The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Pizzly on November 11, 2010, 11:04:13 AM
-
So I said that to someone earlier. The response was "It's Veterans day." Made me a little sad this person thought I was confused.
I think I read an article on Lew Rockwell's site before about how disgusting Veterans day is, it turned a holiday that is supposed to celebrate ending war to a holiday that glorifies the murderers.
-
Very similar to Independence Day becoming a festival for the American god-state.
-
The mainstream media are patrolling the parade route, ensuring that we're all waving our little flags with appropriate enthusiasm.
-
I thought it was called Armistice Day everywhere outside of the United States.
-
So I said that to someone earlier. The response was "It's Veterans day." Made me a little sad this person thought I was confused.
I think I read an article on Lew Rockwell's site before about how disgusting Veterans day is, it turned a holiday that is supposed to celebrate ending war to a holiday that glorifies the murderers.
At another forum someone made a thread today about "Freedom isn't free," and thanking the vets.
Haha, armed employees of the biggest government in human history -- who are trained to trespass, destroy others' property and kill -- have kept me free? I don't think so.
Like any other armed government employee, they exist to enforce government policy.
-
Why do we have both Memorial Day and Veterans Day? Seems a bit redundant.
BTW, I was born on Veterans Day, way back when it was Armistice Day. I was too young to know what an “armistice” was, but liked getting my birthday off from school.
In some places, they take the holiday seriously. I was in Ballarat, Australia on the eleventh. In Ballarat, all the city’s young men—2000 of them— went off to fight in WWI. Every last one of them died in a single battle at Gallipoli.
-
a holiday that glorifies the murderers.
stop already.
you fucking limp-wristed faggots.
''murderers'' that stopped the german killing machine in ww1 AND 2?
the jap killing machine?
you mean those ''murderers''?
are you that fucking ignorant?
-
...And went on to participate in and assist with the murders of lots and lots of German and Japanese civilians.
Evil is evil, no matter what uniform it wears.
-
...And went on to participate in and assist with the murders of lots and lots of German and Japanese civilians.
Evil is evil, no matter what uniform it wears.
hey.
tuff tits..
their ''leaders'' led them to their own destruction
& most of them willingly followed.
stupid is, as stupid does, mrs. gump
germans & japs COULD have surrendered WAY before they lost all those civilians.
keep on bein that history revisionist.
you'll get far.
-
I prefer Armistice Day myself.
In Canada it's Remembrance Day, which seems to be a little more appropriate.
Also I don't know of a day that celebrates the German, Japanese, and Soviet murderers in WW2. Let me know when you find one.
...And went on to participate in and assist with the murders of lots and lots of German and Japanese civilians.
Evil is evil, no matter what uniform it wears.
Hey, vae victis. That's what happens when you start this shit and lose.
-
Collectivist bullshit. "They" didn't start a damn thing.
-
Collectivist bullshit. "They" didn't start a damn thing.
''they'' didn't do anything to stop ''their'' madmen
-
That's because said madmen weren't "THEIRS" to stop. Nobody is responsible for the actions of another person unless they actively encouraged those actions. Nobody has an obligation to put their lives at risk (and more importantly, those of their families) to confront an evil person. Doing so makes a person a hero; failing to do so does not make them a party to the crime.
Killing a non-murderer, however, makes one a murderer.
-
Collectivist bullshit. "They" didn't start a damn thing.
''they'' didn't do anything to stop ''their'' madmen
When are we going to stop ours?
-
Yeah... by that logic wouldn't it be okay for me to shoot Dragline in his silly collectivist head because he has failed to put an end to the evils perpetrated by his leaders? Or would it only be okay if a foreign power invaded and did it instead? Or is it only okay when America does it?
-
Collectivist bullshit. "They" didn't start a damn thing.
''they'' didn't do anything to stop ''their'' madmen
Neither did you. Today, right now, if those madmen are "their" madmen then "our" madmen are "your" madmen. Maybe you'll have it coming when a suicide bomber ends up in "your" checkout line at wal-mart.
-
i actually shot a bunch of muslim-extrmists today
and a bunch of liberals
i missed barney frank by ''that much'', chief
they're all buried out by the wood pile, so, yes, i've done my part
-
Even better illustrates my point. Some of those civilians also had done their part but "their" madmen kept on being madmen.
I'm not arguing against dropping THE bomb or anything like that. Just against your callous harley 'ridin trailer-trash plumber way of not giving a fuck about real people in real life because they're a different nationality than you.
-
In some places, they take the holiday seriously. I was in Ballarat, Australia on the eleventh. In Ballarat, all the city’s young men—2000 of them— went off to fight in WWI. Every last one of them died in a single battle at Gallipoli.
Holy shit. Maybe it is the beer talking but, holy shit. Even though Australia is the Alabama of the world, holy shit. That sucks.
-
Collectivist bullshit. "They" didn't start a damn thing.
Yeah, actually they, too, have responsiblity.
Remember, the Nazis were voted INTO office.
That's because said madmen weren't "THEIRS" to stop. Nobody is responsible for the actions of another person unless they actively encouraged those actions. Nobody has an obligation to put their lives at risk (and more importantly, those of their families) to confront an evil person. Doing so makes a person a hero; failing to do so does not make them a party to the crime.
Killing a non-murderer, however, makes one a murderer.
The Nazis were actively encouraged by the populace, and, if you were German, you profited greatly off of their actions from 1932-1945.
-
The Nazis were actively encouraged by the populace
Not all of them. Some hid jews y'know. Some were working for 'us'.
George W was voted into office. I didn't do it. I risk prison in order to not be a part of government's evil shit. Your reasoning would blame me for Homeland Security dead Iraqi civilians.
and, if you were German, you profited greatly off of their actions from 1932-1945.
lol... pretty sure 1944 and 1945 were pretty shitty years for everyone there.
Why would you say something so clearly ridiculous in response to me? Don't you know I'm going to ridicule you for it?
-
I'm not arguing against dropping THE bomb or anything like that. Just against your callous harley 'ridin trailer-trash plumber way of not giving a fuck about real people in real life because they're a different nationality than you.
tell that to the 6 mill.burned/gassed/murdered cuz they weren't of the ''master race''
tell that to the mill. of chinee /phillipino/islanders that weren't of jap vintage.
btw, mah trailer is 4000 sq. ft, negroe
-
Hey, vae victis.
That's more than a tad bit cold-blooded, dontcha think? Revenge much?
-
The Nazis were actively encouraged by the populace
Not all of them. Some hid jews y'know. Some were working for 'us'.
George W was voted into office. I didn't do it. I risk prison in order to not be a part of government's evil shit. Your reasoning would blame me for Homeland Security dead Iraqi civilians.
and, if you were German, you profited greatly off of their actions from 1932-1945.
lol... pretty sure 1944 and 1945 were pretty shitty years for everyone there.
Why would you say something so clearly ridiculous in response to me? Don't you know I'm going to ridicule you for it?
I dunno, if you're saying that the W administration is as bad as the Nazis then you're the one saying something ridiculous.
Hey, vae victis.
That's more than a tad bit cold-blooded, dontcha think? Revenge much?
Yes, and that's exactly what a lot of the countries which were occupied thought. (I'm thinking primarily here of the Soviet Union, France, the Netherlands, and Norway.)(
-
People can argue endlessly over which government did what first, and which one is more evil.
But the root of the problem, as I see it, is the existence of government itself -- the concentration of nearly unlimited power to destroy and kill into a few hands.
As someone said, paraphrased: "Man was not designed to hold this kind of power. There probably isn't a person anywhere in the world that is capable of responsibly handling the vast power of the POTUS."
Some statists I debate always bring up how evil "the rich" are. But I tell them, can Bill Gates slaughter thousands of people and get away with it? Does he even have any incentive or interest in doing so? Can Ross Perot confiscate your house, bank account, or retirement funds? Of course not.
The concentration of political power -- which always ends in violence against the innocent -- is the real problem. I rarely agree with Communists, but Mao Tse-Tung was accurate when he said: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
-
People can argue endlessly over which government did what first, and which one is more evil.
But the root of the problem, as I see it, is the existence of government itself -- the concentration of nearly unlimited power to destroy and kill into a few hands.
As someone said, paraphrased: "Man was not designed to hold this kind of power. There probably isn't a person anywhere in the world that is capable of responsibly handling the vast power of the POTUS."
Some statists I debate always bring up how evil "the rich" are. But I tell them, can Bill Gates slaughter thousands of people and get away with it? Does he even have any incentive or interest in doing so? Can Ross Perot confiscate your house, bank account, or retirement funds? Of course not.
The concentration of political power -- which always ends in violence against the innocent -- is the real problem. I rarely agree with Communists, but Mao Tse-Tung was accurate when he said: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
Bill Gates and Ross Perot could do that if they paid enough people to in the absence of a government. It's happened frequently throughout history; there's no reason to think that it couldn't in the future. And, if there was no government anywhere, then good luck having a guaranteed bank account, unless some sort of egold scheme comes up and is actually viable for the long term.
If you really want to live in a land of no government, you are free to move to Somalia. Seriously. And if you say that Somalia is insufficient because it's not the magic land of anarcho-capitalist voluntaryists, it's still a place where there is no effective government - "no government" seeming to be the goal of the libertarian movement, under the illusion that it's government that's the problem, and not the people who run it - and people have banded together to make micro-states out of the country.
(Strangely enough Somaliland and Puntland seem to be thriving compared with the rest of the "country".)
-
Bill Gates and Ross Perot could do that if they paid enough people to in the absence of a government. It's happened frequently throughout history; there's no reason to think that it couldn't in the future. And, if there was no government anywhere, then good luck having a guaranteed bank account, unless some sort of egold scheme comes up and is actually viable for the long term.
Why do people assume that if government does X, then in the absence of government, X wouldn't exist?
Do you think only government can build roads? Do you think banks wouldn't exist if there was no government? How is the heavy regulation of banks working out?
If you really want to live in a land of no government, you are free to move to Somalia. Seriously. And if you say that Somalia is insufficient because it's not the magic land of anarcho-capitalist voluntaryists, it's still a place where there is no effective government - "no government" seeming to be the goal of the libertarian movement, under the illusion that it's government that's the problem, and not the people who run it - and people have banded together to make micro-states out of the country.
(Strangely enough Somaliland and Puntland seem to be thriving compared with the rest of the "country".)
Again, you are assuming that Somalia is the way it is because there is no effective government. Iraq has a government, actually two counting the occupying U.S. Is it stable? Peaceful? No crime or violence?
How heavy is the hand of government in our inner cities? And yet they are the most dangerous areas in the country. I don't steal from my neighbors, destroy their property, or violate the women. And it isn't the existence of government -- and its laws against those crimes -- that prevents me from doing it. The government in this case is irrelevant -- I don't do those things simply because they are wrong.
An institution that demands a monopoly on the use of violence will breed violence.
-
Why do people assume that if government does X, then in the absence of government, X wouldn't exist?
Do you think only government can build roads? Do you think banks wouldn't exist if there was no government? How is the heavy regulation of banks working out?
Why do you presume that if governments were absent that it would be paradise on earth? And the regulations of banks certainly make them work better than in the days when they weren't regulated. Those regulations initially came about because of the Panics of the 19th century, in which banks went insolvent and people were made paupers overnight because the banks went bust, along with their savings.
Again, you are assuming that Somalia is the way it is because there is no effective government. Iraq has a government, actually two counting the occupying U.S. Is it stable? Peaceful? No crime or violence?
Kurdistan is very stable. The Iraqi situation is the way it is because the US and its allies butted itself into it. The government before was VERY stable. (Also VERY totalitarian and frightening.)
How heavy is the hand of government in our inner cities? And yet they are the most dangerous areas in the country. I don't steal from my neighbors, destroy their property, or violate the women. And it isn't the existence of government -- and its laws against those crimes -- that prevents me from doing it. The government in this case is irrelevant -- I don't do those things simply because they are wrong.
And then there are people who don't do that simply because they know they won't be able to get away with it. There are very many people now and throughout history who can and have, usually in a period where there is little or no government and they know they can. Other people have different moral codes than you do.
-
Why do you presume that if governments were absent that it would be paradise on earth?
I don't. Nothing in this world is perfect. But I bet it would be a lot better than Stalin's "Workers' Paradise." :)
And the regulations of banks certainly make them work better than in the days when they weren't regulated. Those regulations initially came about because of the Panics of the 19th century, in which banks went insolvent and people were made paupers overnight because the banks went bust, along with their savings.
And if The Fed eventually causes hyperinflation, people will run the banks regardless of FDIC. The value of the money they draw out will be dropping like a rock, and the longer they leave it in the bank the more worthless it becomes. FDIC just props up bad banking practices. Without it banks would have to be more careful about what they do. As it is now, they know the taxpayers will bail them out so they take risks they otherwise wouldn't.
Kurdistan is very stable. The Iraqi situation is the way it is because the US and its allies butted itself into it. The government before was VERY stable. (Also VERY totalitarian and frightening.)
I agree. But my point was: the existence of government, or even two of them, does not necessarily bring peace or stability.
And then there are people who don't do that simply because they know they won't be able to get away with it. There are very many people now and throughout history who can and have, usually in a period where there is little or no government and they know they can. Other people have different moral codes than you do.
Absolutely true. But again, you're assuming (I think) that if government wasn't around to punish criminals then they wouldn't get punished.
-
Why do you presume that if governments were absent that it would be paradise on earth?
I don't. Nothing in this world is perfect. But I bet it would be a lot better than Stalin's "Workers' Paradise." :)
Doubtful. In one you have the "freedom" to starve, in another you have the "freedom" to do as they tell you.
And the regulations of banks certainly make them work better than in the days when they weren't regulated. Those regulations initially came about because of the Panics of the 19th century, in which banks went insolvent and people were made paupers overnight because the banks went bust, along with their savings.
And if The Fed eventually causes hyperinflation, people will run the banks regardless of FDIC. The value of the money they draw out will be dropping like a rock, and the longer they leave it in the bank the more worthless it becomes. FDIC just props up bad banking practices. Without it banks would have to be more careful about what they do. As it is now, they know the taxpayers will bail them out so they take risks they otherwise wouldn't.
And if banks don't exist then likely the entire economic system will collapse as a who.e.
Kurdistan is very stable. The Iraqi situation is the way it is because the US and its allies butted itself into it. The government before was VERY stable. (Also VERY totalitarian and frightening.)
I agree. But my point was: the existence of government, or even two of them, does not necessarily bring peace or stability.
It generally does, however.
And then there are people who don't do that simply because they know they won't be able to get away with it. There are very many people now and throughout history who can and have, usually in a period where there is little or no government and they know they can. Other people have different moral codes than you do.
Absolutely true. But again, you're assuming (I think) that if government wasn't around to punish criminals then they wouldn't get punished.
A lot won't because there would be no justice system around to do anything about it. And if you bring up "private law", then naturally there will be people who would have fuck-all to do with "private law" and decide to do as they please with no police force and no system of meteting out punishment.
-
More importantly, in the first you have the freedom NOT to starve if you're willing to get off your ass and work, and not be a complete dick to the other productive people around you.
-
More importantly, in the first you have the freedom NOT to starve if you're willing to get off your ass and work, and not be a complete dick to the other productive people around you.
Not true.
-
So are you saying we need a parasitic political class in order to have food?
-
So are you saying we need a parasitic political class in order to have food?
No, I'm saying that there are a lot of people out there who work their asses off and don't make enough to feed themselves or their families. This is a logical part of the capitalist "free market" where you would have the duty to accumulate as much money as you can. This can be seen as an obvious example in the factories of the 18th and 19th centuries.
-
And you'll only find such people in places where they live under parasitic states that inhibit wealth creation and consume it when it is created.
-
And you'll only find such people in places where they live under parasitic states that inhibit wealth creation and consume it when it is created.
Again, not true, unless you consider 19th century America to be a wholly parasitic state.
Unless you're playing the game in which the whole world is filled with parasites, which is bullshit. You may as well say that they should die, and decrease the useless population.
-
All states are parasitic. They consume much and produce little, and that which they do produce is of poor quality and made at a high monopoly price.
-
All states are parasitic. They consume much and produce little, and that which they do produce is of poor quality and made at a high monopoly price.
Well, the only place where you won't find a state is Somalia. By what you've said, it should be paradise because there is no government there.
Seriously, why don't you move there? I'm not trolling, I'd honestly like to know why.
Besides, if the "government" always provides shitty service, then how come the social democracies of Europe generally have a higher GDP, better health care, and are safer than the United States?
-
Because this is my home, and I'm not leaving it.
But anyway, there is government in Somalia. There are UN-supported thugs fighting tribal thugs for political dominance. Somalia is not a post-state society. Nor does Somali culture have a particularly high respect for private property, which is necessary for civil society to exist.
As Robert Murphy pointed out in this article (http://mises.org/daily/1855), getting rid of territorial states is not the only requirement for a peaceful and free society, but it is a requirement. If a society lacks the ideology that makes civilization possible, then any state that such a society creates will lack the same ideology, and will therefore be incapable of solving the problems of that society. But if a society DOES have that ideology, then the only thing a state will do is prevent it from functioning organically.
-
Because this is my home, and I'm not leaving it.
But anyway, there is government in Somalia. There are UN-supported thugs fighting tribal thugs for political dominance. Somalia is not a post-state society. Nor does Somali culture have a particularly high respect for private property, which is necessary for civil society to exist.
As Robert Murphy pointed out in this article (http://mises.org/daily/1855), getting rid of territorial states is not the only requirement for a peaceful and free society, but it is a requirement. If a society lacks the ideology that makes civilization possible, then any state that such a society creates will lack the same ideology, and will therefore be incapable of solving the problems of that society. But if a society DOES have that ideology, then the only thing a state will do is prevent it from functioning organically.
So it's not a stateless society because you say it's not. Gotcha.
The UN-backed government has little power in Somalia beyond Mogadishu, anyway.
-
No, it's not a stateless society because it has a state (an organization claiming a territorial monopoly on legalized violence). And most of the violence in the country is either caused by it or in response to it.
Also, I notice how you conveniently ignored the rest of my post. I won't bother to repeat myself, because I'm sure that if you had any interest in the points I made therein you would have read it the first time.
-
No, it's not a stateless society because it has a state (an organization claiming a territorial monopoly on legalized violence). And most of the violence in the country is either caused by it or in response to it.
Also, I notice how you conveniently ignored the rest of my post. I won't bother to repeat myself, because I'm sure that if you had any interest in the points I made therein you would have read it the first time.
No, it's not. What power does this "state" of Somalia have? What army does it have? Police force? Functioning parliament?
And I ignored your points because apparently you expect every stateless society to be exactly the way YOU want it to be, when in this place called "reality" it's not going to be the way you want it.
-
The ICU (a state organization) currently controls most of Somalia. The instability is largely caused by groups backed by the UN (a state organization) and tribal forces (state organizations). The only non-state organizations involved in the conflict are the radical Islamists, though if they were to take over they would almost certainly want to establish a state. So, no, Somalia is NOT a post-state society. It is a land contested by multiple states. But so is Afghanistan, and nobody is using Afghanistan as a strawman against anarchy. Somalia is just the favorite strawman of the media who are pointing at the various state factions going at each other and saying, "look what happens when you don't have a state!" But what they mean by "no state" is a lack of a single, unified, largely unchallenged state. But what anarchists mean and have always meant by "no state" is a lack of state organizations shaping society. Two states in conflict shape a society just as easily, and often more violently, than one unchallenged state.
And I ignored your points because apparently you expect every stateless society to be exactly the way YOU want it to be, when in this place called "reality" it's not going to be the way you want it.
Apparently you ignored my points without ever having READ THEM, because that's not what I said at all. In fact, I said something rather strongly to the contrary.
-
Why are some people forever holding up Somalia as an example of anarchy? There must be at least ten groups vying for power there.
Also, I’m not sure why statists are always insisting, “If you don’t like it here, leave!” Do THEY approve of every last thing the government does? If not, then why don’t THEY leave? (My personal favorite answer when asked why I don’t leave is “I can’t afford the exit tax.”)
-
What I want to know is, if the goverment doesn't like what I do with my own property, why don't THEY leave? Why is it the individual who has to leave?
Oh that's right; because the state is an armed mob and they'll kill you if they want to. Perfectly moral.
-
What I want to know is, if the goverment doesn't like what I do with my own property, why don't THEY leave? Why is it the individual who has to leave?
Oh that's right; because the state is an armed mob and they'll kill you if they want to. Perfectly moral.
Or it could be because if you hate living here so much maybe you'd be happier elsewhere.
Why are some people forever holding up Somalia as an example of anarchy? There must be at least ten groups vying for power there.
Because Somalia literally has no government. It is a place where you have people negotiating with people, with pretty much no government at all. By that definition, it should be the libertarian paradise.
-
...except that is not, and never was, the definition of a libertarian paradise. The absence of the state is a consequence of libertarianism's central tenet. It is not libertarianism itself. Which if you'd READ MY FREAKING POST, you would have gotten already. But I'm sure it's much more convenient for you to keep setting up the same old strawman.
-
...except that is not, and never was, the definition of a libertarian paradise. The absence of the state is a consequence of libertarianism's central tenet. It is not libertarianism itself. Which if you'd READ MY FREAKING POST, you would have gotten already. But I'm sure it's much more convenient for you to keep setting up the same old strawman.
Just because it's not the libertarianism you think as it would work out in the real world doesn't change it from being what has actually been done in the real world without a state.
-
I'm not sure how having half a dozen groups all claiming to be the government can be interpreted as an ABSENCE of government. If anything, it’s more of an excess of government.
In any case, pointing to it as some sort of ideal libertarian state is like pointing to North Korea as the ideal world proposed by statists. “What the? You favor Obama? Why don’t you just move to N. Korea, then!”
-
In any case, pointing to it as some sort of ideal libertarian state is like pointing to North Korea as the ideal world proposed by statists. “What the? You favor Obama? Why don’t you just move to N. Korea, then!”
I'm going to have to remember that one for the next time someone uses the Somalia strawman.
-
I'm not sure how having half a dozen groups all claiming to be the government can be interpreted as an ABSENCE of government. If anything, it’s more of an excess of government.
In any case, pointing to it as some sort of ideal libertarian state is like pointing to North Korea as the ideal world proposed by statists. “What the? You favor Obama? Why don’t you just move to N. Korea, then!”
Unless you can actually point to a successful "state" with no government, Somalia is pretty much *the* modern example of an area with no functioning government.
No True Scotsman, much?
-
No.
The anarchist's definition of a stateless society has always been and is now a society unaffected by a state. There is no way any sane person can point at Somalia and say, "look, no state!" unless they are joking.
-
Somalia found itself in a sudden state of relative statelessness, after having spent much time under the thumb. It takes a bit for folks to get used to being free, and petty warlords tend to step in to take advantage of the chaos. So, nope... not stateless, and the population there hasn't really prepared itself for a sudden change anyway. I mean, it's like expecting a bunch of IRS agents to open a retail outlet and run it successfully.
I understand, however, that where the Somalis have been left in relative peace, they're thriving compared to what they were before... and I'm not talking about the pirates.
-
No.
The anarchist's definition of a stateless society has always been and is now a society unaffected by a state. There is no way any sane person can point at Somalia and say, "look, no state!" unless they are joking.
Except there is no society that has not been affected by a state. Not now, anyway.
-
I see an argument going on here, and it appears that you people are using different definitions for a state. It's pointless to attempt to argue if you guys aren't even arguing about the same thing.
-
Yes, I agree. I'm using the generally accepted definitions, and TLV is making up her own, rhetorically convenient ones. This reminds me of the time I was trying to convince someone that increasing the money supply doesn't make people more wealthy, and he was all like "nuh-uh, money means wealth u idiot"
So, just one last response to TLV: So what? There is also no such thing as a cure for cancer today. That doesn't mean there can't or shouldn't be one.
-
Yes, I agree. I'm using the generally accepted definitions, and TLV is making up her own, rhetorically convenient ones. This reminds me of the time I was trying to convince someone that increasing the money supply doesn't make people more wealthy, and he was all like "nuh-uh, money means wealth u idiot"
So, just one last response to TLV: So what? There is also no such thing as a cure for cancer today. That doesn't mean there can't or shouldn't be one.
Except it seems really as if you're the one making up your own definitions for things.
I'm using the definitions most people use. You're the one who seems to be making shit up.
There's a difference between rhetorical wanking and seeing how ideas actually play out in real life. What you're saying reminds me of a hard red Commie saying that Stalin betrayed the revolution.