The political spectrum

[TruthNotBS]

Rights aren't "granted", which presumes someone owns/controls the rights.

Rights are inherent, like the air we breathe.

The air actually exists, but your rights apart from a community of human beings are nothing more than a figment of your imagination. No one else has to recognize them as valid.

 

[OldFlame]

I think that we'll almost certainly grow out of government, and it will be viewed as barbaric. But we're not ready yet. People have to first get over the idea that the government is there to force their preferences on others.

I don't think human nature will ever change, we are not 'evolving' in that way at all. We are as barbaric today as we ever were.

 

[BackAgain]

How am I made poorer by another man's wealth?

Again, grow up.

If we are talking about a piece of a pie, there could be something to it. The other guys get big pieces of multiple slices. That leaves less for you.

Of course, the folks like Sage seem to be unable to grasp that our economy isn’t such a zero sum game. Pies keep getting made. Bigger pies can be made. More pies can be made.

If Rockefeller ends up big ass pieces and a lot of them, I’m not hurt at all provided I can get me some when needed for me and my family. His “wealth” doesn’t hurt me at all.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Another lie. You just rackin em up. Keep going, Donald.

No matter how much you make that claim, it still will not be true. I have not lied once, you are just pissed I will not bow down to your amazing intellect.

Get over it, you should be used to it by now.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I don't think human nature will ever change, we are not 'evolving' in that way at all. We are as barbaric today as we ever were.

If not more so

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Yeah, maybe the one you like. Not what the theory itself actually is.

Your Walls Are Clouds

Why not give specific examples, such as no income tax or whatever, instead of these vague and slippery descriptions?

 

[OldFlame]

If not more so

Well, look at that, we actually agree on one thing.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Sometimes (by which I mean “often”), the sage isn’t very sagacious.

If You Let the HeirHeads Tell You to Eat Cake, All You'll Get Is Its Crumbs

 

[LeroyDumonde]

The Gungrabbers' Scare Tactics Have Worked

So Randy Weaver's wife wasn't assassinated by Lon Horiuchi? The Branch Davidians weren't consumed in a holocaust? People with guns that cross the government don't end up in prison or dead? You may be suffering from a delusion. Seek help.

 

[TNHarley]

You're the one claiming native americans lived in communities without rules and hence had no rules to enforce. The burden of proof is upon you, not me. You said that if someone did something "bad", the whole community would come after them. That implies that the community has clearly defined rules, if not there would be no way of identifying or enforcing rules against what is "bad".

No, it doesnt mean that. NAP is a set of principles, not rules or law.
I cant find the info I read about the Indians, so I will concede that. For now.

 

[TNHarley]

No matter how much you make that claim, it still will not be true. I have not lied once, you are just pissed I will not bow down to your amazing intellect.

Get over it, you should be used to it by now.

You have lied multiple times in this thread. And I called it out every single time. But again, we all understand. We now know what you base reality off of.

 

[TNHarley]

Your Walls Are Clouds

Why not give specific examples, such as no income tax or whatever, instead of these vague and slippery descriptions?

I have been talking about it for almost 30 pages, dingus.

 

[TruthNotBS]

No, it doesnt mean that. NAP is a set of principles, not rules or law.
I cant find the info I read about the Indians, so I will concede that. For now.

Semantics. Rules, principles, and laws, it's all the same if it defines what is good and "bad", what you can do, what you can't do, what is appropriate behavior, and what's inappropriate behavior. That is a rule-set, that people have to abide by, or as you said "the whole community will come after them". That's an inefficient community, where EVERYBODY has to go after others if they "do something bad". Do you want people to go back to living in caves and mud huts?

 

[TNHarley]

Semantics. Rules, principles, and laws, it's all the same if it defines what is good and "bad", what you can do, what you can't do, what is appropriate behavior, and what's inappropriate behavior. That is a rule-set, that people have to abide by, or as you said "the whole community will come after them". That's an inefficient community, where EVERYBODY has to go after others if they "do something bad". Do you want people to go back to living in caves and mud huts?

Semantics?

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Why cant they?
How do you explain Zomia?
Or many pre-colonial indian tribes?
Or look at what the Makhnovsists did/were going to do before they got conquered.
It certainly can happen. Probably not on a large scale like USA but it can. Not everyone is a needy, entitled POS

Anarchy can exist, and even thrive, in small pre-industrial societies. They can even survive within industrial societies (e.g. gangs) but just end up being parasites on the broader society. Without some kind of massive decline in world population anarchism is just a pipe dream.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You have lied multiple times in this thread. And I called it out every single time. But again, we all understand. We now know what you base reality off of.

Yes, you have made the claim many times, and each time it was you being a snowflake and me not lying.

Who is this "we" you speak of, pretty much nobody in this thread buys into your made up definitions.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Anarchy can exist, and even thrive, in small pre-industrial societies. They can even survive within industrial societies (e.g. gangs) but just end up being parasites on the broader society. Without some kind of massive decline in world population anarchism is just a pipe dream.

A gang is not an example of anarchy, a gang always has a hierarchy of leaders with rules and enforcement of those rules.

Anarchy cannot have any of those things.

 

[TNHarley]

Anarchy can exist, and even thrive, in small pre-industrial societies. They can even survive within industrial societies (e.g. gangs) but just end up being parasites on the broader society. Without some kind of massive decline in world population anarchism is just a pipe dream.

It could work, IMO with certain people. Righties ( ) for example. But it wouldnt ever happen. no government will give up land.
There is a huge chunk of desert in Africa that no nation claims. I guess we could try that area out

 

[TNHarley]

Yes, you have made the claim many times, and each time it was you being a snowflake and me not lying.

Who is this "we" you speak of, pretty much nobody in this thread buys into your made up definitions.

More lies.
More lies. It isnt "my" definitions. But as always, I appreciate the credit you give me.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

More lies.
More lies. It isnt "my" definitions. But as always, I appreciate the credit you give me.

Such a little snowflake.

And yes, it is your definition. It is one you made up to fit into your make believe world of how things should be.

You and reality seem to have no connection at all