More government = more corporatism

[kaz]

Corporations R us. Every single pension plan in the U.S. is heavily invested in corporate wealth. People who claim corporations are the enemy think in political cliches if they think at all.

Here we go. Our first dissenter.

Please take over fellow patriots...

First?

 

[Onyx]

Exactly, you advocate a different system, and all you provide is prove you wrong. When you say empty things like "Armed working class civilians with a watchful eye and a mind for self defense" that's true, but you aren't describing a system, just a neighborhood.

Come on mate, get back in your element.

This is an anti-system ideology.

The world should be ruled by people, not systems.

Gangs would provide that role in the hood.That's how we end up with Somalia

You just showed you do not understand philosophical anarchism at all.

Street gangs are states. The US government is no different than the mafia.

Anarchism rejects both gangs and states, because they are in essence the same exact thing.

Anarchism promotes organized insurrection and civilian volunteer militias. Any "system" would involve providing for the public and common defence void of subjugation.

 

[Onyx]

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?

I do.

Militias do not force me to pay taxation or follow the arbitrary will of shitheads in congress. We work together towards the public defense all the same.

 

[Fenton Lum]

The Progressive era is what did it with the passage of the Federal Income tax amendment, among other things.

They amended the Constitution to break it, so we must fix it the same way.

Even worse than the income tax were the 17th amendment and FDR's threat to stack the court with new justices if they didn't give up on enforcing the 10th amendment. Those are what removed any and all checks and balances to Federal power

Couldn't agree more and .a.prime reason i.call fdr a fascist.

Yes, and you clearly are one of the few who actually know what fascist means to point that out

Oh for fuck's sake. This is why we stay stuck where we are. Partisanshitheads.

Stacking the Supreme Court is not a fascist move?

Everyone's attempting to do that very thing all the time aren't they now.

 

[Fenton Lum]

there can only be one police force, one military.

You do not need the police. They are not real public defenders, but rather state goons who enforce opinions on how best the population should be controlled.

In regards to the common defense, I disagree that there can only be one organized fighting force. Solidarity behind one group certainly helps, but if all groups share a common cause, then there is no harm.

The only rule in my ideal society is to not harm the personhood or property of others. If you do, then that justifies the usage of self defense.

There needs to be general recognition of property rights, one set of criminal and civil courts.

Recognizing certain moral principals can be important.

Like my version of the NAP that I spoke of above.

Courts are bad. They are the byproduct of an organized system of self-imposed assholes, that is illegitimately given the power to instigate population control.

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is. You didn't give any specifics how anything I pointed out would work. For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so. I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

The police are the armed wing of the govt you protest.

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?

I just stated a fact, whether you like it or not is no concern to me, facts are not emotional.

 

[kaz]

Exactly, you advocate a different system, and all you provide is prove you wrong. When you say empty things like "Armed working class civilians with a watchful eye and a mind for self defense" that's true, but you aren't describing a system, just a neighborhood.

Come on mate, get back in your element.

This is an anti-system ideology.

The world should be ruled by people, not systems.

Gangs would provide that role in the hood.That's how we end up with Somalia

You just showed you do not understand philosophical anarchism at all.

Street gangs are states. The US government is no different than the mafia.

Anarchism rejects both gangs and states, because they are in essence the same exact thing.

Anarchism promotes organized insurrection and civilian volunteer militias. Any "system" would involve providing for the public and common defence void of subjugation.

I understand the "philosophy" of anarchy just fine. It's the reality of it that is preposterous. Note you didn't address how the civilized anarchistic society is going to address gangs.

Here's an easier one. Two citizens built houses a quarter of a mile from each other. They were through the woods and there was no conflict. Over the years they cleared trees and planted farms and started butting into each other. Furthermore, the access to the creek was far closer to one than the other. Now they disagree to the point of using arms on the property lines. Neither is going to back down, the one closest to the creek claims it's on their property if they divide the line. The other demands equal access to the water they need to live.

Go, how do they resolve it

 

[kaz]

Even worse than the income tax were the 17th amendment and FDR's threat to stack the court with new justices if they didn't give up on enforcing the 10th amendment. Those are what removed any and all checks and balances to Federal power

Couldn't agree more and .a.prime reason i.call fdr a fascist.

Yes, and you clearly are one of the few who actually know what fascist means to point that out

Oh for fuck's sake. This is why we stay stuck where we are. Partisanshitheads.

Stacking the Supreme Court is not a fascist move?

Everyone's attempting to do that very thing all the time aren't they now.

No, they aren't. Your knowledge of history is sad. I also explained it to you, not speaking well to your reading comprehension. I'll go into more detail since you don't want to do your own research.

Say there were 7 pro-10th amendment justices and 2 anti-10th amendment justices. What FDR was going to do was not wait for justices to retire, he was going to appoint 7 justices making it 9 anti-10th amendment justices and 7 pro-10th amendment justices. No one is doing that now, no

 

[kaz]

there can only be one police force, one military.

You do not need the police. They are not real public defenders, but rather state goons who enforce opinions on how best the population should be controlled.

In regards to the common defense, I disagree that there can only be one organized fighting force. Solidarity behind one group certainly helps, but if all groups share a common cause, then there is no harm.

The only rule in my ideal society is to not harm the personhood or property of others. If you do, then that justifies the usage of self defense.

There needs to be general recognition of property rights, one set of criminal and civil courts.

Recognizing certain moral principals can be important.

Like my version of the NAP that I spoke of above.

Courts are bad. They are the byproduct of an organized system of self-imposed assholes, that is illegitimately given the power to instigate population control.

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is. You didn't give any specifics how anything I pointed out would work. For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so. I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

The police are the armed wing of the govt you protest.

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?

I just stated a fact, whether you like it or not is no concern to me, facts are not emotional.

What's not clear is what point you're making

 

[buckeye45_73]

Even worse than the income tax were the 17th amendment and FDR's threat to stack the court with new justices if they didn't give up on enforcing the 10th amendment. Those are what removed any and all checks and balances to Federal power

Couldn't agree more and .a.prime reason i.call fdr a fascist.

Yes, and you clearly are one of the few who actually know what fascist means to point that out

Oh for fuck's sake. This is why we stay stuck where we are. Partisanshitheads.

Stacking the Supreme Court is not a fascist move?

Everyone's attempting to do that very thing all the time aren't they now.

Well the thing is, he said if they didn't rule for his programs he would add more justices.......do you not know anything about History?
You realize that history didn't start when you were born.

 

[buckeye45_73]

there can only be one police force, one military.

You do not need the police. They are not real public defenders, but rather state goons who enforce opinions on how best the population should be controlled.

In regards to the common defense, I disagree that there can only be one organized fighting force. Solidarity behind one group certainly helps, but if all groups share a common cause, then there is no harm.

The only rule in my ideal society is to not harm the personhood or property of others. If you do, then that justifies the usage of self defense.

There needs to be general recognition of property rights, one set of criminal and civil courts.

Recognizing certain moral principals can be important.

Like my version of the NAP that I spoke of above.

Courts are bad. They are the byproduct of an organized system of self-imposed assholes, that is illegitimately given the power to instigate population control.

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is. You didn't give any specifics how anything I pointed out would work. For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so. I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

The police are the armed wing of the govt you protest.

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?

I just stated a fact, whether you like it or not is no concern to me, facts are not emotional.

This is liberalism....no facts at all levels.


So what's your remedy?

 

[Fenton Lum]

Corporations R us. Every single pension plan in the U.S. is heavily invested in corporate wealth. People who claim corporations are the enemy think in political cliches if they think at all.

How many of us have pensions anymore? By design son. Lobbying is no political cliché. Look at the rise of corporate for profit prisons, we now profit as a society from the bondage of fellow human beings again. This all got rolled out as a pilot program in TN while Lamar Alexander was governor. At the time both he and his lovely wife Honey Alexander held stock in Corrections Corporation of America. Gee, how fucking sweet. And now the for profit prison/industrial complex exerts influence on legislation via well heeled lobbying to insure its interests of chock full prisons is protected.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class

Internalized profit versus externalized expense and risk for the “job creator” class

Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

This is the american model.

 

[Onyx]

I understand the "philosophy" of anarchy just fine

It has become clear to me that you do not.

This is not supposed to cause offense, but what works have you read by any anarchist?

Note you didn't address how the civilized anarchistic society is going to address gangs.

I did several times already.

The civilian militia defends its communities from being terrorized by gangs. The reaction exterminates them.

Like I said, it is a simple concept. Kill thugs in uniform. You can do that through the less organized public defense (the militia), or the more organized common defense (the reaction)

Human struggle can never end. The only question is how you keep true freedom as the dominant force in the struggle against those aspiring to ascend to the ruling class.

Two citizens built houses a quarter of a mile from each other. They were through the woods and there was no conflict. Over the years they cleared trees and planted farms and started butting into each other. Furthermore, the access to the creek was far closer to one than the other. Now they disagree to the point of using arms on the property lines. Neither is going to back down, the one closest to the creek claims it's on their property if they divide the line. The other demands equal access to the water they need to live.

Go, how do they resolve it

Still not getting it I see...

Their dispute is not my business. I am not the judge, jury, and executioner of every civil dispute that happens in society.

Both are justified in self defense. Neither are justified in waging war. Property is established through general recognition and ones willingness to maintain his claim through the use of force.

Basically you just tasked me with solving the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Frankly, I do not fucking care about their silly dispute, since those conflicts are rare anyways and are not easily replicable.

 

[Fenton Lum]

You do not need the police. They are not real public defenders, but rather state goons who enforce opinions on how best the population should be controlled.

In regards to the common defense, I disagree that there can only be one organized fighting force. Solidarity behind one group certainly helps, but if all groups share a common cause, then there is no harm.

The only rule in my ideal society is to not harm the personhood or property of others. If you do, then that justifies the usage of self defense.



Recognizing certain moral principals can be important.

Like my version of the NAP that I spoke of above.

Courts are bad. They are the byproduct of an organized system of self-imposed assholes, that is illegitimately given the power to instigate population control.

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is. You didn't give any specifics how anything I pointed out would work. For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so. I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

The police are the armed wing of the govt you protest.

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?

I just stated a fact, whether you like it or not is no concern to me, facts are not emotional.

This is liberalism....no facts at all levels.


So what's your remedy?

Partisanshitheads like you aren't interested in remedies son.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Couldn't agree more and .a.prime reason i.call fdr a fascist.

Yes, and you clearly are one of the few who actually know what fascist means to point that out

Oh for fuck's sake. This is why we stay stuck where we are. Partisanshitheads.

Stacking the Supreme Court is not a fascist move?

Everyone's attempting to do that very thing all the time aren't they now.

Well the thing is, he said if they didn't rule for his programs he would add more justices.......do you not know anything about History?
You realize that history didn't start when you were born.

How's that much different than the senate just deciding it won't take up the process of filling vacancies?

 

[Fenton Lum]

there can only be one police force, one military.

You do not need the police. They are not real public defenders, but rather state goons who enforce opinions on how best the population should be controlled.

In regards to the common defense, I disagree that there can only be one organized fighting force. Solidarity behind one group certainly helps, but if all groups share a common cause, then there is no harm.

The only rule in my ideal society is to not harm the personhood or property of others. If you do, then that justifies the usage of self defense.

There needs to be general recognition of property rights, one set of criminal and civil courts.

Recognizing certain moral principals can be important.

Like my version of the NAP that I spoke of above.

Courts are bad. They are the byproduct of an organized system of self-imposed assholes, that is illegitimately given the power to instigate population control.

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is. You didn't give any specifics how anything I pointed out would work. For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so. I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

The police are the armed wing of the govt you protest.

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?

Certainly all the crooked ones and the ones who murder unarmed citizens and kids in the streets, sure. Been a rash of that lately. I'm sure as a small govt guy you're alarmed by all that.

 

[kaz]

Two citizens built houses a quarter of a mile from each other. They were through the woods and there was no conflict. Over the years they cleared trees and planted farms and started butting into each other. Furthermore, the access to the creek was far closer to one than the other. Now they disagree to the point of using arms on the property lines. Neither is going to back down, the one closest to the creek claims it's on their property if they divide the line. The other demands equal access to the water they need to live.

Go, how do they resolve it

Still not getting it I see...

Their dispute is not my business. I am not the judge, jury, and executioner of every civil dispute that happens in society.

Both are justified in self defense. Neither are justified in waging war. Property is established through general recognition and ones willingness to maintain his claim through the use of force.

Exactly, it's not your problem. If the guy with control of the creek doesn't share your view they should work it out and starts threatening the other that if he crosses his land he'll shoot him, and the other with the realization they can't survive without water and decides their choices are to fight or just lose their property and move and decides not to fight back, you say "their dispute is not my business."

We don't all want to live in Somalia where we just shoot it out and the one with the bigger firepower gets it's way

 

[kaz]

Yes, and you clearly are one of the few who actually know what fascist means to point that out

Oh for fuck's sake. This is why we stay stuck where we are. Partisanshitheads.

Stacking the Supreme Court is not a fascist move?

Everyone's attempting to do that very thing all the time aren't they now.

Well the thing is, he said if they didn't rule for his programs he would add more justices.......do you not know anything about History?
You realize that history didn't start when you were born.

How's that much different than the senate just deciding it won't take up the process of filling vacancies?

That's the point, the Senate was also heavily Democrat and would have confirmed them. That's what made the threat credible

 

[kaz]

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is. You didn't give any specifics how anything I pointed out would work. For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so. I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

The police are the armed wing of the govt you protest.

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?

I just stated a fact, whether you like it or not is no concern to me, facts are not emotional.

This is liberalism....no facts at all levels.


So what's your remedy?

Partisanshitheads like you aren't interested in remedies son.

You haven't proposed any "remedies" son

 

[Fenton Lum]

Two citizens built houses a quarter of a mile from each other. They were through the woods and there was no conflict. Over the years they cleared trees and planted farms and started butting into each other. Furthermore, the access to the creek was far closer to one than the other. Now they disagree to the point of using arms on the property lines. Neither is going to back down, the one closest to the creek claims it's on their property if they divide the line. The other demands equal access to the water they need to live.

Go, how do they resolve it

Still not getting it I see...

Their dispute is not my business. I am not the judge, jury, and executioner of every civil dispute that happens in society.

Both are justified in self defense. Neither are justified in waging war. Property is established through general recognition and ones willingness to maintain his claim through the use of force.

Exactly, it's not your problem. If the guy with control of the creek doesn't share your view they should work it out and starts threatening the other that if he crosses his land he'll shoot him, and the other with the realization they can't survive without water and decides their choices are to fight or just lose their property and move and decides not to fight back, you say "their dispute is not my business."

We don't all want to live in Somalia where we just shoot it out and the one with the bigger firepower gets it's way

That's how america was "settled", and why the power structure now has precautions against it. They know how they got there.

 

[kaz]

there can only be one police force, one military.

You do not need the police. They are not real public defenders, but rather state goons who enforce opinions on how best the population should be controlled.

In regards to the common defense, I disagree that there can only be one organized fighting force. Solidarity behind one group certainly helps, but if all groups share a common cause, then there is no harm.

The only rule in my ideal society is to not harm the personhood or property of others. If you do, then that justifies the usage of self defense.

There needs to be general recognition of property rights, one set of criminal and civil courts.

Recognizing certain moral principals can be important.

Like my version of the NAP that I spoke of above.

Courts are bad. They are the byproduct of an organized system of self-imposed assholes, that is illegitimately given the power to instigate population control.

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is. You didn't give any specifics how anything I pointed out would work. For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so. I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

The police are the armed wing of the govt you protest.

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?

Certainly all the crooked ones and the ones who murder unarmed citizens and kids in the streets, sure. Been a rash of that lately. I'm sure as a small govt guy you're alarmed by all that.

They are clearly investigating those. What is an abomination is the left declaring the cops guilty immediately without evidence as soon as it happens