Quote from: Darth Fife on August 02, 2014, 08:22:05 PM
You really need to do some research, you ignorance on this topic is glaringly apparent.

Since the first tests prior to the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagaski, there have been a total of 2119 nuclear detonations!

And no "nuclear winter".

I suggest you stop reading DNC Talking points and start reading some history.

-Darth

I don't claim to be an expert on nuclear weapons.  I think you are missing my larger point.  When I said we could have "a few dozen" nuclear warheads as a deterrent, I was using that as an example only.  I don't have to know what the proper proportionate size of our nuclear arsenal should be.  I would leave it up to private defense agencies and experts who know far more than I do about what is necessary to provide security to their clients.  I maintain that the use of a nuclear weapon, not as a controlled test but in actual conflict cannot be morally justified.  And I would prefer that we work to reduce and eventually eliminate the worldwide stockpile of nuclear weapons.  But I know that so long as Russia has them, and China has them, and Israel and Pakistan have them, then it would be necessary to have some as a deterrent.

I would prefer you respond to my larger point rather than nitpicking on what size our nuclear arsenal should be in a theoretical anarchist society.  Obviously I would never be in a position to make that determination anyway.  Private defense agencies who have assessed the risk of attack and are willing to pay the insurance premiums, would be making their determination based on extensive research, what the most cost effective means of preventing and repelling attack from another nation state. 

I don't get any information from DNC talking points by the way.  Anyone who takes seriously the non aggression principle should want to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons, since their use can never be justified. 

I don't think the fact that there have been a total of more than 2000 nuclear detonations is really a fair comparison of a nuclear war between two similarly equipped superpowers.  Nuclear detonations that are done on a relatively small scale for testing purposes under controlled situations is obviously quite different.

I was thinking more along the lines of us dropping an hydrogen bomb on Moscow and Russia dropping a hydrogen bomb on Los Angeles.  Nuclear winter or not, you can't tell me that a nuclear exchange of that magnitude wouldn't alter the course of history forever.  If we actually had the capacity to do such a thing to Russia, you think they would want to risk it by invading us?  Exactly how many Russian cities would we need to have the capacity to wipe out before it would provide a sufficient deterrent effect to keep them from attacking us? 

I concede that I am no expert on this but I have read some very persuasive literature on the subject.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 07:28:07 PM
If another State wants to invade and conquer your territory and they have a more powerful army as you stipulated, whether you are a State or a Stateless society, you are at a disadvantage.

Hence why you are assured to be conquered, versus an army or militia attempting to defend.

Quote
  If an invading army is much larger and more powerful, you are likely to lose regardless.

Sun Tzu may disagree with you.  He may agree with you, though, that one or two people may be at quite a disadvantage instead of an army.

Quote
  I maintain that the incentive for a nation state to invade will still be less in a Stateless society than one with an existing tax base and population that is acclimated to being ruled, but why would you assume that a Stateless society would have inferior resources and strength to defend itself?

Maybe, or maybe not.  That is what you hope, but the hypothetical question I pose has to do with a recurring theme since the beginning of time.

Quote
This seems like a faulty assumption to me.  Each individual defense agency will have calculated the risk of invasion and will have made precautions in order to effectively repel such an attack.  It is highly likely that that various competing defense agencies will have formed agreements with each other in order to defend their clientele in a coordinated fashion if a very powerful army invades the territory.  Of course, if an invading army takes over a nearby community, your community and property are also at risk so you have every incentive to pay for the collective defense in such a situation.

The weeds we need to get into has to do with how we get to that point where we have the agency.  Also, your neighbors aren't compelled to fight necessarily.  Why would they help you fight for your property? Your property is your property.  It's yours, because you will defend it and fight to the death to prove it's yours.  I recognize that and agree with it, from that perspective.  If I'm on my own, I will do everything I can to help others around me, but if ISIS rolls into "town", I'll haul ass and say "Sorry bro... gotta run!".  There is a yin/yang to everything.  To the universe.  If you own property, then there is another side to it where you must defend it.

Your chain of hope and the sequence of mutual agreement you would rely on may or may not be there.  Meanwhile, ISIS, in my current event hypothetical, is beheading everyone around you.

Quote
Furthermore, citizen militias and voluntary armies can play an important role.  Following the Swiss model, fighting age males can be encouraged to be armed and trained in the event of an invasion.  In fact, defense agencies and insurance companies will offer a discounted rate to customers who can display proficiency in self defense and who own a gun or several.

This is where it goes off the rails to me.  Again, I'm with you, but you can't have your state-cake and eat it too.  When the mutual peace is disrupted, the individuals are on their own.  If a person or a family in your proximity is in trouble, everyone will band together and help them.  I know people are mostly good and it is human nature for us to help.  But when that own person's peace is in jeopardy, it goes out the window.  When people are on their own, they will stay on their own.

Quote
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, it needn't be said that the use of such weapons would ALWAYS be immoral from a libertarian standpoint.

How do we get to the point of even getting the infrastructure in place TO have nuclear weapons.  I'm wondering what land are we going to forcibly seize and defend to allow us to manufacture such weapons?

Quote
  And the goal should be to reduce them and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons altogether.

That would be great, but will China, Russia, etc., go along with it?  How do we communicate our new way of life to them, and convince the Putins of the world that they need to step down and let everyone do their own thing?  How to we get there?

Quote
  But as long as they exist and other nation states have them, it would be irresponsible to unilaterally disarm.  We would have to keep some of them for the purpose of deterring attacks from other nation states. 

Who is we?  There isn't a state.  Who is going to house them?

Quote
The only weapons that can be legitimately used according to libertarian theory are those that can specifically target only the bad guys.  If you have a weapon that must by necessity injure and harm innocent people through its use, then it cannot ever be justified.  Nuclear weapons fall into this category.  So do biological weapons.

Sounds good to me.  Just let me know how we get the rest of the world on board.
 

Quote
Did you see a recent segment on John Oliver's show about the state of our nuclear weapons as maintained by the US government?

No.  I'm a thinker.

Quote
It is very funny but also very telling.  I believe that a couple dozen nuclear warheads could suffice just fine as a deterrent rather than more than four thousand.  And I have no doubt that a private company on the market could responsibly look after such weapons far better than any State.  Of course the insurance premiums for any such company would be through the roof given the inherent danger of such weaponry.

I grew up under a military history and strategy expert, and I can say you, nor I, have any clue about war, and it is foolish for you to pretend.  The complexities of battle are mind boggling.  To do it with a bunch of individuals just seems completely impossible to me.  Battle and executing a battle is an art and science, honed over thousands of years.

To people like myself, who were pretty hard-core libertarians, and are still so at heart, you need to get past the defense thing.  You're not preaching Marx.  Everyone here wants what you are preaching, a society where we are free and peaceful.  The reality is, and maybe why I see things the way I do with how I grew up with battlefield maps on walls all over the house, is there are bad people out there.  You want to hope that "we're the problem", and if we leave others alone, then they will leave us alone.  We're good guys, and we're still the problem?  How do you think the bad guys are?  Look at ISIS.  Now look at ISIS with nuclear weapons and tanks.  They are killing plenty of their own kind of their own religion.

One thing I think may help you, for your cause, is to understand the technology and lifestyle you enjoy would probably have to take a back seat in your world.  I, personally, would be OK with it, but you aren't able to compete, militarily or technologically, with the rest of the world as individuals.

I'm open to this discussion, because I'd love to be convinced it can be done.  You need to make the case on how to get there.  How do we get Putin and Jinping on board?

Quote from: Solar on August 02, 2014, 08:49:34 PM
Macho? I'm flattered, because being a man is what it's all about. Never backing down from a fight, you know, like our Founders?

You can't answer my question, so you create your own and answer it? That is not what is referred to as debate, that is obfuscation.
I specifically described a blockade event, one where you are not being allowed to enter your allies waters, one in which you are being provoked, one that will expose your weakness, in turn showing cowardliness to your enemy, an enemy looking for weakness in resolve.
And you just gave it to them.

They've made their intentions clear, cross their line, and be destroyed, yet you think you can bargain, or turn and run, regardless of obligation to your ally?
Oh I understand it quite clearly, you're a syndicalist, one that believes in no govt, a dreamer, a denier of human nature.
You mentioned macho, what you fail to understand, is I would happily kick your ass, take your women, steal your country, all because I hate effeminate men.
Granted, you aren't a leader, and I don't see a country that runs on your fanciful principles, so I won't be invading today.

Point is, that mentality exists in the M/E, and to deny it is a fools prize.

Let's be very clear in our language.  What is "exposing weakness", "weakness in resolve" and displaying "cowardliness"?  Can you or can you not justify aggression?

There is a very specific threshold for aggression and it is a boundary crossing of an antagonist against the physical body of another and/or their justly acquired property.  If this boundary crossing occurs, then the victim and every other person that chooses to come to their aid, can use self defense against the aggressor.

So be very specific in your example.  Now, let's suppose another nation state refuses to allow me access to certain waters.  Who has jurisdiction over those waters?  Are they in the territory of the nation state that is doing the blockading? 

If I own a company that wants to do business with someone in another country and I send over a ship full of goods to exchange with people who want to engage in free trade with me, what would the blockading country do?  Now, I stipulate that I am not crossing the borders of the blockading nation or their territory.  If they try to use force and aggression against me, I am perfectly justified in self defense.  I can defend my ships from unjustified aggression and continue to trade freely with the people of another nation unmolested.

Anyone in the stateless society could support the effort to fight off the blockading nation.  Not to invade them, or kill civilians or wage war, but to defend the ships and free exchange of goods and services into and out of the country that want to engage with us in free trade.

Is that a clear enough answer for you on the issue of a blockade?  However, each defense agency and company in the anarchist society will have to make a determination whether or not it is worth it to continue to spent the money to ensure free trade in certain volatile parts of the world. 

Here is an example from modern society.  If the United States has an embassy in the middle east and we maintain a military presence in that region of the world, then we are more exposed to acts of aggression by terrorists.  And, since each individual owns themselves and stipulating that the property we inhabit on such an embassy or military presence was acquired legitimately, i.e. it was sold to us or we were invited in by some nation.  Of course we would have the right to defend ourselves against the terrorists.

But at some point we would have to say "let's not continue to maintain a presence in a dangerous part of the world and leave us vulnerable to attacks by terrorists."  It might be more financially feasible and pragmatic to just avoid sticking your head into volatile situations.

That doesn't mean that you are a "coward" or you are "showing weakness" to Al Qaeda or any of that childish nonsense.  Have you ever heard the saying that the best revenge is to live well?

If it bleeds us dry financially and in human life to teach a handful of terrorists a lesson and not "show weakness" then the terrorists have won. 

In a free society, you can spend your own resources in any way you see fit.  You wouldn't have the right to commit aggression under libertarian law, but you could come to the aid of ANY subjugated and oppressed people anywhere in the world.  If you, or another company, want to trade with another nation and some other country is blockading you, but not directly attacking you, then you can spend your own resources on a private military escort to accompany the free exchange of goods and services with the other nation.

What you can't do is steal my money to fund your idea of "projecting strength".

Is that clear now?

Quote from: Solar on August 02, 2014, 08:49:34 PM
If Al quiada attacks, what nation are you going to nuke?
Welcome to the real world.
Peace through strength. The man with the most guns wins, that's the law of nature.I gave you one, look it up online, it has no copyright, considering it's roughly as old as the bible.
That single book will give you an inside look at the soul of man, and his need to dominate, and it's still referenced by armies around the globe to this day.

Because in a thousand years, man has not changed one iota, only cultures, and some evolve into conquerors, and unfortunately, it will always be that way, because the world breeds bullies everyday, while it also breeds men of strength and resolve to take them on, which inevitably leads to war.
And that my friend, is human nature.

You think Al Qaeda is such a grave threat?  A few thousand impoverished desperate radical Muslims living in caves? 

Have you forgotten that Al Qaeda was essentially created by the United States government?  We armed and enabled the Mujahadeen (as they were called) during the Reagan Administration.  If you actually read the reasons Osama bin Laden gave for the attacks on 9/11, it had everything to do with our military occupation, puppet dictators, bombing campaigns and blind support for Israel.

Osama was quite explicit that his goal was to bog the United States down in a protracted war and bleed us dry financially.  We have exceeded his wildest dreams.

"Peace through strength" is a nice sounding phrase but do you really mean that?  Do you have an ideological objection to the use of aggression?  Because from my understanding, you would indeed support the use of aggression under a variety of circumstances.

If you mean that we should have the capacity to adequately defend ourselves against any potential threat, then we agree.  When did I ever say otherwise? 

Can you please give me a direct answer.  Do you think you can ever justify the use of aggression, that is the initiation of force?

Quote from: TowardLiberty on August 02, 2014, 08:18:58 AM
The thing about the word aggression is that has a real meaning, signifying a boundary crossing between people.

It does not mean, "those who disagree with me." lolz

You can understand if others do not see the constitution as anything other than an assault of liberty. For one thing, anyone who thinks a contract they signed, binds others, has no clue about contracts, freedom, nor basic common sense.

And the constitution authorized the very government we have today. No better reason to dump it exists, in my view.

No, dumping the Constitution would be an assault on liberty. 

If you have not done so already, I would encourage you to watch D'Souza's film "America"

http://www.americathemovie.com/trailers/american_moments/

"The Revolution was a struggle for the creation of America. The Civil War was a struggle for the preservation of America. World War II was a struggle for the protection of America. Our struggle is for the restoration of America."    -- D'Souza
 

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 09:40:56 PM

I would prefer you respond to my larger point rather than nitpicking on what size our nuclear arsenal should be in a theoretical anarchist society. 

An Anarchist society is not possible. as I've said before it is an unstable society whose only purpose can be to transition from one form of government to another - usually from a government that protects the individual liberties of its citizens, to a tyrannical government that exercises unlimited authority and control over its citizens.

Even if it were possible, an anarchist state, where there is no central authority whatsoever, in possession of an arsenal of nuclear weapons is a concept that should scare the hell out of any sane individual!

-Darth 

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 02, 2014, 10:26:17 PM
Let's be very clear in our language.  What is "exposing weakness", "weakness in resolve" and displaying "cowardliness"?  Can you or can you not justify aggression?

There is a very specific threshold for aggression and it is a boundary crossing of an antagonist against the physical body of another and/or their justly acquired property.  If this boundary crossing occurs, then the victim and every other person that chooses to come to their aid, can use self defense against the aggressor.

So be very specific in your example.

Good God son, all that shit, just to say be specific, as if I wasn't concise already?

QuoteNow, let's suppose another nation state refuses to allow me access to certain waters.  Who has jurisdiction over those waters?  Are they in the territory of the nation state that is doing the blockading? 

If I own a company that wants to do business with someone in another country and I send over a ship full of goods to exchange with people who want to engage in free trade with me, what would the blockading country do?  Now, I stipulate that I am not crossing the borders of the blockading nation or their territory.  If they try to use force and aggression against me, I am perfectly justified in self defense.  I can defend my ships from unjustified aggression and continue to trade freely with the people of another nation unmolested.

Anyone in the stateless society could support the effort to fight off the blockading nation.  Not to invade them, or kill civilians or wage war, but to defend the ships and free exchange of goods and services into and out of the country that want to engage with us in free trade.

Try the Straights of Hormuz, Cape Horn, Red sea, take your pick, you aren't being allowed passage, all because you refused to stand up the first time you were challenged.

QuoteIs that a clear enough answer for you on the issue of a blockade?  However, each defense agency and company in the anarchist society will have to make a determination whether or not it is worth it to continue to spent the money to ensure free trade in certain volatile parts of the world.

So your entire way of life rests in the hands of hired guns? You really are nutzzz!
I just outbid your anarchist industry, and now control your hired guns, now  get bthe Hell off my land!

QuoteHere is an example from modern society.  If the United States has an embassy in the middle east and we maintain a military presence in that region of the world, then we are more exposed to acts of aggression by terrorists.  And, since each individual owns themselves and stipulating that the property we inhabit on such an embassy or military presence was acquired legitimately, i.e. it was sold to us or we were invited in by some nation.  Of course we would have the right to defend ourselves against the terrorists.

But at some point we would have to say "let's not continue to maintain a presence in a dangerous part of the world and leave us vulnerable to attacks by terrorists."  It might be more financially feasible and pragmatic to just avoid sticking your head into volatile situations.

Now see if you can figure out on your own, just what message you just sent the bully terrorists?

QuoteThat doesn't mean that you are a "coward" or you are "showing weakness" to Al Qaeda or any of that childish nonsense.  Have you ever heard the saying that the best revenge is to live well?

Yeah, stated by a pacifist at his hanging.

QuoteIf it bleeds us dry financially and in human life to teach a handful of terrorists a lesson and not "show weakness" then the terrorists have won. 

Then you have no other option but to fight, now do you?

QuoteIn a free society, you can spend your own resources in any way you see fit.  You wouldn't have the right to commit aggression under libertarian law, but you could come to the aid of ANY subjugated and oppressed people anywhere in the world.  If you, or another company, want to trade with another nation and some other country is blockading you, but not directly attacking you, then you can spend your own resources on a private military escort to accompany the free exchange of goods and services with the other nation.

What you can't do is steal my money to fund your idea of "projecting strength".

Is that clear now?

So let me see if I get this right. Your little nation state, that isn't a state at all, has no govt, is nothing more than a conglomerate of cooperative interests living in harmony, correct?
So why is one entity allowed to decide it's in your "no nation" best interest to not use force in your endeavors, in turn putting the rest of you'r "no nation state in jeopardy?
I guess because you have no govt, no one has a say in your "no nation state" outside of a corporate decision taken by a vote of shareholders.
Boy, you're screwed!

QuoteYou think Al Qaeda is such a grave threat?  A few thousand impoverished desperate radical Muslims living in caves?

I see you still haven't looked up Wahhabi.

QuoteHave you forgotten that Al Qaeda was essentially created by the United States government?  We armed and enabled the Mujahadeen (as they were called) during the Reagan Administration.  If you actually read the reasons Osama bin Laden gave for the attacks on 9/11, it had everything to do with our military occupation, puppet dictators, bombing campaigns and blind support for Israel.

Ignorance on display again.

QuoteOsama was quite explicit that his goal was to bog the United States down in a protracted war and bleed us dry financially.  We have exceeded his wildest dreams.

You give way to much credit to a single individual when his ideals are shared by millions.

Quote"Peace through strength" is a nice sounding phrase but do you really mean that?

You bet I do, and I practice here in the wilderness.
 

QuoteDo you have an ideological objection to the use of aggression?  Because from my understanding, you would indeed support the use of aggression under a variety of circumstances.

OK?

QuoteIf you mean that we should have the capacity to adequately defend ourselves against any potential threat, then we agree.  When did I ever say otherwise? 

Aw cut the crap, your entire premise is built on pacifism.

QuoteCan you please give me a direct answer.  Do you think you can ever justify the use of aggression, that is the initiation of force?

Son, you really need to learn how to debate, we've beaten that horse into the dust.

What part of "aggression" that has been taken by our president against this country don't you understand?

Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2014, 08:01:00 AM
Good God son, all that shit, just to say be specific, as if I wasn't concise already?
Try the Straights of Hormuz, Cape Horn, Red sea, take your pick, you aren't being allowed passage, all because you refused to stand up the first time you were challenged.


So your entire way of life rests in the hands of hired guns? You really are nutzzz!
I just outbid your anarchist industry, and now control your hired guns, now  get bthe Hell off my land!
Now see if you can figure out on your own, just what message you just sent the bully terrorists?

Yeah, stated by a pacifist at his hanging.
Then you have no other option but to fight, now do you?
So let me see if I get this right. Your little nation state, that isn't a state at all, has no govt, is nothing more than a conglomerate of cooperative interests living in harmony, correct?
So why is one entity allowed to decide it's in your "no nation" best interest to not use force in your endeavors, in turn putting the rest of you'r "no nation state in jeopardy?
I guess because you have no govt, no one has a say in your "no nation state" outside of a corporate decision taken by a vote of shareholders.
Boy, you're screwed!
 
I see you still haven't looked up Wahhabi.
Ignorance on display again.You give way to much credit to a single individual when his ideals are shared by millions.
You bet I do, and I practice here in the wilderness.
  OK?Aw cut the crap, your entire premise is built on pacifism.
Son, you really need to learn how to debate, we've beaten that horse into the dust.

I'm still trying to figure out how he's going to get Putin, ISIS, etc., to go along with this.  Also, where is he going to manufacture stuff and innovate?

Quote from: taxed on August 03, 2014, 03:06:44 PM


I'm still trying to figure out how he's going to get Putin, ISIS, etc., to go along with this.  Also, where is he going to manufacture stuff and innovate?

BINGO!
That's my point about a blockade. If you don't kick ass at the first sign of a threat, you're screwed.

But Putin, ISIS, China, they'll all see that he's a pacifist/Anarchist/LIBertarian and probably invite him to a beer summit and sing Kum by ya.

Besides, he has corporate military waiting in the wings, oh, and they're insured.

Quote from: taxed on August 02, 2014, 10:06:28 PM
Hence why you are assured to be conquered, versus an army or militia attempting to defend.
Sun Tzu may disagree with you.  He may agree with you, though, that one or two people may be at quite a disadvantage instead of an army.
Maybe, or maybe not.  That is what you hope, but the hypothetical question I pose has to do with a recurring theme since the beginning of time.
The weeds we need to get into has to do with how we get to that point where we have the agency.  Also, your neighbors aren't compelled to fight necessarily.  Why would they help you fight for your property? Your property is your property.  It's yours, because you will defend it and fight to the death to prove it's yours.  I recognize that and agree with it, from that perspective.  If I'm on my own, I will do everything I can to help others around me, but if ISIS rolls into "town", I'll haul ass and say "Sorry bro... gotta run!".  There is a yin/yang to everything.  To the universe.  If you own property, then there is another side to it where you must defend it.

Your chain of hope and the sequence of mutual agreement you would rely on may or may not be there.  Meanwhile, ISIS, in my current event hypothetical, is beheading everyone around you.
This is where it goes off the rails to me.  Again, I'm with you, but you can't have your state-cake and eat it too.  When the mutual peace is disrupted, the individuals are on their own.  If a person or a family in your proximity is in trouble, everyone will band together and help them.  I know people are mostly good and it is human nature for us to help.  But when that own person's peace is in jeopardy, it goes out the window.  When people are on their own, they will stay on their own.
How do we get to the point of even getting the infrastructure in place TO have nuclear weapons.  I'm wondering what land are we going to forcibly seize and defend to allow us to manufacture such weapons?

That would be great, but will China, Russia, etc., go along with it?  How do we communicate our new way of life to them, and convince the Putins of the world that they need to step down and let everyone do their own thing?  How to we get there?
Who is we?  There isn't a state.  Who is going to house them?
Sounds good to me.  Just let me know how we get the rest of the world on board.
  No.  I'm a thinker.
I grew up under a military history and strategy expert, and I can say you, nor I, have any clue about war, and it is foolish for you to pretend.  The complexities of battle are mind boggling.  To do it with a bunch of individuals just seems completely impossible to me.  Battle and executing a battle is an art and science, honed over thousands of years.

To people like myself, who were pretty hard-core libertarians, and are still so at heart, you need to get past the defense thing.  You're not preaching Marx.  Everyone here wants what you are preaching, a society where we are free and peaceful.  The reality is, and maybe why I see things the way I do with how I grew up with battlefield maps on walls all over the house, is there are bad people out there.  You want to hope that "we're the problem", and if we leave others alone, then they will leave us alone.  We're good guys, and we're still the problem?  How do you think the bad guys are?  Look at ISIS.  Now look at ISIS with nuclear weapons and tanks.  They are killing plenty of their own kind of their own religion.

One thing I think may help you, for your cause, is to understand the technology and lifestyle you enjoy would probably have to take a back seat in your world.  I, personally, would be OK with it, but you aren't able to compete, militarily or technologically, with the rest of the world as individuals.

I'm open to this discussion, because I'd love to be convinced it can be done.  You need to make the case on how to get there.  How do we get Putin and Jinping on board?

You're right, I'd love nothing more than to live in the society he envisions, but I'm a realist, I know there is evil in the world, it's basic human nature, as sad as that is.

Maybe these anarchists need to start a commune as an experiment?

Quote from: suzziY on August 02, 2014, 11:46:36 PM
No, dumping the Constitution would be an assault on liberty. 

If you have not done so already, I would encourage you to watch D'Souza's film "America"

http://www.americathemovie.com/trailers/american_moments/

"The Revolution was a struggle for the creation of America. The Civil War was a struggle for the preservation of America. World War II was a struggle for the protection of America. Our struggle is for the restoration of America."    -- D'Souza

I think the Federal Government that was established by ratifying the Constitution has been systematically assaulting the liberties of every American for a couple of centuries now.  That is not to say that the Constitution cannot serve a pragmatic purpose as a theoretical limitation on State power, but it remains theoretical.  The Constitution has completely failed as a restraint on Federal Power.  Hans Hoppe has argued that the Constitution was never intended to limit the power of the state but rather to expand and promote centralized power.  The Anti Federalists had it right all along, but they were deceived.  They were assured that the "General welfare", "Necessary and proper" and other clauses could not be misinterpreted.  They were assured that the Constitution listed an exhaustive list of the proper delegated functions of the central State and that any function not explicitly delegated would be reserved to the States and the people.

How has this worked out for us?  You may protest and say that we just need to "hold our representatives accountable", and elect Congressmen and Presidents who take their oath to the Constitution seriously.  In the last half century I can think of only one man who actually took this oath seriously and upheld those principles throughout a political career.  Of course Ron Paul is the one I am thinking of, but even if I am generous and concede that there may have been a small handful of others over the last century who were similarly principled in their adherence to the Constitution, that still represents less than 1% of elected politicians during that time period.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper.  It has no power of its own to actually restrain State power.  In fact it legitimizes the growth of State power.  We are told that the Constitution is some divinely inspired near-perfect document establishing our Union.  It is supposedly beyond reproach and to question the legitimacy of the State as any sort of just authority is naturally to question the legitimacy of the Constitution itself, which leads individuals such as yourself to react by calling proponents of such an idea "enemies of liberty". 

Who have we entrusted with the right to interpret the Constitution?  The Supreme Court, a part of the very central authority we are entrusting it to restrain.  Naturally, the Supreme Court will continue to interpret the text of the document more and more broadly, thus legitimizing any expansion of State power.  If any of us question, say, the Affordable Care Act, our opponents will cite the Supreme Court ruling which ruled that the law is Constitutional.

If you or I are having a dispute and we want someone to arbitrate, you wouldn't be okay with me having my father decide which of us is correct.  He would not be an impartial arbiter.  In the same way, the Supreme Court, as part of the agency being judged, cannot be an impartial arbiter of judging the Constitutionality of government law. 

The conclusion that one must reach is that the Constitution and the Supreme Court are merely propaganda tools and methods of lending legitimacy to expansions of State power. 


You mention D'Souza and his film.  I am not a fan of D'Souza and that quote exemplifies why.  "The Revolution was the struggle for the creation of America".  I would rephrase it since those who risked their lives in the Revolutionary War were not fighting for the establishment of a central State or any collective.  They were fighting for independence from a tyrant and for freedom. 

"The Civil War was a struggle for the preservation of America."  Wrong.  Dead wrong.  The Civil War was fought to establish a more powerful central authority and to destroy the original intent of the Constitution.  Lincoln cared little about the issue of slavery, he cared about preventing Southern secession through violence.  One of the end results of that war was indeed the 13th Amendment which emancipated the slaves, but the lasting ramifications were to forever discredit the concept of secession, States rights and interposition and nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. 

From the drafting of the Constitution, there existed a faction of individuals who desired a powerful central authority without limits.  The Federalists and the Hamiltonians favored expansive powers.  Hamilton wanted a central bank.  Lincoln merely furthered the Hamiltonian vision.  A few generations later, Woodrow Wilson created the income tax, the Federal Reserve system and he set a precedent for total war throughout the 20th century with his ill fated decision to get us involved in the first World War.

You may indeed dislike the Progressives who you claim "hijacked" this country in the early part of the 20th century, but this expansion of State power was set in motion by embracing the Federalists and rejecting the Anti Federalists.  By supporting the Constitution, you are giving the State their most important propaganda tool with which they have claimed legitimacy and expanded their power through Supreme Court rulings.

"World War II was a struggle for the protection of America".  Not really.  The lesson of WW2 should be that we should refrain from intervening in the internal affairs of other nations.  I am not saying that Hitler didn't pose a threat, but we created the conditions for his rise to power when we intervened twenty years earlier in the first World War.  The Versailles Treaty imposed heavy reparations on Germany and combined with the cost of a prolonged war (lengthened by US intervention) contributed to hyperinflation in Germany and a loss of industry and great poverty.  Plus the universal blame placed on Germany for all the damage caused by the Great War, explicitly stated in the so called "guilt" clause of the Versaille Treaty, led to resentment.  Economic devastation and all these factors combined to permit a lunatic like Adolf Hitler to gain traction as a rising political figure, promising to lead the German people out of their post war conditions.

World War II should be properly viewed as the largest and most devastating example of blowback in American history.  If the United States didn't intervene in World War 1, that war would have likely been over years earlier, we wouldn't have signed the Versailles Treaty and Germany likely wouldn't have experienced hyperinflation.  And Adolf Hitler would have remained a nobody. 

Quote from: taxed on August 03, 2014, 03:06:44 PM


I'm still trying to figure out how he's going to get Putin, ISIS, etc., to go along with this.  Also, where is he going to manufacture stuff and innovate?

I'm going to suggest a book you all should read.  It is called "The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production" by Hans Hermann Hoppe and various contributors.  It will dispel any convictions you have that the only effective way to provide adequate defense is through a nation state.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-National-Defense-Production/dp/0945466374/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1407134206&sr=8-2&keywords=the+production+of+security&tag=donations09-20

I don't know what you mean "how he's going to get Putin, ISIS, etc., to go along with this"?  I don't have to "get" them to do anything.  If they are threatening us, or are about to invade and attack, then we defend ourselves.  Private militia, private defense agencies and mercenaries would repel the attack and destroy the enemy.  Contrary to what Solar believes, I am NOT a pacifist.  He really needs to look up the definition of that word.  A pacifist is someone who rejects violence in all situations, even when they are being pushed around and threatened.  A non-interventionist or advocate of the non-aggression principle is someone who would only use violence in self defense or to come to the aid of someone who is the victim of aggression.  I know I am repeating myself but somehow this simple concept is not sinking in (for some people).

I have no idea what you mean when you say "where is he going to manufacture stuff and innovate?"  I'm personally not going to do anything.  I might buy a gun and become proficient in its use, but I am not personally going to run a defense agency.  Why don't you ask "where is Sony going to innovate and manufacture the next PlayStation?"  Or "where is Samsung going to innovate and manufacture the next Galaxy smartphone?"

I find it odd that conservatives who are supposed to believe in and understand the free market economy are so perplexed at how it could work in the provision and distribution of defense services. 

Quote from: Solar on August 03, 2014, 04:03:36 PM
You're right, I'd love nothing more than to live in the society he envisions, but I'm a realist, I know there is evil in the world, it's basic human nature, as sad as that is.

Maybe these anarchists need to start a commune as an experiment?

I know there is evil in the world.  But you seem to jump irrationally from "evil exists out there" to "we need to use aggression".  There is no logical connection between those two disparate statements.  I say "I am an anarchist and I don't believe in the initiation of violence" and you interpret that as "I am a pacifist.  I don't think evil exists.  I just think everyone will voluntarily get along and we don't need to take any threats from people like Putin and radical Muslim terrorists seriously."

A more logical connection of statements would be this:  "I am a realist.  I recognize that evil exists in the world.  Therefore, we need a society that has the capacity to defend itself from that evil." 

Notice how nothing in the above endorses the use of aggression?  I believe in the free market and therefore I don't believe that a government monopoly on the provision of national security will turn out any better than a government monopoly on the production of automobiles.  "National defense" is not some special case where the economic laws are revoked and the State somehow becomes super efficient, responsible and accountable, unlike every other task it does.

If we had competition in the provision of defense services, then we should expect to see better, more efficient defense and security, delivered more efficiently and at a far lower cost.  We wouldn't be more vulnerable to attacks by nation states, but far less vulnerable.

I know this concept goes against your conservative "peace through strength", "support our troops" ideology but I encourage you to take a look at some of the libertarian literature on the subject of private defense services and see if you can't expand you distrust of central authority to include the military and Federal foreign policy.

Quote from: jrodefeld on August 04, 2014, 12:07:39 AM
I know there is evil in the world.  But you seem to jump irrationally from "evil exists out there" to "we need to use aggression".  There is no logical connection between those two disparate statements.  I say "I am an anarchist and I don't believe in the initiation of violence" and you interpret that as "I am a pacifist.  I don't think evil exists.  I just think everyone will voluntarily get along and we don't need to take any threats from people like Putin and radical Muslim terrorists seriously."

If you're walking down the street, and someone cuts you off and demands you pay them to pass, what do you do?

QuoteA more logical connection of statements would be this:  "I am a realist.  I recognize that evil exists in the world.  Therefore, we need a society that has the capacity to defend itself from that evil." 

And you do it with a standing army, one big enough to ALWAYS WIN ANY WAR!

QuoteNotice how nothing in the above endorses the use of aggression?  I believe in the free market and therefore I don't believe that a government monopoly on the provision of national security will turn out any better than a government monopoly on the production of automobiles.  "National defense" is not some special case where the economic laws are revoked and the State somehow becomes super efficient, responsible and accountable, unlike every other task it does.

LOL! So you're saying our Founders were stupid in making it the sole purpose of the Fed?

QuoteIf we had competition in the provision of defense services, then we should expect to see better, more efficient defense and security, delivered more efficiently and at a far lower cost.  We wouldn't be more vulnerable to attacks by nation states, but far less vulnerable.

Again, "Human Nature" is being ignored in your Utopian world.
What is it that business does, that brings in profit? They compete, the leverage buyouts, they monopolize industry, and they also sell to the highest bidder.
You're under the assumption these businesses share your ideals, they don't, they are in it for the profit!
And guess what? I'm going to buyout your defense industry, and turn it against you.
God, am I getting through to you yet?
I've been in business all my life, retired as a defense contractor, I understand the mentality of the industry, you don't have the first clue!
It's that naivete that exposes your plan as nothing less than a Utopian pipe dream.

QuoteI know this concept goes against your conservative "peace through strength", "support our troops" ideology but I encourage you to take a look at some of the libertarian literature on the subject of private defense services and see if you can't expand you distrust of central authority to include the military and Federal foreign policy.

Answer this, can you buy your own private army? Now, can you buy a govt run army?

The answer is obvious, and if you can't see it, you're screwed. I can't believe in all the BS you've read, no one ever pointed out this tiny flaw.

Quote from: Solar on August 04, 2014, 07:18:03 AM
I can't believe in all the BS you've read, no one ever pointed out this tiny flaw.

It's almost as if these anarchist want to weaken western society... Oh wait