Quote from: Mountainshield on August 06, 2014, 01:22:29 AM
They did not run out of money because of standing armies, they continually downsized their armies after the start of the 2nd century (the state diverted the funds to luxury trade instead), hired more auxiliaries instead of citizens which meant force equalization with the barbarians, went into a bunker mentality (building walls instead of sieges) and if you have read history you would know that the post Imperial system was built on the foundation of the Republican system, just like this modern liberal economy is feeding off the previous conservative economy, it is only a matter of time before welfare exceeds tax revenue and that is why they ran out of money.

Are you intentionally confusing conservatism and socialism or are you just this radically blind?

You have the option of declaring yourself stateless and renouncing your citizenship thereby voluntarily giving up your obligations to the state, why haven't you?

I'm not confusing conservatism and socialism.  I didn't even mention either in the quote you pulled.  I'm clearly opposed to socialism since I oppose the State.  Conservatism is not a fixed set of policies but is rather an attitude towards "conserving" some element(s) of the past, whether they be social values, tradition, the Constitution or the status quo. 

Your last sentence is absurd.  This is a variation on the leftist platitude that "if you choose to live in this territory then that must mean you have implicitly consented to be ruled by others."  Could I buy some property, then renounced my citizenship and give up my obligations to the State?  If that property happens to lie within the arbitrary lines that the State claims authority over, they WILL use violence against me. 

This whole argument of "why don't you just flee to some abandoned island and live there?  They you won't have to worry about State violence" is vacuous.  I'm not going to leave.  I have family and friends here, a job and connections that I cannot leave behind.  Even if I could just escape and carve out my own little corner of freedom in some remote part of the planet, my humanitarian instincts would not let me ignore the atrocities committed by States against other people.  I'd rather fight against the power of the State and amass a movement to oppose the initiation of force and the legitimacy of "rulers". 

Quote from: supsalemgr on August 08, 2014, 02:07:21 PM
Please share your shampoo brand. It has to be good to get all of the sand out ofyour hairt with your head stuck so far down. Denial is a wonderful liberal trait to rationalize their wishful beliefs.

Can you offer evidence to the contrary?  Don't hold back.  Share any single piece of evidence that Iran has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? 

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 08, 2014, 02:28:24 PM
I'm not confusing conservatism and socialism.  I didn't even mention either in the quote you pulled.  I'm clearly opposed to socialism since I oppose the State.  Conservatism is not a fixed set of policies but is rather an attitude towards "conserving" some element(s) of the past, whether they be social values, tradition, the Constitution or the status quo. 

Your last sentence is absurd.  This is a variation on the leftist platitude that "if you choose to live in this territory then that must mean you have implicitly consented to be ruled by others."  Could I buy some property, then renounced my citizenship and give up my obligations to the State?  If that property happens to lie within the arbitrary lines that the State claims authority over, they WILL use violence against me. 

This whole argument of "why don't you just flee to some abandoned island and live there?  They you won't have to worry about State violence" is vacuous.  I'm not going to leave.  I have family and friends here, a job and connections that I cannot leave behind.  Even if I could just escape and carve out my own little corner of freedom in some remote part of the planet, my humanitarian instincts would not let me ignore the atrocities committed by States against other people.  I'd rather fight against the power of the State and amass a movement to oppose the initiation of force and the legitimacy of "rulers".

I didn't ask you to leave the US, I asked you to renounce your citizenship in honor of your anarchist principles, you can still buy and own property in the US as a non-citizen and still be protected by the very system you abhor. But thanks for clarifying my point, you still like to have the extra protection that the state/collective provides you as a citizen.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 08, 2014, 02:39:11 PM
Can you offer evidence to the contrary?  Don't hold back.  Share any single piece of evidence that Iran has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?

I have no evidence as you have no evidence they are following it to the "T". I draw my conclusions from the history of the mullahs who run Iran. They have a track record of lies and deceit. Also, their involvement in other countries to support terrorists give me enough evidence to not trust a damn word they utter.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 08, 2014, 02:16:24 PM
Communism is NOT still a threat.  Are you kidding me?  The fact that we know that communism is a completely failed system should show us that they are not a threat to us.  That is not to say that some country might not become communist or adopt communist ideas, but that is a problem that those populations will have to deal with.

Just so you know, I stopped reading here, beyond that, your shit bores the hell out of me.
I have no interest in being lectured to by some kid that has absolutely no experience outside the opinions of others he's only read about.

As to your communism failed nonsense. Communism comes with many masks, from Progressivism, to Fabian socialism, to open Marxism.
To say it's dead because it's failed, is like claiming evil is dead, just because we don't see rampant murder.

The Dim party of this nation is now being led by communists, so don't tell me it's dead, because it's alive and thriving right under our nose.

FWIW, I see why you keep getting your ass banned from other sites, you bore people to death.
You may not have a life, but most people here have neither the time, nor the interest in what some, long winded ignorant kid thinks about a political system beyond his ability to conceive, let alone change to his vision of Utopia, all the while ignoring human nature.

I suggest you learn the art of compendious. Or run the risk of getting the boot from here as well.

Ya know, your myopic view of this subject exposes much about your lack of intellect in the subject of politics, but also reveals an obsessive flaw in your character.

If you have any real friends, I propose you seek their counsel on the matter.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2014, 07:29:22 AM
Just so you know, I stopped reading here, beyond that, your shit bores the hell out of me.
I have no interest in being lectured to by some kid that has absolutely no experience outside the opinions of others he's only read about.

As to your communism failed nonsense. Communism comes with many masks, from Progressivism, to Fabian socialism, to open Marxism.
To say it's dead because it's failed, is like claiming evil is dead, just because we don't see rampant murder.

The Dim party of this nation is now being led by communists, so don't tell me it's dead, because it's alive and thriving right under our nose.

FWIW, I see why you keep getting your ass banned from other sites, you bore people to death.
You may not have a life, but most people here have neither the time, nor the interest in what some, long winded ignorant kid thinks about a political system beyond his ability to conceive, let alone change to his vision of Utopia, all the while ignoring human nature.

I suggest you learn the art of compendious. Or run the risk of getting the boot from here as well.

Ya know, your myopic view of this subject exposes much about your lack of intellect in the subject of politics, but also reveals an obsessive flaw in your character.

If you have any real friends, I propose you seek their counsel on the matter.

If not, remember there is always b o care under your mom and dad insurance until your 26. 

Quote from: walkstall on August 09, 2014, 07:47:27 AM

If not, remember there is always b o care under your mom and dad insurance until your 26.

I think he claimed 28. so that's out.
In truth, his friends if honest, will server him far better than a govt paid shrink.

We all know why these people enter the field in the first place, they're freakin nuts who went in search for answers to their own idiosyncrasies.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2014, 08:19:55 AM
I think he claimed 28. so that's out.
In truth, his friends if honest, will server him far better than a govt paid shrink.

We all know why these people enter the field in the first place, they're freakin nuts who went in search for answers to their own idiosyncrasies.

If 28 then he should have b o care if need, it the law.    

I don't think he would have friends with common sense.  But I could be wrong. 

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2014, 07:29:22 AM
Just so you know, I stopped reading here, beyond that, your shit bores the hell out of me.
I have no interest in being lectured to by some kid that has absolutely no experience outside the opinions of others he's only read about.

As to your communism failed nonsense. Communism comes with many masks, from Progressivism, to Fabian socialism, to open Marxism.
To say it's dead because it's failed, is like claiming evil is dead, just because we don't see rampant murder.

The Dim party of this nation is now being led by communists, so don't tell me it's dead, because it's alive and thriving right under our nose.

FWIW, I see why you keep getting your ass banned from other sites, you bore people to death.
You may not have a life, but most people here have neither the time, nor the interest in what some, long winded ignorant kid thinks about a political system beyond his ability to conceive, let alone change to his vision of Utopia, all the while ignoring human nature.

I suggest you learn the art of compendious. Or run the risk of getting the boot from here as well.

Ya know, your myopic view of this subject exposes much about your lack of intellect in the subject of politics, but also reveals an obsessive flaw in your character.

If you have any real friends, I propose you seek their counsel on the matter.

You are clearly under no obligation to respond to my posts, but why resort to ad hominems and attacks?  I have a personal interest in libertarian ideas and so I like to poke my head into different political circles and compare my views with those of others. 

I think the tact of saying "I'm older and more experienced, therefore I don't have to listen to some 'kid' who knows nothing" is not only condescending but fallacious.  I'm not a kid, I'm 29 years old, a college graduate, and reasonably well educated.  I appreciate when flaws in my arguments are pointed out to me because I can rethink my positions and learn something.

But, to recap, you say I am "some kid who has absolutely no experience", I "bore people to death", I "may not have a life", I'm "ignorant", I speak about things "beyond my ability to conceive", my views are "myopic", I have a "lack of intellect on the subject of politics" and I have an "obsessive flaw in my character".  Oh and I probably have no real friends.

That is quite a lot of ad hominem attacks for one short post.  Maybe this forum is really not hospitable to debate and if this is the case, I don't have to stick around.  But that would be a shame because libertarians and Tea Party people have many similar views and concerns.  We don't need to let a few disagreements prevent us from communicating productively.

I would like someone to speak to the point that Rothbard made though, about the fact that Communism was never the military threat that it was made out to be.  It was, and is, an ideological threat which requires a different weapon to combat it than simply a projection of military might. 

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 09, 2014, 03:54:35 PM
You are clearly under no obligation to respond to my posts, but why resort to ad hominems and attacks?  I have a personal interest in libertarian ideas and so I like to poke my head into different political circles and compare my views with those of others. 

I think the tact of saying "I'm older and more experienced, therefore I don't have to listen to some 'kid' who knows nothing" is not only condescending but fallacious.  I'm not a kid, I'm 29 years old, a college graduate, and reasonably well educated.  I appreciate when flaws in my arguments are pointed out to me because I can rethink my positions and learn something.

But, to recap, you say I am "some kid who has absolutely no experience", I "bore people to death", I "may not have a life", I'm "ignorant", I speak about things "beyond my ability to conceive", my views are "myopic", I have a "lack of intellect on the subject of politics" and I have an "obsessive flaw in my character".  Oh and I probably have no real friends.

That is quite a lot of ad hominem attacks for one short post.  Maybe this forum is really not hospitable to debate and if this is the case, I don't have to stick around.  But that would be a shame because libertarians and Tea Party people have many similar views and concerns.  We don't need to let a few disagreements prevent us from communicating productively.

I would like someone to speak to the point that Rothbard made though, about the fact that Communism was never the military threat that it was made out to be.  It was, and is, an ideological threat which requires a different weapon to combat it than simply a projection of military might.

Son, that wasn't ad hominem, ad hominem is not based in fact. All of your posts are based on "Feelings", and opinion and never once proven to work throughout history, which is why all the previous descriptive's.

Oh, and when you reach my age, look back and ask yourself, if at 29 you weren't a kid.
I was a kid into my 30s, it's simply a part of life, the path towards maturity, Hell, to someone in their 90s, I'm a kid, by comparison to their wisdom.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2014, 05:01:17 PM
Son, that wasn't ad hominem, ad hominem is not based in fact. All of your posts are based on "Feelings", and opinion and never once proven to work throughout history, which is why all the previous descriptive's.

Oh, and when you reach my age, look back and ask yourself, if at 29 you weren't a kid.
I was a kid into my 30s, it's simply a part of life, the path towards maturity, Hell, to someone in their 90s, I'm a kid, by comparison to their wisdom.

I would say a Young wiper snapper.

Quote from: Solar on August 09, 2014, 05:01:17 PM
Son, that wasn't ad hominem, ad hominem is not based in fact. All of your posts are based on "Feelings", and opinion and never once proven to work throughout history, which is why all the previous descriptive's.

Oh, and when you reach my age, look back and ask yourself, if at 29 you weren't a kid.
I was a kid into my 30s, it's simply a part of life, the path towards maturity, Hell, to someone in their 90s, I'm a kid, by comparison to their wisdom.

Your debate tactic seems to be "I'm older so I win be default".  What do you mean my posts are based on feelings?  I have referenced several sources which support my views and I have named a few prominent libertarian historians and economists who have done quite a lot of empirical work on these questions.  Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win" is one that I think you really ought to read. 

I'm not saying it is practical for you to read every source I post but to say that my opinions are all based on feelings rather than any serious research and study is completely inaccurate.

Also, I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is.  It's not about whether it is based on "fact".  An ad hominem fallacy is, according to Wikipedia "a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

So when you say I am myopic, or ignorant, or lack intelligence or have a character flaw or any other thing, this is irrelevant to whether or not my argument is correct or not.  All these things, as a general matter, could be true.  But they would still have no bearing on whether or not my arguments on this post are correct or not.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 09, 2014, 05:45:50 PM
Your debate tactic seems to be "I'm older so I win be default".  What do you mean my posts are based on feelings?  I have referenced several sources which support my views and I have named a few prominent libertarian historians and economists who have done quite a lot of empirical work on these questions.  Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win" is one that I think you really ought to read. 

Your posts are based on feelings, because despite historical evidence, you still claim your utopia will work.
Show me one working society as an example.
And yes, age and wisdom has everything to do with it. You can't get practical experience from a book or from the opinion of a professor, you have to get out and experience it for yourself, come to conclusions rooted in personal first hand knowledge..

QuoteI'm not saying it is practical for you to read every source I post but to say that my opinions are all based on feelings rather than any serious research and study is completely inaccurate.

Also, I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is.  It's not about whether it is based on "fact".  An ad hominem fallacy is, according to Wikipedia "a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

ad hominem: Appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason), that is the dictionary version of ad hom, and yes,  I was appealing to fact based on reason from the nonsense you've written.

QuoteSo when you say I am myopic, or ignorant, or lack intelligence or have a character flaw or any other thing, this is irrelevant to whether or not my argument is correct or not.  All these things, as a general matter, could be true.  But they would still have no bearing on whether or not my arguments on this post are correct or not.

You are myopic, this is the ONLY subject you've posted in, on an entire forum full of topics, so yeah, that is by definition, "Myopic".
Ignorant on the other hand was meant exactly by definition, "lacking knowledge", which brings us full circle, you are young and inexperienced and fail to grasp the consequences of your argument.

My final statement is based on wisdom gleaned over decades of experience in studying human nature, something you fail to recognize.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 09, 2014, 05:45:50 PM
Your debate tactic seems to be "I'm older so I win be default".  What do you mean my posts are based on feelings?  I have referenced several sources which support my views and I have named a few prominent libertarian historians and economists who have done quite a lot of empirical work on these questions.  Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win" is one that I think you really ought to read. 

I'm not saying it is practical for you to read every source I post but to say that my opinions are all based on feelings rather than any serious research and study is completely inaccurate.

Also, I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is.  It's not about whether it is based on "fact".  An ad hominem fallacy is, according to Wikipedia "a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

So when you say I am myopic, or ignorant, or lack intelligence or have a character flaw or any other thing, this is irrelevant to whether or not my argument is correct or not.  All these things, as a general matter, could be true.  But they would still have no bearing on whether or not my arguments on this post are correct or not.

jrodefeld, why do muslims hate us so much?

Quote from: taxed on August 09, 2014, 09:27:54 PM
jrodefeld, why do muslims hate us so much?

Because we're capitalists?, ummm, no, were on their claimed land?, nah again, because we're in league with Jooos, nah?

Oh, I know, because they're fools that follow a religion dreamed up by a pedophile that tells them Allah will give them 70 virgins if they kill and die in his name, that all non Arabs are infidels and must be killed or forced into slavery.

Wait, are you saying there are unreasonable people in the world, that not everyone is interested in fair trade with you, that they'd rather just take what you have and kill you?

Hmmm, it would appear that a army beyond ones border would be a necessary evil if you want to survive.
So lets see, what would work better, an army made up of citizens of like minded people willing to fight and die to protect what they've created, or a private security force, one that only owes allegiance to those willing to pay top price.

Gee Taxed, I'm gonna have to stick with an army of my true friends and citizens, because word has it, a mercenary force can easily be bought off by my enemies.
And then there's always the teeny tiny chance that my paid security, might just turn on me because I refused to have my own military, one that would protect my non-govt, govt.

Imagine that, people with self interest over an ideal Utopia. But it would work if everyone was willing to give up human nature, the drive to conquer ones domain, dominate the weak and foolish.