The Constitution - as viewed by ideology

[kaz]

So if there's no capitalism in those areas, as you state, how can it be anarcho-capitalism? Nor are tribal warlords evidence of any kind of anarchism, capitalist or otherwise. Just the opposite, in fact.

Since anarchy by definition has no government, how can you assume that capitalism would exist in such a State? Somalia is the closest thing to anarchy we've seen in the world, and to your point there are no free markets. There is only the rule of guns, which is what we are predicting here. And you endlessly ignore the point of blood thirsty Canadian hordes attacking us from the north. You know, or the Chinese. Or any other plethora of militaries in the world who chose not to go along with our sans government choice.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So if there's no capitalism in those areas, as you state, how can it be anarcho-capitalism? Nor are tribal warlords evidence of any kind of anarchism, capitalist or otherwise. Just the opposite, in fact.

Since anarchy by definition has no government, how can you assume that capitalism would exist in such a State? Somalia is the closest thing to anarchy we've seen in the world, and to your point there are no free markets. There is only the rule of guns, which is what we are predicting here. And you endlessly ignore the point of blood thirsty Canadian hordes attacking us from the north. You know, or the Chinese. Or any other plethora of militaries in the world who chose not to go along with our sans government choice.

Yes, I keep ignoring your conjecture because that's all it is. As to whether capitalism can exist in anarchy, that's the only way you could possibly have anarchy. Now, of course, I'm biased as an anarcho-capitalist when I say that, and anarcho-communists and others would obviously say the exact opposite.

 

[kaz]

So if there's no capitalism in those areas, as you state, how can it be anarcho-capitalism? Nor are tribal warlords evidence of any kind of anarchism, capitalist or otherwise. Just the opposite, in fact.

Since anarchy by definition has no government, how can you assume that capitalism would exist in such a State? Somalia is the closest thing to anarchy we've seen in the world, and to your point there are no free markets. There is only the rule of guns, which is what we are predicting here. And you endlessly ignore the point of blood thirsty Canadian hordes attacking us from the north. You know, or the Chinese. Or any other plethora of militaries in the world who chose not to go along with our sans government choice.

Yes, I keep ignoring your conjecture because that's all it is. As to whether capitalism can exist in anarchy, that's the only way you could possibly have anarchy. Now, of course, I'm biased as an anarcho-capitalist when I say that, and anarcho-communists and others would obviously say the exact opposite.

You still don't get the point. You remove government, you get Somalia, not capitalism. You said it had never been tried. We're saying it has, and giving you the example. You've narrowly constructed your test to that it only counts as failed if it succeeded, which means it didn't fail. Otherwise, you say it doesn't meet your parameter. Once you have what we say you'll never have and it doesn't work, then it will have been tried...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since anarchy by definition has no government, how can you assume that capitalism would exist in such a State? Somalia is the closest thing to anarchy we've seen in the world, and to your point there are no free markets. There is only the rule of guns, which is what we are predicting here. And you endlessly ignore the point of blood thirsty Canadian hordes attacking us from the north. You know, or the Chinese. Or any other plethora of militaries in the world who chose not to go along with our sans government choice.

Yes, I keep ignoring your conjecture because that's all it is. As to whether capitalism can exist in anarchy, that's the only way you could possibly have anarchy. Now, of course, I'm biased as an anarcho-capitalist when I say that, and anarcho-communists and others would obviously say the exact opposite.

You still don't get the point. You remove government, you get Somalia, not capitalism. You said it had never been tried. We're saying it has, and giving you the example. You've narrowly constructed your test to that it only counts as failed if it succeeded, which means it didn't fail. Otherwise, you say it doesn't meet your parameter. Once you have what we say you'll never have and it doesn't work, then it will have been tried...

No, you don't get the point. Somalia isn't any form of anarchism. Not communist, not syndicalist, and certainly not capitalist. There is a government in Somalia, they even have a President and a Prime Minister, and various militias and tribes trying to take over the government of Somalia. In other words, it's been in the midst of near constant civil war between the government and various other militant organizations.

Now your point is that this is the natural end result of anarchy, and that it can't last for more than a moment because warlords or whoever will inevitably set themselves up as the government. You state, " You've narrowly constructed your test to that it only counts as failed if it succeeded, which means it didn't fail." Yet we can say the exact same thing, but in reverse, regarding your "test." You see in Somalia what you expect to see in the case of anarchy and declare that anarchy has failed, whereas I see no evidence that anarchy had even been attempted in Somalia and declare that this example is ridiculous.

 

[kaz]

Now your point is that this is the natural end result of anarchy

Hello, that was always my point. Anarchy cannot exist but for an instant, it immediately descends into anarchy. Suppose we eliminated all government and sent them home. No one would have any time to build anything. China would immediately invade at a minimum the west coast (technology and energy), Mexico would invade the rest of the southwest, it's a big thing in Mexico how we "stole" it from them. China would also hold coastal areas and offshore energy production from the carolinas through to Texas. The northern States and New England would join Canada, they're liberal and would be in fear. Your country would be in days down to Kansas and Kentucky.

 

[PaulS1950]

I believe you are forgetting the reason Japan didn't invade the US during WW II, "There is a gun behind every blade of grass." If Chinese soldiers started invading there would be nothing to stop the gun owners on all three coasts from fighting them. As for the Mexicans - well unless the drug lords decided to invade there would be no threat. If it was the drug lord's forces then they would be up against the armed citizenry as well. Any initial attack would be met after that by the State National Guard and the civilians.

We don't need the federal government to "protect" us from anyone but themselves.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Now your point is that this is the natural end result of anarchy

Hello, that was always my point. Anarchy cannot exist but for an instant, it immediately descends into anarchy. Suppose we eliminated all government and sent them home. No one would have any time to build anything. China would immediately invade at a minimum the west coast (technology and energy), Mexico would invade the rest of the southwest, it's a big thing in Mexico how we "stole" it from them. China would also hold coastal areas and offshore energy production from the carolinas through to Texas. The northern States and New England would join Canada, they're liberal and would be in fear. Your country would be in days down to Kansas and Kentucky.

No kidding, and it's always only been conjecture with no evidence to back it up.

 

[kaz]

I believe you are forgetting the reason Japan didn't invade the US during WW II, "There is a gun behind every blade of grass." If Chinese soldiers started invading there would be nothing to stop the gun owners on all three coasts from fighting them. As for the Mexicans - well unless the drug lords decided to invade there would be no threat. If it was the drug lord's forces then they would be up against the armed citizenry as well. Any initial attack would be met after that by the State National Guard and the civilians.

We don't need the federal government to "protect" us from anyone but themselves.

You have no concept of the power of modern military weapons, do you? When Chinese planes blow up your house from hundreds of miles away, your automatic weapons are going to be such a useful defense.

 

[NightFox]

I believe you are forgetting the reason Japan didn't invade the US during WW II, "There is a gun behind every blade of grass." If Chinese soldiers started invading there would be nothing to stop the gun owners on all three coasts from fighting them. As for the Mexicans - well unless the drug lords decided to invade there would be no threat. If it was the drug lord's forces then they would be up against the armed citizenry as well. Any initial attack would be met after that by the State National Guard and the civilians.

We don't need the federal government to "protect" us from anyone but themselves.

When Chinese planes blow up your house from hundreds of miles away

Why would the Chinese blow up his house? After all it's highly likely they're the ones holding the mortgage on it.

 

[PaulS1950]

Well, my house is mortgage free but anything they can launch from "hundreds of miles away" is going to get much more than my house. Why would they want to get rid of the slave labor that our politicians have been using for years to fund themselves?

Air to ground missiles have only about a maximum of 75 mile range but are most accurate within 25 miles. I have a very good idea of the power of modern weapons - you, obviously, not so much. I bet you even believe that a thermo-nuclear bomb would completely wipe out everyone in New York City and most of the surrounding state. The reality is that the "dead zone" of a moderate sized nuke is less than five miles.

 

[NightFox]

Well, my house is mortgage free but anything they can launch from "hundreds of miles away" is going to get much more than my house.

Sorry to hear that Paul, I guess we'll both be living in pup tents when the Chinese Invade that is of course if we manage to avoid ending up as Yankee Foo Young......

 

[rightwinger]

Well, my house is mortgage free but anything they can launch from "hundreds of miles away" is going to get much more than my house.

Sorry to hear that Paul, I guess we'll both be living in pup tents when the Chinese Invade that is of course if we manage to avoid ending up as Yankee Foo Young......

The Chinese can't even invade Taiwan......how are they going to invade us?

 

[rightwinger]

I believe you are forgetting the reason Japan didn't invade the US during WW II, "There is a gun behind every blade of grass." If Chinese soldiers started invading there would be nothing to stop the gun owners on all three coasts from fighting them. As for the Mexicans - well unless the drug lords decided to invade there would be no threat. If it was the drug lord's forces then they would be up against the armed citizenry as well. Any initial attack would be met after that by the State National Guard and the civilians.

We don't need the federal government to "protect" us from anyone but themselves.

That "There is a gun behind every blade of grass " is an NRA myth

The reason nobody can invade is that we have the most powerful Navy in the history of mankind

 

[kaz]

Well, my house is mortgage free but anything they can launch from "hundreds of miles away" is going to get much more than my house. Why would they want to get rid of the slave labor that our politicians have been using for years to fund themselves?

Air to ground missiles have only about a maximum of 75 mile range but are most accurate within 25 miles. I have a very good idea of the power of modern weapons - you, obviously, not so much. I bet you even believe that a thermo-nuclear bomb would completely wipe out everyone in New York City and most of the surrounding state. The reality is that the "dead zone" of a moderate sized nuke is less than five miles.

Right, I don't grasp the power of modern weapons, but you don't think the Chinese military can beat people defending their homes without a military. Got it.

As for your slave labor question, you said they can't win, so why wouldn't they kill you?

My answer though is they'll kill enough of you so the rest give in.

And then you have a government again.

 

[rightwinger]

First, the Chinese can never invade us

Second, gun owners have nothing to do with defending this country

 

[OKTexas]

You have not the integrity to note that Madison wrote this 43 years after the Constitutional Constitution and 41 years after Madison argued for its Big Government nature.

I provided a quote supporting my point, how about you do the same.

Plenty of quotes in the time era of the convention and ratification have been available.

Your dishonesty was pretending that a quite 43 years after the fact was what Madison was thinking in the later 1780s.

That, bub, is fail.

Back it up with a link or it's your fail. You said Madison said it, prove it.

 

[FA_Q2]

I believe you are forgetting the reason Japan didn't invade the US during WW II, "There is a gun behind every blade of grass." If Chinese soldiers started invading there would be nothing to stop the gun owners on all three coasts from fighting them. As for the Mexicans - well unless the drug lords decided to invade there would be no threat. If it was the drug lord's forces then they would be up against the armed citizenry as well. Any initial attack would be met after that by the State National Guard and the civilians.

We don't need the federal government to "protect" us from anyone but themselves.

The very notion of anarchy makes the bolded portion impossible.

 

[FA_Q2]

First, the Chinese can never invade us

Second, gun owners have nothing to do with defending this country

Read the thread (at the very least the last page) before injecting comments that have nothing to do with the conversation.

 

[Derideo_Te]

First, the Chinese can never invade us

Second, gun owners have nothing to do with defending this country

Agreed on both counts. While the Chinese might be able to raise an invading army of millions the sheer logistics of moving that much manpower over that distance undetected makes it an impossible task. In the unlikely event that there ever was an actually military invasion the gun owners would be about as effective as the French Resistance were at stopping the Germans in WW2. This lesson was demonstrated again in Iraq where the invading power can seize control of the nation but still cannot fully suppress the remaining resistance. However the resistance cannot overthrow the greater military forces involved either so it becomes a stalemate.

 

[NightFox]

First, the Chinese can never invade us

Second, gun owners have nothing to do with defending this country

Read the thread (at the very least the last page) before injecting comments that have nothing to do with the conversation.

That's what you get for not including a user guide with the thread.