food stamps usually have three to five?

Take the HUD people next door. Typical ghetto, home all day, four kids, yet thanks to government, they live in the suburbs next door to me. The more kids you have, the larger home you need. The larger home you need, the more money you get from HUD, and thats's how the government destroys neighborhoods and discourages getting ahead.

Now it's one thing that they are garbage, but as long as it's my tax dollars supporting them, you would think they'd have the curtesy to let me sleep at night so I can get up in the morning and create taxes for them to live on. No dice. They are coming home all hours of the night, laughing and talking loud, slamming their car doors, probably drunk or high, and setting their ten dollar car alarms so nobody steals one of their four $300.00 cars.

Then their children will grow up doing the same because there is no way children can get ample sleep enough to concentrate in school with parents and visitors up all morning in the house.

Minimum food stamp benefit is only $16 a month. Many people don't realize that benefits are steeply graduated as income increases. This is one of the reasons you often see people at the grocery store using both a SNAP card and a credit card.

Nor do most realize that 80% of those that receive foods stamps have jobs and half of food stamp benefits go to children.

Flopper, for one, if you need food stamps, you should have never had children in the first place. Two, you are correct that people who make more income see a decrease in their benefits. THAT'S WHY THEY ONLY WORK MINIMUM HOURS! Three, the reason you see people with SNAP's cards and credit cards is because we pay for their food, but they pay for their own beer and wine, flowers, greeting cards, gift certificates, cigarettes, and various other items I see at the store with SNAP's people.

So a prerequisite for having children is to be able to see the future, to know your husband of 10 years is not going run off leaving you with 3 young children to support on a part time job at the local Dairy Queen. Some of us are lucky and others aren't. Social safety nets help prevent a life shatter experience from becoming a disaster that destroys lives. 70% of SNAP participates are families and half of those are single parent families.

So do you really believe that's the typical situation of a welfare recipient? They had this strong, loving, unbreakable relationship, and then like a thief in the night, the guy runs out and leaves her?

Where do you think the term Baby Daddies comes from; those loving relationships? But this all reminds me of an old joke.

A woman goes to the welfare office and applies. She gets called up to the desk and the social worker said she had to ask some questions. How many children do you have asked the worker?

Applicant: I have seven kids.
Worker: Very well, I will need their names starting with the youngest one first. What is your youngest's name?
Applicant: Leroy.
Worker: and the second youngest?
Applicant: Leroy.
Worker: The third youngest. '
Applicant: Leroy.

At that point the worker puts down her pen and says, let's cut to the chase, are all seven of your kids named Leroy?

Yes they is!

The worker continued to fill out the form, but puts her pen down once again and said: This isn't part of the application, but to satisfy my own curiosity, how do the children know which one of them you are calling?

The applicant said: That's easy, I just call them by their last name.

That's funny but not relevant. OK, so mom sleeps around has 7 kids, no husband and no job. What do you propose?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Completely false, your assertion is based on the premise that the Government is always justified in its actions, or any of its action.

Governments around the world have murdered more people than any other force in existence, I really don't see how anyone can be so delusional as to believe every single one is completely legitimate solely on the basis that the Government calls itself Government.

Are we just going to totally ignore the times the Road Pirates murdered a kid holding a Wiimote, or a kid with a toy gun, or the time they shot a guy through their door without knowing what was even going on, or that time the Police murdered a guy pulling up their waistband? They're literally thieves, kidnappers, and murderers who extort us for the benefit of Government.


Georgia Cop Won't Be Charged in Shooting Death of Teen
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...semi-automatic-pistol/?utm_term=.105a668dc5e9

Oh, let's not forget all these other murders: Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

You know what the real difference is? The Mafia at least has the honesty to tell us that they're the Mafia, while the Government tricks people like you into thinking murder, kidnapping, theft, extortion, and force in general are somehow justified just because Government is the organization committing those atrocities.

Are you somehow under the impression that theft isn't theft if someone calls themselves Government? Let me make it clearer for you; Theft is still theft if you give someone a moldy sandwich in exchange for what you stole. Theft is still theft regardless of who took the money. Your argument is LITERALLY special pleading.

This is all also completely ignoring that we have no part to play, we're literally just the Government's property: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
We have no affect on whether legislation is passed or not, and even if we did, it's literally just the majority oppressing the minority. Not only all of this, but the idea of any of these liars, robbers, kidnappers, and murderers actually represent out interests is completely nonsensical. None of them know us, they're literally just a group of ruling-class liars pretending to give us the choice of lobbing off our arm or lopping off out leg.

They have even admitted that they don't work for us:
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia

So, yes, they, and people like you, apply different standards to them on the sole basis that they're Government.

So have you gone completely anarchist now?

Yes, I have. It's the only fully consistent ideology.

Are you saying you are an anarchist? I ask that because few people will actually admit that. Most people will just rave and rant about their hatred for government.

Yes, I am an Anarchist.

In that case, would you please explain what you think would happen if all government in the US was eliminated.

Competition would be at an all-time high, prices would be at an all-time low, innovation would drastically accelerate due to the Government no longer impeding it. Everyone would do what's in their own self-interest, and with Government no longer attempting to monopolize gun ownership, attempting to initiate force against anyone would be significantly higher in risk, especially due to better purchasing power, since people would stop exchanging in the US Dollar.

Anything the Government does that there's a demand for would be provided by private businesses and paid for voluntarily. Road Pirates/Police would be completely replaced by self defense and Private Security, which is cheaper and more effective than Road Pirates/Police, who take 15 minutes on average to arrive, and don't even work for us.

If this doesn't answer your question, maybe you should ask more specific things, since this question is incredibly broad.

 

[Flopper]

So have you gone completely anarchist now?

Yes, I have. It's the only fully consistent ideology.

Are you saying you are an anarchist? I ask that because few people will actually admit that. Most people will just rave and rant about their hatred for government.

Yes, I am an Anarchist.

In that case, would you please explain what you think would happen if all government in the US was eliminated.

Competition would be at an all-time high, prices would be at an all-time low, innovation would drastically accelerate due to the Government no longer impeding it. Everyone would do what's in their own self-interest, and with Government no longer attempting to monopolize gun ownership, attempting to initiate force against anyone would be significantly higher in risk, especially due to better purchasing power, since people would stop exchanging in the US Dollar.

Anything the Government does that there's a demand for would be provided by private businesses and paid for voluntarily. Road Pirates/Police would be completely replaced by self defense and Private Security, which is cheaper and more effective than Road Pirates/Police, who take 15 minutes on average to arrive, and don't even work for us.

If this doesn't answer your question, maybe you should ask more specific things, since this question is incredibly broad.

And how long do you think it would take other countries like Russia or China to drop two or three hundred thousands troops in the US to restore order and goverment. That would happen probably just before Russia marched through Europe since NATO would collapse without US support.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm willing to learn about politics basic theory. I'm going to study it. Can you explain what is the politics...

Sorry, you'll have to do your own homework.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Yes, I have. It's the only fully consistent ideology.

Are you saying you are an anarchist? I ask that because few people will actually admit that. Most people will just rave and rant about their hatred for government.

Yes, I am an Anarchist.

In that case, would you please explain what you think would happen if all government in the US was eliminated.

Competition would be at an all-time high, prices would be at an all-time low, innovation would drastically accelerate due to the Government no longer impeding it. Everyone would do what's in their own self-interest, and with Government no longer attempting to monopolize gun ownership, attempting to initiate force against anyone would be significantly higher in risk, especially due to better purchasing power, since people would stop exchanging in the US Dollar.

Anything the Government does that there's a demand for would be provided by private businesses and paid for voluntarily. Road Pirates/Police would be completely replaced by self defense and Private Security, which is cheaper and more effective than Road Pirates/Police, who take 15 minutes on average to arrive, and don't even work for us.

If this doesn't answer your question, maybe you should ask more specific things, since this question is incredibly broad.

And how long do you think it would take other countries like Russia or China to drop two or three hundred thousands troops in the US to restore order and goverment. That would happen probably just before Russia marched through Europe since NATO would collapse without US support.

I guess it would take until China's fascist leaders shove their heads so far up their ass that they think an armed America, with no Gun Restrictions, would just lay down and let them. The capability of organizing does not disappear with Government, restraint does. All those guns, all that technology, and all of those people don't just evaporate, the evil force preventing us from defending ourselves does. If China is so willing and ready to send "three-hundred thousand" people to their deaths, I suppose that's their decision. Of course, that's the assumption that there would even be a fight, since people wouldn't be fighting the Government anymore, if they show up and attempt to take over America, they'd have no way to force us all to comply, since technology would continue to exist that allows us to trade around the Government. They'd be straight wasting their time.

I suppose the funniest part of this anti-thought you're exhibiting would be that you believe there's any one singular thing to be fighting against, for them. If the US Government collapses, it won't be from violent revolution, it'll be from innovations which prevent them from continuing to interfere in our ability to freely exchange. With the creation of things like Crypto Currency and 3D printers, their ability to interfere is already disappearing. If they attempt to initiate force against the new free society, they'd just be encouraging the 327-million people living here to defend themselves. No army in the world outnumbers the general populace, the only thing which allows them to maintain control is the illusion of authority.

 

[Billy000]

To an extent. I think that this statement is over used though as it really does not capture the whole picture. The government, by definition, has cornered the market on force but it is not entirely the same as the mafia.

The difference is in the manner that force is being used. With government, we all have a part to play and the government has legitimate charges. Essentially, stating taxation is theft is the same thing as stating murder and killing are the same. Both are violent acts but one is justified and the other is not.

Completely false, your assertion is based on the premise that the Government is always justified in its actions, or any of its action.

Governments around the world have murdered more people than any other force in existence, I really don't see how anyone can be so delusional as to believe every single one is completely legitimate solely on the basis that the Government calls itself Government.

Are we just going to totally ignore the times the Road Pirates murdered a kid holding a Wiimote, or a kid with a toy gun, or the time they shot a guy through their door without knowing what was even going on, or that time the Police murdered a guy pulling up their waistband? They're literally thieves, kidnappers, and murderers who extort us for the benefit of Government.


Georgia Cop Won't Be Charged in Shooting Death of Teen
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...semi-automatic-pistol/?utm_term=.105a668dc5e9

Oh, let's not forget all these other murders: Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

You know what the real difference is? The Mafia at least has the honesty to tell us that they're the Mafia, while the Government tricks people like you into thinking murder, kidnapping, theft, extortion, and force in general are somehow justified just because Government is the organization committing those atrocities.

Are you somehow under the impression that theft isn't theft if someone calls themselves Government? Let me make it clearer for you; Theft is still theft if you give someone a moldy sandwich in exchange for what you stole. Theft is still theft regardless of who took the money. Your argument is LITERALLY special pleading.

This is all also completely ignoring that we have no part to play, we're literally just the Government's property: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
We have no affect on whether legislation is passed or not, and even if we did, it's literally just the majority oppressing the minority. Not only all of this, but the idea of any of these liars, robbers, kidnappers, and murderers actually represent out interests is completely nonsensical. None of them know us, they're literally just a group of ruling-class liars pretending to give us the choice of lobbing off our arm or lopping off out leg.

They have even admitted that they don't work for us:
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia

So, yes, they, and people like you, apply different standards to them on the sole basis that they're Government.

So have you gone completely anarchist now?

Yes, I have. It's the only fully consistent ideology.

Are you saying you are an anarchist? I ask that because few people will actually admit that. Most people will just rave and rant about their hatred for government.

Yes, I am an Anarchist.

Don’t be an anarchist. You’re smarter than that.

 

[Flopper]

Are you saying you are an anarchist? I ask that because few people will actually admit that. Most people will just rave and rant about their hatred for government.

Yes, I am an Anarchist.

In that case, would you please explain what you think would happen if all government in the US was eliminated.

Competition would be at an all-time high, prices would be at an all-time low, innovation would drastically accelerate due to the Government no longer impeding it. Everyone would do what's in their own self-interest, and with Government no longer attempting to monopolize gun ownership, attempting to initiate force against anyone would be significantly higher in risk, especially due to better purchasing power, since people would stop exchanging in the US Dollar.

Anything the Government does that there's a demand for would be provided by private businesses and paid for voluntarily. Road Pirates/Police would be completely replaced by self defense and Private Security, which is cheaper and more effective than Road Pirates/Police, who take 15 minutes on average to arrive, and don't even work for us.

If this doesn't answer your question, maybe you should ask more specific things, since this question is incredibly broad.

And how long do you think it would take other countries like Russia or China to drop two or three hundred thousands troops in the US to restore order and goverment. That would happen probably just before Russia marched through Europe since NATO would collapse without US support.

I guess it would take until China's fascist leaders shove their heads so far up their ass that they think an armed America, with no Gun Restrictions, would just lay down and let them. The capability of organizing does not disappear with Government, restraint does. All those guns, all that technology, and all of those people don't just evaporate, the evil force preventing us from defending ourselves does. If China is so willing and ready to send "three-hundred thousand" people to their deaths, I suppose that's their decision. Of course, that's the assumption that there would even be a fight, since people wouldn't be fighting the Government anymore, if they show up and attempt to take over America, they'd have no way to force us all to comply, since technology would continue to exist that allows us to trade around the Government. They'd be straight wasting their time.

I suppose the funniest part of this anti-thought you're exhibiting would be that you believe there's any one singular thing to be fighting against, for them. If the US Government collapses, it won't be from violent revolution, it'll be from innovations which prevent them from continuing to interfere in our ability to freely exchange. With the creation of things like Crypto Currency and 3D printers, their ability to interfere is already disappearing. If they attempt to initiate force against the new free society, they'd just be encouraging the 327-million people living here to defend themselves. No army in the world outnumbers the general populace, the only thing which allows them to maintain control is the illusion of authority.

I find it hard to believe that citizens armed with shotguns, rifles, and pistols would be any match for a professional army with tanks, backed up with air power and artillery. China would be in this country in a blink of an eye just to get our petroleum.

This country like a number of other nations were formed for mutual defense. We've added a lot of stuff besides defense but defense is the basic reason for the nation and the government. Without the government to focus all divergent interest into defending the nation, the country would fall to a foreign power in no time at all.

The basic problem with anarchy is that the whole is stronger than all the parts because the parts will not act in unison to meet a global problem. The only way you can get all parts working together to accomplish a goal is with a centralize power which can make it happen. Thus we are back to some kind of goverment.

 

[McRocket]

I'm willing to learn about politics basic theory. I'm going to study it. Can you explain what is the politics...

You have come to the wrong place for what you seek.

Even Wikipedia will teach you more then you could learn here about politics.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Completely false, your assertion is based on the premise that the Government is always justified in its actions, or any of its action.

Governments around the world have murdered more people than any other force in existence, I really don't see how anyone can be so delusional as to believe every single one is completely legitimate solely on the basis that the Government calls itself Government.

Are we just going to totally ignore the times the Road Pirates murdered a kid holding a Wiimote, or a kid with a toy gun, or the time they shot a guy through their door without knowing what was even going on, or that time the Police murdered a guy pulling up their waistband? They're literally thieves, kidnappers, and murderers who extort us for the benefit of Government.


Georgia Cop Won't Be Charged in Shooting Death of Teen
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...semi-automatic-pistol/?utm_term=.105a668dc5e9

Oh, let's not forget all these other murders: Number of Abortions in US & Worldwide - Number of abortions since 1973

You know what the real difference is? The Mafia at least has the honesty to tell us that they're the Mafia, while the Government tricks people like you into thinking murder, kidnapping, theft, extortion, and force in general are somehow justified just because Government is the organization committing those atrocities.

Are you somehow under the impression that theft isn't theft if someone calls themselves Government? Let me make it clearer for you; Theft is still theft if you give someone a moldy sandwich in exchange for what you stole. Theft is still theft regardless of who took the money. Your argument is LITERALLY special pleading.

This is all also completely ignoring that we have no part to play, we're literally just the Government's property: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
We have no affect on whether legislation is passed or not, and even if we did, it's literally just the majority oppressing the minority. Not only all of this, but the idea of any of these liars, robbers, kidnappers, and murderers actually represent out interests is completely nonsensical. None of them know us, they're literally just a group of ruling-class liars pretending to give us the choice of lobbing off our arm or lopping off out leg.

They have even admitted that they don't work for us:
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia

So, yes, they, and people like you, apply different standards to them on the sole basis that they're Government.

So have you gone completely anarchist now?

Yes, I have. It's the only fully consistent ideology.

Are you saying you are an anarchist? I ask that because few people will actually admit that. Most people will just rave and rant about their hatred for government.

Yes, I am an Anarchist.

Don’t be an anarchist. You’re smarter than that.

Don't be statist, you're smarter than that.

See? People other than you are capable of making a post with no argument in it.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I find it hard to believe that citizens armed with shotguns, rifles, and pistols would be any match for a professional army with tanks, backed up with air power and artillery. China would be in this country in a blink of an eye just to get our petroleum.

I guess we're just going to totally ignore the fact that;
1: Technology available to a Government is fully available to "regular people", it had to be invented and constructed by regular people, therefor regular people are equally capable of producing the same things. In fact, most military equipment is produced by private industry because the Government has no resources aside from what it steals.
2: That things such as tanks and aircraft are impractical in urban environments anyway.
3: That such things don't matter when you're so heavily outnumbered and have no clear target you're fighting against. They would be invading a foreign land from across the freaking ocean, and would be surrounded by millions of people that don't want them there.
4: There's zero incentive to invade, they can just trade for it.
5: If it's more effective, the people can organize a militia, and it would be better equipped and cheaper than a Government Military.
6: Shotguns and Rifles is a strawman, the only reason people don't currently have things such as RPGs and missile launchers is because there would be collateral damage when firing. If they were needed, people could easily produce and obtain them.

Of course, I'm not surprised that a Statist can only think in terms of warmongering, your precious Government has been instigating wars since its inception.

This country like a number of other nations were formed for mutual defense. We've added a lot of stuff besides defense but defense is the basic reason for the nation and the government. Without the government to focus all divergent interest into defending the nation, the country would fall to a foreign power in no time at all.

False, this Nation was initially formed to escape a tyrannical ruler, and then it became a tyrannical ruler. If it was formed for defense, it would be a Militia, because a Militia is formed by the people, and served the people. They are cheaper, better armed, and more effective.

A Government is absolutely not formed for defense, because all they do is oppress the people and start wars with other Governments. How many World Wars would there be without Government? Freaking none.

The basic problem with anarchy is that the whole is stronger than all the parts because the parts will not act in unison to meet a global problem. The only way you can get all parts working together to accomplish a goal is with a centralize power which can make it happen. Thus we are back to some kind of goverment.

You're, once again, ignorantly pretending that people can't organize themselves, despite all evidence to the contrary. Businesses and other organizations are examples of people organizing themselves.
History | Historic US Route 6 Iowa
Or the farmers that built a road in a single hour because they needed it. Another example would be Kickstarter, people organizing to pay for something because they decided that they want it. The idea that people can only organize under a territorial monopoly on arbitration is flat-out ignorance.

The REAL fact is that if people needed to organize for something, they would do so voluntarily, out of necessity or desire. Authority isn't required because it would be in the individual's own self-interest to do so, and theft, murder, kidnapping, coercion, wouldn't be required in order to do so. These statements you're making have already been refuted thousands of times, you just never bothered to do the research on it, you just accept the words of your masters in Government as fact without bothering to investigate for yourself.

 

[Billy000]

So have you gone completely anarchist now?

Yes, I have. It's the only fully consistent ideology.

Are you saying you are an anarchist? I ask that because few people will actually admit that. Most people will just rave and rant about their hatred for government.

Yes, I am an Anarchist.

Don’t be an anarchist. You’re smarter than that.

Don't be statist, you're smarter than that.

See? People other than you are capable of making a post with no argument in it.

I’m a statist but in terms of extremism on a spectrum, i am not an extremist. Anarchy is extremism. My beliefs about statism is based on social democratic principles. It’s not like I support fascism.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, I am an Anarchist.

In that case, would you please explain what you think would happen if all government in the US was eliminated.

Competition would be at an all-time high, prices would be at an all-time low, innovation would drastically accelerate due to the Government no longer impeding it. Everyone would do what's in their own self-interest, and with Government no longer attempting to monopolize gun ownership, attempting to initiate force against anyone would be significantly higher in risk, especially due to better purchasing power, since people would stop exchanging in the US Dollar.

Anything the Government does that there's a demand for would be provided by private businesses and paid for voluntarily. Road Pirates/Police would be completely replaced by self defense and Private Security, which is cheaper and more effective than Road Pirates/Police, who take 15 minutes on average to arrive, and don't even work for us.

If this doesn't answer your question, maybe you should ask more specific things, since this question is incredibly broad.

And how long do you think it would take other countries like Russia or China to drop two or three hundred thousands troops in the US to restore order and goverment. That would happen probably just before Russia marched through Europe since NATO would collapse without US support.

I guess it would take until China's fascist leaders shove their heads so far up their ass that they think an armed America, with no Gun Restrictions, would just lay down and let them. The capability of organizing does not disappear with Government, restraint does. All those guns, all that technology, and all of those people don't just evaporate, the evil force preventing us from defending ourselves does. If China is so willing and ready to send "three-hundred thousand" people to their deaths, I suppose that's their decision. Of course, that's the assumption that there would even be a fight, since people wouldn't be fighting the Government anymore, if they show up and attempt to take over America, they'd have no way to force us all to comply, since technology would continue to exist that allows us to trade around the Government. They'd be straight wasting their time.

I suppose the funniest part of this anti-thought you're exhibiting would be that you believe there's any one singular thing to be fighting against, for them. If the US Government collapses, it won't be from violent revolution, it'll be from innovations which prevent them from continuing to interfere in our ability to freely exchange. With the creation of things like Crypto Currency and 3D printers, their ability to interfere is already disappearing. If they attempt to initiate force against the new free society, they'd just be encouraging the 327-million people living here to defend themselves. No army in the world outnumbers the general populace, the only thing which allows them to maintain control is the illusion of authority.

I find it hard to believe that citizens armed with shotguns, rifles, and pistols would be any match for a professional army with tanks, backed up with air power and artillery. China would be in this country in a blink of an eye just to get our petroleum.

This country like a number of other nations were formed for mutual defense. We've added a lot of stuff besides defense but defense is the basic reason for the nation and the government. Without the government to focus all divergent interest into defending the nation, the country would fall to a foreign power in no time at all.

The basic problem with anarchy is that the whole is stronger than all the parts because the parts will not act in unison to meet a global problem. The only way you can get all parts working together to accomplish a goal is with a centralize power which can make it happen. Thus we are back to some kind of goverment.

How many American solders have we lost in the middle-east over religious anarchists? You don't give people credit for being able to defend themselves. If you were in charge of a country that wanted to invade another, would you have more concerns of an armed citizenry or a disarmed citizenry? We can't stop our own people from killing multitudes of other people, but a foreign invasion can?

 

[Billy000]

Lol I mean trust me I agree it’s for the best you are so independent and to some degree that should feel good, but you just aren’t as special as you like to think you are I hate to say it. Again the unemployment rate is 3% under Trump. You have statistics that say this is an epidemic under the supposedly tough businessman who is really just a complete sack of shit.

Since the unemployment rate hit record lows (the lowest in nearly 50 years) shouldn't everybody who is physically and mentally capable of working be working?

Where do you get "I'm special" in my argument? I never said nor Implied that.

And let me tell you, if not for Republican Governors who instituted requirements for receiving food stamps, the usage would be much higher today.

Lol are you implying that all that 3% are on food stamps? No. Again, most able bodied adults on food stamps have jobs. They just can’t support the dependents they have with their dirt income. Also consider who MOST of the people on food stamps are; kids, disabled adults such as veterans, and the elderly. Those people make up 2/3 of all of those on food stamps. These are the facts you are willfully ignoring.

Really? My father is 87, and he's never been on food stamps. Neither has my mother. Neither have my late grandparents.

Correct, it is tough to support children when you have no trade or career. That's why you shouldn't have children unless you are secure financially and will be in the future.

Disability pays enough so you don't need food stamps. One of my tenants who has been with me eight years is on disability, and he can't even receive food stamps because he makes over the maximum income with his SS check.

Dude I didn’t say most old people were on food stamps. I said that most people on food stamps are elderly, kids, and the disabled.

Yes, we have established that the woman should have never have had kids she couldn’t afford. The kid still exists either way right? Something must be spent on taking care of the kid. Also, like me and Flopper have already explained to you, mothers can’t always foresee the future. Perhaps she had the kid when she was financially stable, but she got ill or she got laid off. Maybe the father left her high and dry. You know, life happens. Unexpected shit can happen. Have some basic empathy in that regard. She isn’t some terrible person just because shit goes wrong.

I'm sure there are people like that. And if that's the only people that got food stamps or any kind of welfare, it wouldn't be a problem. But I would say people that get benefits from a situation like that are like what, about one or two percent of recipients?

However it is a problem when we see able bodied people who are not working and receiving benefits, or we see how the system is being abused.

A former coworker of mine told us a story about his wife. They were in need for more family income so she got a job working at a convenience store. She was chatting with some of her new coworkers about why she took the job. One of her coworkers replied that she's doing it all wrong.

She said she went to welfare and told them her husband had left her and she was left with the kids cold and dry. They furnished her with all kinds of government goodies. Why is that a scam? Because her husband never went anywhere. He was an employee at the GM plant and made a great income. However free goodies are as good as any goodies, and they got this plan from one of their closest friends. They said they've been doing it for years, and the government never checks up or investigates any of their stories.

You bring up all these anecdotal accounts and expect them to mean something to me. I know I haven’t given any sources for the facts I have given you about SNAP, but if you fact check me, you’ll see that I am right. Again: 2/3 of those on SNAP are kids, the disabled, and the elderly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Food stamps is just one program they use. Trust me, they use others as well. Why is it when I'm grocery shopping, the people who don't use any government assistance usually have one or two children with them, but the people on food stamps usually have three to five?

Take the HUD people next door. Typical ghetto, home all day, four kids, yet thanks to government, they live in the suburbs next door to me. The more kids you have, the larger home you need. The larger home you need, the more money you get from HUD, and thats's how the government destroys neighborhoods and discourages getting ahead.

Now it's one thing that they are garbage, but as long as it's my tax dollars supporting them, you would think they'd have the curtesy to let me sleep at night so I can get up in the morning and create taxes for them to live on. No dice. They are coming home all hours of the night, laughing and talking loud, slamming their car doors, probably drunk or high, and setting their ten dollar car alarms so nobody steals one of their four $300.00 cars.

Then their children will grow up doing the same because there is no way children can get ample sleep enough to concentrate in school with parents and visitors up all morning in the house.

Minimum food stamp benefit is only $16 a month. Many people don't realize that benefits are steeply graduated as income increases. This is one of the reasons you often see people at the grocery store using both a SNAP card and a credit card.

Nor do most realize that 80% of those that receive foods stamps have jobs and half of food stamp benefits go to children.

Flopper, for one, if you need food stamps, you should have never had children in the first place. Two, you are correct that people who make more income see a decrease in their benefits. THAT'S WHY THEY ONLY WORK MINIMUM HOURS! Three, the reason you see people with SNAP's cards and credit cards is because we pay for their food, but they pay for their own beer and wine, flowers, greeting cards, gift certificates, cigarettes, and various other items I see at the store with SNAP's people.

So a prerequisite for having children is to be able to see the future, to know your husband of 10 years is not going run off leaving you with 3 young children to support on a part time job at the local Dairy Queen. Some of us are lucky and others aren't. Social safety nets help prevent a life shatter experience from becoming a disaster that destroys lives. 70% of SNAP participates are families and half of those are single parent families.

So do you really believe that's the typical situation of a welfare recipient? They had this strong, loving, unbreakable relationship, and then like a thief in the night, the guy runs out and leaves her?

Where do you think the term Baby Daddies comes from; those loving relationships? But this all reminds me of an old joke.

A woman goes to the welfare office and applies. She gets called up to the desk and the social worker said she had to ask some questions. How many children do you have asked the worker?

Applicant: I have seven kids.
Worker: Very well, I will need their names starting with the youngest one first. What is your youngest's name?
Applicant: Leroy.
Worker: and the second youngest?
Applicant: Leroy.
Worker: The third youngest. '
Applicant: Leroy.

At that point the worker puts down her pen and says, let's cut to the chase, are all seven of your kids named Leroy?

Yes they is!

The worker continued to fill out the form, but puts her pen down once again and said: This isn't part of the application, but to satisfy my own curiosity, how do the children know which one of them you are calling?

The applicant said: That's easy, I just call them by their last name.

That's funny but not relevant. OK, so mom sleeps around has 7 kids, no husband and no job. What do you propose?

I propose taking the incentive away. If you can't support the children you have, government removes them and puts them up for adoption. However in most cases, people don't wait until they have seven children before they apply for assistance. They usually apply from day one. And as I stated earlier, we should have a requirement that you don't receive one dime from any program until you are fixed first; at government expense of course.

Some people have told me my idea is Hitleresque, however what do we working people do when we can't afford anymore children? We get ourselves fixed. So why would it be inhuman to ask others to do what we working people do to ourselves?

And yes, my joke is very relevant since in many cases, that's exactly what it is when people apply for assistance; they are sleeping around with every Tom, Dick and Harry without any concern of getting pregnant. And if they do get pregnant, so what? It's not their problem financially. It's the taxpayers problem.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Since the unemployment rate hit record lows (the lowest in nearly 50 years) shouldn't everybody who is physically and mentally capable of working be working?

Where do you get "I'm special" in my argument? I never said nor Implied that.

And let me tell you, if not for Republican Governors who instituted requirements for receiving food stamps, the usage would be much higher today.

Lol are you implying that all that 3% are on food stamps? No. Again, most able bodied adults on food stamps have jobs. They just can’t support the dependents they have with their dirt income. Also consider who MOST of the people on food stamps are; kids, disabled adults such as veterans, and the elderly. Those people make up 2/3 of all of those on food stamps. These are the facts you are willfully ignoring.

Really? My father is 87, and he's never been on food stamps. Neither has my mother. Neither have my late grandparents.

Correct, it is tough to support children when you have no trade or career. That's why you shouldn't have children unless you are secure financially and will be in the future.

Disability pays enough so you don't need food stamps. One of my tenants who has been with me eight years is on disability, and he can't even receive food stamps because he makes over the maximum income with his SS check.

Dude I didn’t say most old people were on food stamps. I said that most people on food stamps are elderly, kids, and the disabled.

Yes, we have established that the woman should have never have had kids she couldn’t afford. The kid still exists either way right? Something must be spent on taking care of the kid. Also, like me and Flopper have already explained to you, mothers can’t always foresee the future. Perhaps she had the kid when she was financially stable, but she got ill or she got laid off. Maybe the father left her high and dry. You know, life happens. Unexpected shit can happen. Have some basic empathy in that regard. She isn’t some terrible person just because shit goes wrong.

I'm sure there are people like that. And if that's the only people that got food stamps or any kind of welfare, it wouldn't be a problem. But I would say people that get benefits from a situation like that are like what, about one or two percent of recipients?

However it is a problem when we see able bodied people who are not working and receiving benefits, or we see how the system is being abused.

A former coworker of mine told us a story about his wife. They were in need for more family income so she got a job working at a convenience store. She was chatting with some of her new coworkers about why she took the job. One of her coworkers replied that she's doing it all wrong.

She said she went to welfare and told them her husband had left her and she was left with the kids cold and dry. They furnished her with all kinds of government goodies. Why is that a scam? Because her husband never went anywhere. He was an employee at the GM plant and made a great income. However free goodies are as good as any goodies, and they got this plan from one of their closest friends. They said they've been doing it for years, and the government never checks up or investigates any of their stories.

I would say it is a lot more than 1 or 2%. 25% of recipients of food stamps are families with one adult. Yes, it is a problem for able bodied people to not be working and living off the government. However, 80% of the recipients of food stamps are workers. What you prefer to ignore is that people are poor, not because they don't work but because they can't earn enough money to provide for themselves and their family.

I'm well aware of the welfare queen who drives her fancy car around town mocking us stupid slobs who support her luxurious lifestyle. I'm also aware that it's a fantasy created in the 80's to justify cutting taxes for the wealthy and middle class. And it's all to support the idea that people that people who can not work or unable to a keep job will somehow, find a way to support themselves and their family when faced with starvation and homelessness.

Flopper, if a person works five hours a week, the government considers that a working person. What I would really love to know is how many of those recipients are working 40 hours a week, 50 hours a week, 60 hours a week? I would love to see those statistics.

What I see at my job and from personal experience is that people do not try even though they have the capability to earn money. To keep their government stipend, they either work to earn just enough money to keep that benefit, or earn money under the table such as drug sales.

Our country encourages people not to try. That's what we need to change.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Yes, I have. It's the only fully consistent ideology.

Are you saying you are an anarchist? I ask that because few people will actually admit that. Most people will just rave and rant about their hatred for government.

Yes, I am an Anarchist.

Don’t be an anarchist. You’re smarter than that.

Don't be statist, you're smarter than that.

See? People other than you are capable of making a post with no argument in it.

I’m a statist but in terms of extremism on a spectrum, i am not an extremist. Anarchy is extremism. My beliefs about statism is based on social democratic principles. It’s not like I support fascism.

Calling something extremist doesn't mean anything, it's a buzzword.

Actually, being a statist makes you fascist inherently. Every single person who believes that a territorial monopoly on arbitration has authority to steal, murder, kidnap, and otherwise infringe on your individual rights on the sole basis that it calls itself Government is also a fascist.

Further, "Social Democratic Principles" is just the belief that Government is able to use the funds that it steals from innocent people through coercion can be used a certain way, while "Democratic" just means that you believe the majority can oppress the minority.

None of this is ethical in any way.

 

[Flopper]

I find it hard to believe that citizens armed with shotguns, rifles, and pistols would be any match for a professional army with tanks, backed up with air power and artillery. China would be in this country in a blink of an eye just to get our petroleum.

I guess we're just going to totally ignore the fact that;
1: Technology available to a Government is fully available to "regular people", it had to be invented and constructed by regular people, therefor regular people are equally capable of producing the same things. In fact, most military equipment is produced by private industry because the Government has no resources aside from what it steals.
2: That things such as tanks and aircraft are impractical in urban environments anyway.
3: That such things don't matter when you're so heavily outnumbered and have no clear target you're fighting against. They would be invading a foreign land from across the freaking ocean, and would be surrounded by millions of people that don't want them there.
4: There's zero incentive to invade, they can just trade for it.
5: If it's more effective, the people can organize a militia, and it would be better equipped and cheaper than a Government Military.
6: Shotguns and Rifles is a strawman, the only reason people don't currently have things such as RPGs and missile launchers is because there would be collateral damage when firing. If they were needed, people could easily produce and obtain them.

Of course, I'm not surprised that a Statist can only think in terms of warmongering, your precious Government has been instigating wars since its inception.

This country like a number of other nations were formed for mutual defense. We've added a lot of stuff besides defense but defense is the basic reason for the nation and the government. Without the government to focus all divergent interest into defending the nation, the country would fall to a foreign power in no time at all.

False, this Nation was initially formed to escape a tyrannical ruler, and then it became a tyrannical ruler. If it was formed for defense, it would be a Militia, because a Militia is formed by the people, and served the people. They are cheaper, better armed, and more effective.

A Government is absolutely not formed for defense, because all they do is oppress the people and start wars with other Governments. How many World Wars would there be without Government? Freaking none.

The basic problem with anarchy is that the whole is stronger than all the parts because the parts will not act in unison to meet a global problem. The only way you can get all parts working together to accomplish a goal is with a centralize power which can make it happen. Thus we are back to some kind of goverment.

You're, once again, ignorantly pretending that people can't organize themselves, despite all evidence to the contrary. Businesses and other organizations are examples of people organizing themselves.
History | Historic US Route 6 Iowa
Or the farmers that built a road in a single hour because they needed it. Another example would be Kickstarter, people organizing to pay for something because they decided that they want it. The idea that people can only organize under a territorial monopoly on arbitration is flat-out ignorance.

The REAL fact is that if people needed to organize for something, they would do so voluntarily, out of necessity or desire. Authority isn't required because it would be in the individual's own self-interest to do so, and theft, murder, kidnapping, coercion, wouldn't be required in order to do so. These statements you're making have already been refuted thousands of times, you just never bothered to do the research on it, you just accept the words of your masters in Government as fact without bothering to investigate for yourself.

Thanks for an interesting discussion on anarchy. When you figure out how to protect the nation from a nuclear or conventional weapons attack with no goverment and no armed forces, get back to me.

 

[basquebromance]

conservatives need to read Rules For Radicals and apply to themselves! James O'Keefe did that!

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I find it hard to believe that citizens armed with shotguns, rifles, and pistols would be any match for a professional army with tanks, backed up with air power and artillery. China would be in this country in a blink of an eye just to get our petroleum.

I guess we're just going to totally ignore the fact that;
1: Technology available to a Government is fully available to "regular people", it had to be invented and constructed by regular people, therefor regular people are equally capable of producing the same things. In fact, most military equipment is produced by private industry because the Government has no resources aside from what it steals.
2: That things such as tanks and aircraft are impractical in urban environments anyway.
3: That such things don't matter when you're so heavily outnumbered and have no clear target you're fighting against. They would be invading a foreign land from across the freaking ocean, and would be surrounded by millions of people that don't want them there.
4: There's zero incentive to invade, they can just trade for it.
5: If it's more effective, the people can organize a militia, and it would be better equipped and cheaper than a Government Military.
6: Shotguns and Rifles is a strawman, the only reason people don't currently have things such as RPGs and missile launchers is because there would be collateral damage when firing. If they were needed, people could easily produce and obtain them.

Of course, I'm not surprised that a Statist can only think in terms of warmongering, your precious Government has been instigating wars since its inception.

This country like a number of other nations were formed for mutual defense. We've added a lot of stuff besides defense but defense is the basic reason for the nation and the government. Without the government to focus all divergent interest into defending the nation, the country would fall to a foreign power in no time at all.

False, this Nation was initially formed to escape a tyrannical ruler, and then it became a tyrannical ruler. If it was formed for defense, it would be a Militia, because a Militia is formed by the people, and served the people. They are cheaper, better armed, and more effective.

A Government is absolutely not formed for defense, because all they do is oppress the people and start wars with other Governments. How many World Wars would there be without Government? Freaking none.

The basic problem with anarchy is that the whole is stronger than all the parts because the parts will not act in unison to meet a global problem. The only way you can get all parts working together to accomplish a goal is with a centralize power which can make it happen. Thus we are back to some kind of goverment.

You're, once again, ignorantly pretending that people can't organize themselves, despite all evidence to the contrary. Businesses and other organizations are examples of people organizing themselves.
History | Historic US Route 6 Iowa
Or the farmers that built a road in a single hour because they needed it. Another example would be Kickstarter, people organizing to pay for something because they decided that they want it. The idea that people can only organize under a territorial monopoly on arbitration is flat-out ignorance.

The REAL fact is that if people needed to organize for something, they would do so voluntarily, out of necessity or desire. Authority isn't required because it would be in the individual's own self-interest to do so, and theft, murder, kidnapping, coercion, wouldn't be required in order to do so. These statements you're making have already been refuted thousands of times, you just never bothered to do the research on it, you just accept the words of your masters in Government as fact without bothering to investigate for yourself.

Thanks for an interesting discussion on anarchy. When you figure out how to protect the nation from a nuclear or conventional weapons attack with no goverment and no armed forces, get back to me.

Before saying something blatantly retarded, maybe you should ask yourself whether or not you'd be willing to pay for it. If the answer is yes, then there's profit incentive. If there's profit incentive as a result of demand, and people are willing to pay for it, there's a market for it.

If only you could figure out how the market worked, you would have answered this question yourself.

People could form their own militia, Private Security could be hired to patrol neighborhoods(Like they do now), and without the Government infringing on our right to defend ourselves, they could be armed with the most effective equipment available. Unlike the Road Pirates, they'd actually be working for us, and would be half the price, and twice as effective, AND would have actual competition.

Also, I'd like to once again remind you that these questions have already been answered thousands of times, in thousands of different ways. You just choose not to do any research yourself because your Lord and Savior, Government, has already told you what to think.