Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Europeans were freer under monarchy than they are now under democracy. They paid far lower taxes - 5% or less, and there was almost no regulation. They didn't even have conscription. The king was subject to law just like any commoner.Most of Europe was governed by hereditary monarchies, but no longer. Most governments of South America are far less tyrannical today than they were 100 years ago.Governments seldom "evolve" in the direction of freedom and liberty. They almost always go in the other direction, like Venezuela.
Anarchy actually did exist. Prior to the rise of the state, farming communities existed for thousands of years with no formal government. Most tribes in North America no formal government.Somalia has multiple governments that wage war on each other. It's a feudal state, not an anarchy.Typical leftist argument.There is no real government in Somalia, have you ever thought about moving there?
It is not a argument, it is a suggestion. You claim that things are better without a central government, well we have a country right now that is in that state of being. Do you think things are better there than they are here under this central government?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Anarchy is like socialism in that neither have ever existed in the true form...just varying degrees
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
It is NOT the job of government to Social Engineer and try to install Communist concepts such as Economic and Social "Justice". That means GOVERNMENT is picking winners and losers and they are using people's predicaments to grow, create dependency, and further control the populace. It is a POWER GRAB veiled in altruism.
Again, anarchy is the absence of government, which if the organized monopoly on the use of force. According to your definition, a boy scout troop is a government.Anarchy actually did exist. Prior to the rise of the state, farming communities existed for thousands of years with no formal government. Most tribes in North America no formal government.Somalia has multiple governments that wage war on each other. It's a feudal state, not an anarchy.Typical leftist argument.
It is not a argument, it is a suggestion. You claim that things are better without a central government, well we have a country right now that is in that state of being. Do you think things are better there than they are here under this central government?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
Anarchy is like socialism in that neither have ever existed in the true form...just varying degrees
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
They all had rules and figures of authority, things that cannot exist in anarchy. Remember anarchy is the absence of authority, so even a tribal elder removes a tribe from anarchy.
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
They brought it with them because they choose to. The Indians had chiefs and councils and, no doubt, had rules for proper conduct. Just because they weren't written down doesn't mean they weren't formal. Don't underestimate social pressure, if you were expelled from the tribe you'd be forced into the wilderness on your own, surrounded by hostile neighbors. Your prospects for survival would be few.They already had government. All they brought it with them. The Indians lived there for thousands of years with no formal government. They had no means of enforcing laws other than social pressure.When colonists first settled the US Wild West they established laws to rule themselves and judges and sheriffs to enforce them. If you wanted to keep your land or cattle from being taken by others you needed the protection only a gov't could provide.
Europeans were freer under monarchy than they are now under democracy. They paid far lower taxes - 5% or less, and there was almost no regulation. They didn't even have conscription. The king was subject to law just like any commoner.Most of Europe was governed by hereditary monarchies, but no longer. Most governments of South America are far less tyrannical today than they were 100 years ago.Governments seldom "evolve" in the direction of freedom and liberty. They almost always go in the other direction, like Venezuela.
Voting is not the measure of freedom. It's the measure of mob rule.
Democracy: The God That Failed | Hans-Hermann Hoppe
They brought it with them because the federal government mandated that they bring it with them. Failure to obey the federal government meant the arrival of federal troops.They brought it with them because they choose to. The Indians had chiefs and councils and, no doubt, had rules for proper conduct. Just because they weren't written down doesn't mean they weren't formal. Don't underestimate social pressure, if you were expelled from the tribe you'd be forced into the wilderness on your own, surrounded by hostile neighbors. Your prospects for survival would be few.They already had government. All they brought it with them. The Indians lived there for thousands of years with no formal government. They had no means of enforcing laws other than social pressure.When colonists first settled the US Wild West they established laws to rule themselves and judges and sheriffs to enforce them. If you wanted to keep your land or cattle from being taken by others you needed the protection only a gov't could provide.
Again, anarchy is the absence of government, which if the organized monopoly on the use of force. According to your definition, a boy scout troop is a government.
Wrong. Geronimo was not the head of government. No one had to do what he said.
wrong. Being a member of a scout troop is entirely voluntary. It's not government in the formal sense.Again, anarchy is the absence of government, which if the organized monopoly on the use of force. According to your definition, a boy scout troop is a government.
Wrong. Geronimo was not the head of government. No one had to do what he said.
A boy scout troop is a form government, there are leaders and there are rules to be followed if you wish to remain in the troop.
The same conditions existed under Geronimo.
They brought it with them because the federal government mandated that they bring it with them. Failure to obey the federal government meant the arrival of federal troops.They brought it with them because they choose to. The Indians had chiefs and councils and, no doubt, had rules for proper conduct. Just because they weren't written down doesn't mean they weren't formal. Don't underestimate social pressure, if you were expelled from the tribe you'd be forced into the wilderness on your own, surrounded by hostile neighbors. Your prospects for survival would be few.They already had government. All they brought it with them. The Indians lived there for thousands of years with no formal government. They had no means of enforcing laws other than social pressure.When colonists first settled the US Wild West they established laws to rule themselves and judges and sheriffs to enforce them. If you wanted to keep your land or cattle from being taken by others you needed the protection only a gov't could provide.
Government is the organized monopoly on the use of force. Anything else is not government.
Chiefs did not have the power to force anyone to do anything. Their directions were followed out of respect for their wisdom.
Why don't all the central-government-loving people move to Somalia and give them the "great benefit" of such a government?It is not a argument, it is a suggestion. You claim that things are better without a central government, well we have a country right now that is in that state of being. Do you think things are better there than they are here under this central government?
wrong. Being a member of a scout troop is entirely voluntary. It's not government in the formal sense.Again, anarchy is the absence of government, which if the organized monopoly on the use of force. According to your definition, a boy scout troop is a government.
Wrong. Geronimo was not the head of government. No one had to do what he said.
A boy scout troop is a form government, there are leaders and there are rules to be followed if you wish to remain in the troop.
The same conditions existed under Geronimo.
Here's the third definition:They brought it with them because the federal government mandated that they bring it with them. Failure to obey the federal government meant the arrival of federal troops.They brought it with them because they choose to. The Indians had chiefs and councils and, no doubt, had rules for proper conduct. Just because they weren't written down doesn't mean they weren't formal. Don't underestimate social pressure, if you were expelled from the tribe you'd be forced into the wilderness on your own, surrounded by hostile neighbors. Your prospects for survival would be few.They already had government. All they brought it with them. The Indians lived there for thousands of years with no formal government. They had no means of enforcing laws other than social pressure.When colonists first settled the US Wild West they established laws to rule themselves and judges and sheriffs to enforce them. If you wanted to keep your land or cattle from being taken by others you needed the protection only a gov't could provide.
Government is the organized monopoly on the use of force. Anything else is not government.
Chiefs did not have the power to force anyone to do anything. Their directions were followed out of respect for their wisdom.
The first definition of government....
: the act or process of governing specifically : authoritative direction or control
Just because laws were not handed down by a king does not mean they lived in the absence of government or in a stateless society. The evolution of common law IS government. It IS the state.Read about common law. Methods for settling disputes were not created by the king.
Again, you are not talking about anarchy or a stateless society. THAT IS a form of government. That IS a state.Over the centuries the common people developed their own system for setting disputes which was entirely separate from the central government. It evolved organically. It's the system of law mentioned in the Constitution: common law.
No...REMAINING a resident is "voluntary". Being a resident happened without regard to our free will.Being a resident of the Untied States is entirely voluntary.
"Move to Somalia"...Another go-to cry of the leftist authoritarian....Golfing Gomer outs himself more and more as the totalitarian goon that he is by the post.Why don't all the central-government-loving people move to Somalia and give them the "great benefit" of such a government?It is not a argument, it is a suggestion. You claim that things are better without a central government, well we have a country right now that is in that state of being. Do you think things are better there than they are here under this central government?
Why do we have to move?
I would rather stay here and kill all the fucking commies. More fun.
So, what you are saying is that the Fed government exerts control over what is produced by our farmers and ranchers, and that is a good thing?
Yes. That's what he's saying. Trumpsters aren't libertarians. They adore authoritarian government.
Being intelligent enough to recognize that .GOV has a role to play in society does not equate to "adoring authoritarian government".
You megalomaniacs (Libertarians) refuse to wrap your head around the simplicity.
Libertarians are "megalomaniacs"???
BL brings the best BS.
Literally every single self proclaimed “Libertarian” I know is the smartest guy in the room, every room...just ask them. They are all way too smart for Christianity and way too smart for the political parties that actually play in the game and matter.
And how does that make them "megalomaniacs"? Do you need a dictionary?
No...REMAINING a resident is "voluntary". Being a resident happened without regard to our free will.Being a resident of the Untied States is entirely voluntary.
I think that is the main hang up between you two.
.
Right. it's "voluntary" in the same sense that handing your wallet over to a mugger is "voluntary" and paying protection money to Guido the leg breaker is "voluntary." We've already discussed your criminal's definition of the term.wrong. Being a member of a scout troop is entirely voluntary. It's not government in the formal sense.Again, anarchy is the absence of government, which if the organized monopoly on the use of force. According to your definition, a boy scout troop is a government.
Wrong. Geronimo was not the head of government. No one had to do what he said.
A boy scout troop is a form government, there are leaders and there are rules to be followed if you wish to remain in the troop.
The same conditions existed under Geronimo.
Being a resident of the Untied States is entirely voluntary.
Why don't all the central-government-loving people move to Somalia and give them the "great benefit" of such a government?It is not a argument, it is a suggestion. You claim that things are better without a central government, well we have a country right now that is in that state of being. Do you think things are better there than they are here under this central government?
Why do we have to move?
I would rather stay here and kill all the fucking commies. More fun.
