Classical liberalism

[rightwinger]

Those failed governments (that the people rose up against) were exactly the kind of govt you claim to want in the USA. Governments which give themselve total power over the daliy lives of the citizens, govts that punish citizens who dare to disagree with the govt propaganda, govts which are controlled by a very small group of super elites and everyone else is EQUALLY miserable.

Are you actually so ignorant that you think the citzens have any rights in a socialistic dictatorship?

the red highlighted phrase just shows how totally ignorant you are--------is obamacare improving the lives of the people? Hell no, its screwing up lives as we speak and damaging our economy as we speak.

Let them eat cake.......

A common denominator

exactly my point, the French government when Marie Antoniette said "let them eat cake" was exactly the kind of govt that you claim to want here.

Ruled by the elites who "claimed" that they cared about the common people while they ate cavier and lived in castles.

How would king obama be any different from Queen Marie?

Current example----people refused medical care because the govt can't find that they paid for their oibamacare policy.

Not even close

They allowed the people to starve while the elite lived extravagantly

Think one percent. Think let em die republicans.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

RWer is absolutely stuck in a broken record loop. He'll play repeater ad nauseam.

 

[dblack]

Let them eat cake.......

A common denominator

exactly my point, the French government when Marie Antoniette said "let them eat cake" was exactly the kind of govt that you claim to want here.

Ruled by the elites who "claimed" that they cared about the common people while they ate cavier and lived in castles.

How would king obama be any different from Queen Marie?

Current example----people refused medical care because the govt can't find that they paid for their oibamacare policy.

Not even close

They allowed the people to starve while the elite lived extravagantly

Think one percent. Think let em die republicans.

That's true enough. The modern version (comprised of both republicans and democrats) pays off the bottom to play along.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Rwer likes version 2.0, D.

 

[Wry Catcher]

There Wry goes interconnecting community with government. How shocking, right?

Libturds like Wry are unable to make a distinction between the two. Wry should explain how communities existed for thousands of years before the first states came into existence in Sumer, Egypt and China. Farming villages first appeared on the scene about 10,000 years ago. Do you suppose they had "advisory boards" who wasted their time flapping their gums before government lackeys who promptly ignored everything they said?

I didn't suppose anything from the 8th Century BC nor did I suggest small communities didn't exist before and function well as communal villages. Nice straw man.

I suppose they had elders who acted with the consent of the village, and any dispute was resolved by their authority.

Not a very good idea for a nation of 300 million people, though it seems some of you on the fringe right believe so.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There Wry goes interconnecting community with government. How shocking, right?

Libturds like Wry are unable to make a distinction between the two. Wry should explain how communities existed for thousands of years before the first states came into existence in Sumer, Egypt and China. Farming villages first appeared on the scene about 10,000 years ago. Do you suppose they had "advisory boards" who wasted their time flapping their gums before government lackeys who promptly ignored everything they said?

I didn't suppose anything from the 8th Century BC nor did I suggest small communities didn't exist before and function well as communal villages. Nice straw man.

I suppose they had elders who acted with the consent of the village, and any dispute was resolved by their authority.

Not a very good idea for a nation of 300 million people, though it seems some of you on the fringe right believe so.

Excellent pretzel logic. Communities did exist before governance, but they did so by using governance!

 

[Wry Catcher]

Libturds like Wry are unable to make a distinction between the two. Wry should explain how communities existed for thousands of years before the first states came into existence in Sumer, Egypt and China. Farming villages first appeared on the scene about 10,000 years ago. Do you suppose they had "advisory boards" who wasted their time flapping their gums before government lackeys who promptly ignored everything they said?

I didn't suppose anything from the 8th Century BC nor did I suggest small communities didn't exist before and function well as communal villages.

I suppose they had elders who acted with the consent of the village, and any dispute was resolved by their authority.

Not a very good idea for a nation of 300 million people, though it seems some of you on the fringe right believe so.

Excellent pretzel logic. Communities did exist before governance, but they did so by using governance! [pure straw man]

In your mind the only 'law' in such communities was the law of the jungle, might made right and the only form of governing was not to govern, i.e. anarchy.

Too bad they didn't offer Anthropology in the elementary school you attended. If they had, and if you were able to learn, you might find out how ignorant your comments appear.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

 

[bripat9643]

There Wry goes interconnecting community with government. How shocking, right?

Libturds like Wry are unable to make a distinction between the two. Wry should explain how communities existed for thousands of years before the first states came into existence in Sumer, Egypt and China. Farming villages first appeared on the scene about 10,000 years ago. Do you suppose they had "advisory boards" who wasted their time flapping their gums before government lackeys who promptly ignored everything they said?

I didn't suppose anything from the 8th Century BC nor did I suggest small communities didn't exist before and function well as communal villages. Nice straw man.

Yes you did because you asked how communities could function without government.

[I suppose they had elders who acted with the consent of the village, and any dispute was resolved by their authority.

Not a very good idea for a nation of 300 million people, though it seems some of you on the fringe right believe so.

What you suppose is entirely wrong. Elders had no authority other than the authority of wisdom and persuasion. Nobody had to do anything if they didn't not want to do it. Dispute resolution was a complicated affair, just as it is now. You can read about how they did it if you want to study some cultural anthropology.

A nation of 300 million people is not a good idea. Nations aren't good ideas, period.

So far you haven't presented a good reason why we need government.

 

[Redfish]

Let them eat cake.......

A common denominator

exactly my point, the French government when Marie Antoniette said "let them eat cake" was exactly the kind of govt that you claim to want here.

Ruled by the elites who "claimed" that they cared about the common people while they ate cavier and lived in castles.

How would king obama be any different from Queen Marie?

Current example----people refused medical care because the govt can't find that they paid for their oibamacare policy.

Not even close

They allowed the people to starve while the elite lived extravagantly

Think one percent. Think let em die republicans.

Many of the one percenters are liberal democrats----can you say Oprah, Baldwin, Streisand, Sarandon, Maher, Pelosi, Kerry, Gore, Clinton.

Do you think those assholes give a shit about you? Do you think they are willing to part with any of their money to help you? Don't be stupid. They are the elites, they rule, you get the scraps from their tables------------let them eat cake--indeed.

 

[Redfish]

I didn't suppose anything from the 8th Century BC nor did I suggest small communities didn't exist before and function well as communal villages.

I suppose they had elders who acted with the consent of the village, and any dispute was resolved by their authority.

Not a very good idea for a nation of 300 million people, though it seems some of you on the fringe right believe so.

Excellent pretzel logic. Communities did exist before governance, but they did so by using governance! [pure straw man]

In your mind the only 'law' in such communities was the law of the jungle, might made right and the only form of governing was not to govern, i.e. anarchy.

Too bad they didn't offer Anthropology in the elementary school you attended. If they had, and if you were able to learn, you might find out how ignorant your comments appear.

Ultimately, the only law in any society is the law of the jungle. The strong, intelligent, and weathy will always call the shots no matter what the "law" says.

Wake up and face reality.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Libturds like Wry are unable to make a distinction between the two. Wry should explain how communities existed for thousands of years before the first states came into existence in Sumer, Egypt and China. Farming villages first appeared on the scene about 10,000 years ago. Do you suppose they had "advisory boards" who wasted their time flapping their gums before government lackeys who promptly ignored everything they said?

I didn't suppose anything from the 8th Century BC nor did I suggest small communities didn't exist before and function well as communal villages. Nice straw man.

Yes you did because you asked how communities could function without government.

[I suppose they had elders who acted with the consent of the village, and any dispute was resolved by their authority.

Not a very good idea for a nation of 300 million people, though it seems some of you on the fringe right believe so.

What you suppose is entirely wrong. Elders had no authority other than the authority of wisdom and persuasion. Nobody had to do anything if they didn't not want to do it. Dispute resolution was a complicated affair, just as it is now. You can read about how they did it if you want to study some cultural anthropology.

A nation of 300 million people is not a good idea. Nations aren't good ideas, period.

So far you haven't presented a good reason why we need government.

So far you haven't presented evidence you're in touch with reality. Maybe the experience of Somalia will help you and the other idiot - I have no great expectation either of you can learn. But, here it goes:

Somalia

Curious people will look further into the recent history of Somalia, the willfully ignorant will not. Those that do will understand why we need a government; the ability to learn from the experience of others is a human ability, at least for most of us.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[ Each element receives compensation in direct relationship to the time, risk input of that element.

That's not true. As an example, Labor in China isn't compensated the same as labor in the U.S., when doing very similar jobs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Large is a comparative word. However, the correct answer would be France, Spain, The British Empire, China and Russia. Government is also a rather vague term. A straw boss governs his work crew during work hours. A teacher governs her class. A politician could run a wide range of governance from a small community to a nation.

Large in being able to direct the wealth of the nation to the privileged few but not the large governments trying to improve the life of the people that libertarians despise
Most of the nations you named saw revolutions as the people rose up against a government that failed them

Directing wealth to the privileged few is what our government does.

Britain and Spain never overthrew their monarchies. Russia was already a Democracy when the commies took over. Commie revolutions occurred because demagogues like you were pumping people full of bullshit. Many of the people who believed it paid for it with their lives.

Russia was a democracy in 1917?

lol, thank you Ms. Palin...

 

[bripat9643]

I didn't suppose anything from the 8th Century BC nor did I suggest small communities didn't exist before and function well as communal villages. Nice straw man.

Yes you did because you asked how communities could function without government.

[I suppose they had elders who acted with the consent of the village, and any dispute was resolved by their authority.

Not a very good idea for a nation of 300 million people, though it seems some of you on the fringe right believe so.

What you suppose is entirely wrong. Elders had no authority other than the authority of wisdom and persuasion. Nobody had to do anything if they didn't not want to do it. Dispute resolution was a complicated affair, just as it is now. You can read about how they did it if you want to study some cultural anthropology.

A nation of 300 million people is not a good idea. Nations aren't good ideas, period.

So far you haven't presented a good reason why we need government.

So far you haven't presented evidence you're in touch with reality. Maybe the experience of Somalia will help you and the other idiot - I have no great expectation either of you can learn. But, here it goes:

Somalia

Curious people will look further into the recent history of Somalia, the willfully ignorant will not. Those that do will understand why we need a government; the ability to learn from the experience of others is a human ability, at least for most of us.

Somalia is a failed Marxist state. What goes on there has nothing to do with societies that evolved over thousands of years. Anthropologists have document many cultures that get along just fine without government. Furthermore, archeologists have documented the fact that farming communities existed for thousands of years prior to the creation of the state.

Libturds always bring up Somalia to scare people, but it has nothing to do with anarchy or prestate societies.

 

[bripat9643]

Large in being able to direct the wealth of the nation to the privileged few but not the large governments trying to improve the life of the people that libertarians despise
Most of the nations you named saw revolutions as the people rose up against a government that failed them

Directing wealth to the privileged few is what our government does.

Britain and Spain never overthrew their monarchies. Russia was already a Democracy when the commies took over. Commie revolutions occurred because demagogues like you were pumping people full of bullshit. Many of the people who believed it paid for it with their lives.

Russia was a democracy in 1917?

lol, thank you Ms. Palin...

Apparently you aren't aware of the fact that before the commies took over, but after the czar abdicated Russia had a short lived democracy. It had a legislative body called the Duma. The commies had to overthrow this government to gain power.

But, hey, no one is expecting an ignorant turd like you to know anything about history.

 

[dblack]

I didn't suppose anything from the 8th Century BC nor did I suggest small communities didn't exist before and function well as communal villages. Nice straw man.

Yes you did because you asked how communities could function without government.

[I suppose they had elders who acted with the consent of the village, and any dispute was resolved by their authority.

Not a very good idea for a nation of 300 million people, though it seems some of you on the fringe right believe so.

What you suppose is entirely wrong. Elders had no authority other than the authority of wisdom and persuasion. Nobody had to do anything if they didn't not want to do it. Dispute resolution was a complicated affair, just as it is now. You can read about how they did it if you want to study some cultural anthropology.

A nation of 300 million people is not a good idea. Nations aren't good ideas, period.

So far you haven't presented a good reason why we need government.

So far you haven't presented evidence you're in touch with reality. Maybe the experience of Somalia will help you and the other idiot - I have no great expectation either of you can learn. But, here it goes:

Somalia

Curious people will look further into the recent history of Somalia, the willfully ignorant will not. Those that do will understand why we need a government; the ability to learn from the experience of others is a human ability, at least for most of us.

Somalia!!!!

 

[regent]

Yes you did because you asked how communities could function without government.



What you suppose is entirely wrong. Elders had no authority other than the authority of wisdom and persuasion. Nobody had to do anything if they didn't not want to do it. Dispute resolution was a complicated affair, just as it is now. You can read about how they did it if you want to study some cultural anthropology.

A nation of 300 million people is not a good idea. Nations aren't good ideas, period.

So far you haven't presented a good reason why we need government.

So far you haven't presented evidence you're in touch with reality. Maybe the experience of Somalia will help you and the other idiot - I have no great expectation either of you can learn. But, here it goes:

Somalia

Curious people will look further into the recent history of Somalia, the willfully ignorant will not. Those that do will understand why we need a government; the ability to learn from the experience of others is a human ability, at least for most of us.

Somalia!!!!

Under Marxian communism the government would no longer be needed and would die a quiet death.

 

[bripat9643]

So far you haven't presented evidence you're in touch with reality. Maybe the experience of Somalia will help you and the other idiot - I have no great expectation either of you can learn. But, here it goes:

Somalia

Curious people will look further into the recent history of Somalia, the willfully ignorant will not. Those that do will understand why we need a government; the ability to learn from the experience of others is a human ability, at least for most of us.

Somalia!!!!

Under Marxian communism the government would no longer be needed and would die a quiet death.

Yeah, and you can build a generator that doesn't require any fuel.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And in an anarchist society the libertarians would take control.