Thread: This is what you get, America, for submitting to the globalists.

Originally Posted by guerilla

Because we want real freedom and not a phony freedom of today?

Oh gosh guys, were evil we want freedom.


Since when was it a crime to have your own opinion and beliefs?

Don't condemn anyone for their views, whether they are anarchists, or not.

I am an anarchist. What I said was said in a humorous fashion.

Originally Posted by guerilla

It's that kind of attitude which helped destroy the constitution.

It's this whole mindset of "oh its just a piece of old paper, trust your government, they are right"

Here I was thinking that the Constitution was already destroyed.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

so you really do hate the constitution

I do. I have no shame in stating that it is a coercive document that no one ever signed and gives the government a supposed legitimacy. The only use for the Constitution has is an example of how government cannot be control and how it breaks its own rules.

'If you believe we should abandon the constitution then I recommend moving to a country with an oligarchy.'

Why should we move? We are property owners therefore what happens on our land is up to our discretion as long as we don't not violate the NAP.

'And for the last time, we are not a democracy.'

Actually it is a Constitutional Republic that employs Representative Democracy to elect its leaders. Therefore we are both a republic and democratic.

democratic in our methods of election, but because we have representation, and because we have laws that protect the 49% from being genocided by 51%, we are not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

democratic in our methods of election, but because we have representation, and because we have laws that protect the 49% from being genocided by 51%, we are not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic.

I know, that is why I said we are a Constitutional republic that employs representative democracy to elect our 'leaders'. And we really have laws the protect the minority? What about anti-drug legislation? Anti-same sex marriage?

When i said laws i meant laws inside of the constitution itself, and in the way the government is set up

not specific laws such as the ones you mentioned

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

When i said laws i meant laws inside of the constitution itself, and in the way the government is set up

not specific laws such as the ones you mentioned

Well the Constitution hasn't struck any of these laws down.

Thats because they are state issues. Take it up with your state government if yo want to solve them

And the drug one, yeah it is unconstitutional, I agree. But no politician save a handful of them even gives a crap about the constitution anymore

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Thats because they are state issues. Take it up with your state government if yo want to solve them

And the drug one, yeah it is unconstitutional, I agree. But no politician save a handful of them even gives a crap about the constitution anymore

What happened to that 'we have laws so 51% doesn't oppress 49%'? Now suddenly you seem to imply that states can oppress anyone due to the 10th amendment.

If you really believe in anarchy (LM) then I duno what to say...anarchy is never a long lasting thing but usually a period of transition before a dictatorship.

Also blueline, without a constitution we will fall into a 1984 global dictatorship, without the constitution we may as well nuke our planet to kingdom come because there is no reason to exist as a society if we abandon the principles which helped cement the foundation of a stable, free, and prosperous society.

Without our american constitution, we are doomed, we are dead.

To me, the constitution, the bill of rights, the preamble and habeus corpus are things which NO HUMAN has the right to remove or fundamentally alter.

I would gladly agree that without freedom we are doomed, without a republic we are done, without the rule of law to constrain the majority and the government, there is no purpose to live.


The way things are going these days, I would be happy to know humans will become extinct because we have been given the responsibility to KEEP and preserve freedom, and we have done a LOUSY job.

Didn't Ben Franklin say

"we gave you a republic, it is your job to keep it!"

Well, we did not keep it, we abandoned our republic for this fake-democracy/oligarchy.

We are doomed, we have lost our way, we have lost our principles, we have lost the RULE OF LAW.

That is all, its all over, its done and gone and the republic we once knew is dead and long gone, perhaps permanently.

Its time for a revolution, not a bloody one, but one in which the ruling elites are all rounded up and thrown in prison for eternity.

Originally Posted by guerilla

If you really believe in anarchy (LM) then I duno what to say...anarchy is never a long lasting thing but usually a period of transition before a dictatorship.

Also blueline, without a constitution we will fall into a 1984 global dictatorship, without the constitution we may as well nuke our planet to kingdom come because there is no reason to exist as a society if we abandon the principles which helped cement the foundation of a stable, free, and prosperous society.

Without our american constitution, we are doomed, we are dead.

To me, the constitution, the bill of rights, the preamble and habeus corpus are things which NO HUMAN has the right to remove or fundamentally alter.

I would gladly agree that without freedom we are doomed, without a republic we are done, without the rule of law to constrain the majority and the government, there is no purpose to live.

Actually anarchy has a long history. Iceland and Ireland were once anarchist communities. Rhode Island was once an anarchist community. Why do you labor under the premise that a document whose sole interpreter is the very institution it seeks to limit will be thoroughly enacted? The government has a monopoly on the force of law. Where is the power of the constitution beyond the halls of congress? Where is the power of the constitution beyond the supreme court? Have you not seen how the government has denied habeus corpus? Have you not seen the growth of government beyond the document you support? Do you think that without a Constitution [ which is a document meant to restrict government intervention, NOT as a system of law between citizens ] that voluntary exchange cannot transpire?

I know that habeus corpus has been swept away with the constitution, this isn't new news...

I do think that without a constitution to limit the government we cannot survive as a species freely.

I do not believe in anarchy, to me anarchy is an immature idea.

Humans are always in conflict, and if anarchy took place, who would be there to protect peoples homes and communities?

No cops in anarchy..no fire department, no mail....nobody fixing the roads or bridges...nobody would fix and repair the sewer systems and water maintenance....

The list goes on.

Explain to me, how in an anarchical society, how these issues are dealt with.

In my view, anarchy is just as bad as monarchy.

You can't leave your property without some thugs coming by and wrecking the place, in a republic we have cops that follow the law of the land, (well they SHOULD)

In anarchy, everyone is on their own completely, no support from anyone.

Sounds like a nightmare to me, anarchy or monarchy is a nightmare.

A limited constitutional republic is the only way, in my eyes.

This is my view, my opinion, and my belief, and I stand by it 100000000000 percent.


In the end, republics are NOT PERFECT, we will NEVER achieve perfection, there will NEVER be a perfect harmonious society...its just not possible or feasible to have perfection.

But for me, republic is as close to perfection as I need.

There will always be cases of corruption, abuse of power and wrong doing...thats just what humans do, unfortunately.

I prefer republic over democrazy or monarchy or anarchy.

What really it boils down to is the greed of humanity, and money just fuels that fire of human greed, naturally we have a small amount of greed, but a monetary system amplifies that.

We must devise a system which is constitutional and a republic, but with LESS emphasis on profiteering and greed.

Really though, we will never achieve the goal of no greed or corruption in my mind.

But, we can minimize it!

We can do OUR BEST! and we can say at least we tried to make the world A BETTER PLACE for our children and theirs.

I cannot say the same for the politicians and their banking control freak buddies, like the central banks of the world, i know for a fact they do not give a crap about the future generations other than their own families.

On a side note, if you ever find yourself on jury duty, you are fully in your right to let someone off, because you think a law is unconstitutional.

huh?

well yea isn't that the purpose of a jury? you need total unanimous agreement, if one person doesn't then the 'accused' is let go am I right?

(maybe my court memory is rusty)

Yes, but that is not what they tell you. They tell you to decide if they broke the law or not, and most people think you are only deciding if they are guilty or not. They don't know, that even if the person is obviously guilty and broke the law, you can still let them go anyway.

'Humans are always in conflict, and if anarchy took place, who would be there to protect peoples homes and communities?'

Really? So there is no voluntary trade that doesn't involve coercion?

'No cops in anarchy..no fire department, no mail....nobody fixing the roads or bridges...nobody would fix and repair the sewer systems and water maintenance....'

So if the government doesn't provide a police service, a fire department, a mail system, roads and bridges then no one else will? The opposite of government providing everything is not that everyone has to do everything for themshelves. I buy shoes, toothbrushes and umbrellas without the government making them, why does that not hold true for police services, fire services and road services?

'In the end, republics are NOT PERFECT, we will NEVER achieve perfection, there will NEVER be a perfect harmonious society...its just not possible or feasible to have perfection.

But for me, republic is as close to perfection as I need.

There will always be cases of corruption, abuse of power and wrong doing...thats just what humans do, unfortunately.

I prefer republic over democrazy or monarchy or anarchy.

What really it boils down to is the greed of humanity, and money just fuels that fire of human greed, naturally we have a small amount of greed, but a monetary system amplifies that.

We must devise a system which is constitutional and a republic, but with LESS emphasis on profiteering and greed.'

Say I don't want this government. Say I want to live on my property in peace. Would I be coerced into this government and will competition to provide myself with a road system and basic utilities that are not government operated and owned be illegal?

'But, we can minimize it!'

You are going to minimize it where? By electing politicans who are not accountable to any of their campaign promises? By working within a legal system which is monopolized by the institution you seek to limit? The government is the judge of its own case.

so your saying private corporations running police departments is better? LOL their goal is profit...good luck with anarchy

Plenty of corruption in the private sector as well as government, what makes you think a private police/fire/military would follow good morals because in anarchy there are no rules or laws, companies could just put their cops on the street and kill people without consequence of jail or law.

you can't have a private anarchy police, doing LAW enforcement, when there is no law to enforce.

Good luck living in peace, how would you buy your toothbrush if everything was left up to anarchy? stores would be ransacked by thugs because no laws, no cops who follow laws, no jail...no punishment, just lawlessness....

how would money work in anarchy? who prints it, gives its value? congress needs to...but with no congress there wouldn't even be cash, how do you purchase goods?

the country would come to a halt, anarchy does not work. Plus, any ol bozo could counterfeit the cash and cheat everyone....

Also, without regulations in workplaces, bosses could impose unhealthy working conditions, overwork...underpay, or not even pay at all....

teachers could kill students, heck...no kid would even show up to school out of the chaos everywhere...

society would just cease to function, than some 'leader' such as a hitler, would try to seize power and install a government monarchy or oligarchy.

Originally Posted by guerilla

so your saying private corporations running police departments is better? LOL their goal is profit...good luck with anarchy

Plenty of corruption in the private sector as well as government, what makes you think a private police/fire/military would follow good morals because in anarchy there are no rules or laws, companies could just put their cops on the street and kill people without consequence of jail or law.

you can't have a private anarchy police, doing LAW enforcement, when there is no law to enforce.

Good luck living in peace, how would you buy your toothbrush if everything was left up to anarchy? stores would be ransacked by thugs because no laws, no cops who follow laws, no jail...no punishment, just lawlessness....

how would money work in anarchy? who prints it, gives its value? congress needs to...but with no congress there wouldn't even be cash, how do you purchase goods?

the country would come to a halt, anarchy does not work. Plus, any ol bozo could counterfeit the cash and cheat everyone....

Also, without regulations in workplaces, bosses could impose unhealthy working conditions, overwork...underpay, or not even pay at all....

teachers could kill students, heck...no kid would even show up to school out of the chaos everywhere...

society would just cease to function, than some 'leader' such as a hitler, would try to seize power and install a government monarchy or oligarchy.

I think you need to do some research into what Anarchy actually is, instead of just accepting the stereotype that it is chaos and serial killers will roam the land with no repurcussions.

'so your saying private corporations running police departments is better? LOL their goal is profit...good luck with anarchy'

Well at least you are implying that governmental police do not actually care about profit/loss incentive. Tell me this. Are goods and services better when rational economic calculation [ ie. price system with a desire for profit/loss ] or when it is just given out without any regard as to how much it will cost in a system where the customers are forever tied under it?

'
Plenty of corruption in the private sector as well as government, what makes you think a private police/fire/military would follow good morals because in anarchy there are no rules or laws, companies could just put their cops on the street and kill people without consequence of jail or law.'

Blueline makes a good point. You seem to labor under the premise that anarchy is just some smash and grab Hobbesian state of nature. Why can't there be rules? Why can't there be laws? How knowledgeable are you concerning anarchy? Or at least what is know as 'anarcho-capitalism'? The definition of the word anarchy in the political sense means no rulers. Who is a ruler? One who takes up the mantle of coercion and dictates to others how they should live their lives. Anarchy does not mean there can't be voluntary cooperation. Anarchy doesn't mean there can't be a system of basic natural rights.

'how would you buy your toothbrush if everything was left up to anarchy? stores would be ransacked by thugs because no laws, no cops who follow laws, no jail...no punishment, just lawlessness....'

Again you assume that without a monopoly on the system of law in a given territory [ ie the State ], that everything will devolve into chaos and a Hobbesian state of nature.

'how would money work in anarchy? who prints it, gives its value? congress needs to...but with no congress there wouldn't even be cash, how do you purchase goods?'

I find it strange that you say only congress can create and give value to money, then say someone can be a counterfeit and cheat people. First you have to realize how money evolves, money being a medium of exchange. Now under a barter system [ the trading of one good for another directly ] you have two issues which present themselves. One being a problem of indivisability which means say I want to sell a tractor. Well would have to actually break apart the tractor to meet my wants of say butter or bread. That is not an effective means of trade. Large, capital items that are complex cannot be utilized in a barter system. Another problem is double concidience of wants which means say I want to buy a hula-hoop and I'm a shoe maker. Well under barter I would have to find a shoe wanting hula hoop maker. What are the chances of that? Very slim. So what people instinctively do is indirect exchange. Instead of finding a shoe making hula hoop wanter, I instead trade my shoes for a commodity that everyone, or at least a great deal of people desire and I then trade that good for a hula hoop. This is a medium of exchange, this is what money is. Money in the past has been salt, cattle, tobacco, cigarettes [ in WWII POW camps ], fish hooks, however the best 'money' is one that has high divisibility, high per unit value and high surviviability. The best money time and time again is precious metals because they can be broken down to a high degree, have a high value and takes a good deal to destroy them through age. It is theoritically impossible for government to declare what is and isn't money as well as trying to engage in some kind of monetary social compact. No money in the history of the world has arisen in such a manner. Imagine the following scenario: You have never heard of money, someone says to you "Look at these flat rocks, do you not see the value in them? I will give you these flat rocks if you give me grain and I promise to you that everyone will accept these rocks in your trade" a rational individual would clearly see the absurdity of such a claim if they have never experienced money transaction.

'Also, without regulations in workplaces, bosses could impose unhealthy working conditions, overwork...underpay, or not even pay at all....'

I ran into this argument a great deal with socialist thinkers. You presume to think that without the government we would all be crawling around in the mud looking at our supposed capitalist overlords who 'force' us into the workplace. It is a rather delusional outlook.

'teachers could kill students, heck...no kid would even show up to school out of the chaos everywhere...'

Kids kill their teachers today. At least under an anarchist system, kids who don't want to be in school are not forced to go into it. And if a school experiences a high level of crime, then why can they not hire protection? Security to partrol the halls?

'
society would just cease to function, than some 'leader' such as a hitler, would try to seize power and install a government monarchy or oligarchy.

Well looks like Godwin's law strikes again. Why do you presume to think that society will some how fall apart because government is not around? Perhaps I am thinking of someone else who is talking but don't you want the full realization of liberty? You want to give liberty to the people yet here you are saying 'Oh well we can't give them the whole of liberty because...well they will just some how go crazy!' Who are you to arbitrarily define what is acceptable liberty? The difference between what you are saying and what someone who wants total government regulation and oppression is not a difference of kind but a difference in degree.

Perhaps this will help to better inform you over the debate between Anarchism and Minarchism [ Limited Government ] It is a lecture by Roderick Long, a philosopher with the Ludwig von Mises Institute and it involves commonly held objections that you seem to be presenting.

An Informal Talk on Anarchism and Ten Objections

regardless of all of that text you posted, I do not support nor will i ever support anarchy, I don't believe it works, especially in modern society.

I do admit my understanding of anarchy isn't very good but from what I do understand I do not like or support.

Originally Posted by guerilla

regardless of all of that text you posted, I do not support nor will i ever support anarchy, I don't believe it works, especially in modern society.

I do admit my understanding of anarchy isn't very good but from what I do understand I do not like or support.

So you admit that you are blatantly ignoring our arguments just because you don't think it will work, without doing research yourself.

Ignorance is bliss.

I've done research on anarchy before, and I'm not convinced. It never has happened in an entire country and it never will. Maybe small cases of some one horse town in iceland or whatever, but that is taken out of context. Never on a national level. Now, i'm not going to argue about anarchy anymore.

This thread was posted to discuss the globalist/new financial order policies among others, of the G20 summit and its participants. Get back on topic please

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

I've done research on anarchy before, and I'm not convinced. It never has happened in an entire country and it never will. Maybe small cases of some one horse town in iceland or whatever, but that is taken out of context. Never on a national level. Now, i'm not going to argue about anarchy anymore.

Yes, let's drop the topic because Wikipedia gave me all the information I need on Anarchy and I'm still not convinced.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

This thread was posted to discuss the globalist/new financial order policies among others, of the G20 summit and its participants. Get back on topic please

Very well.