The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#301
#301
Grand Vol said:
Did your research turn up anything about the Barbary Pirates? Or the Moro Rebels in the Philippines?

Don't turn a blind eye to history when it doesn't fit your agenda. The Barbary Pirates were doing things hundreds of years ago that would be construed as terrorism today.
Click to expand...

"Blackjack" Pershing had a way to deal with those Moro rebels!
 
#302
#302
Grand Vol said:
Did your research turn up anything about the Barbary Pirates? Or the Moro Rebels in the Philippines?

Don't turn a blind eye to history when it doesn't fit your agenda. The Barbary Pirates were doing things hundreds of years ago that would be construed as terrorism today.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about terrorism in general, I was talking about radical-Islamic, religious/political terrorism. I'm not talking about the Barbary pirates brand of terrorism, or the Timothy McVeigh kind. I'm talking about the kind we have a war on, right now.
 
#303
#303
LouderVol said:
In you anarcho-captilist society how long do the suburbs last you think? not very long. taxes drove people out there as soon as that disappears people move back to the city where the jobs are and Wal-mart and most big boxes fall under. As a designer I would argue vehemently that having a Wal-mart and promoting the suburban life is not good for the community in the long run.
Click to expand...

This is a very strange post.
 
#305
#305
I can't tell if you're saying the end of suburbs is a good or bad thing, but I also disagree with your thesis that people left the city because of taxes. That's part of it. They also got out of the city to raise a family, to lower their non-tax related cost of living, etc. I don't agree that the suburbs die when taxes go away.
 
#306
#306
n_huffhines said:
I can't tell if you're saying the end of suburbs is a good or bad thing, but I also disagree with your thesis that people left the city because of taxes. That's part of it. They also got out of the city to raise a family, to lower their non-tax related cost of living, etc. I don't agree that the suburbs die when taxes go away.
Click to expand...

end of burbs good for the community/culture bad for the boxs. but it would help your anarcho-capitalism be an easier goal to achieve. and the city promotes more smaller stores than the larger single stores that sell everything (where do you put a walmart in downtown?)

you may want to look at large cities, Atlanta is a good example. the burbs are finally shrinking while the city center is increasing density. with the cost of gas so high people are starting to move back to the city. my generation, just out of college wants the jobs in the cities, those without kids are moving back in. and even amongst the families with children the growth rate is averaging out between the burbs and city. once enough people move back to the city the schools will get better. here in ATL there are many fine schools inside the perimeter which has caused housing costs in those areas to increase.

also many new subdivisions going up have the zero lot lines and small yards. the reason you moved out was to have you land. no with cities improving their park systems and pedestrian connectivity you can live in the city with literally no yard but be a park in less than a 10 minute walk.

its also in the best interest of the city for the burbs to die/shrink, supporting so much infrastructure had added unneeded costs on the taxpayers. it used to be taxes were collected in the burbs and then went back to the city. now the city is making tax money and that goes to subsidizing the suburban lifestyle. cities of any size can only support a certain amount of area around for people to live before the cost of living/supporting flips back to the city. all over this is happening. in small towns that have active city centers they aren't a drain on the tax system because people tend to live closer in and there is less crime etc. small towns with no city center fragment and it is much more difficult to maintain with no central area to act as the heart. In my business we have cities coming to us all the time asking us to improve the city center and make it a viable option. the trend has started to reverse the sprawl.
 
#307
#307
n_huffhines said:
I wasn't talking about terrorism in general, I was talking about radical-Islamic, religious/political terrorism. I'm not talking about the Barbary pirates brand of terrorism, or the Timothy McVeigh kind. I'm talking about the kind we have a war on, right now.
Click to expand...

Nothing has changed. Their brand of terrorism had the same goals as todays Islamic terrorist.
 
#308
#308
n_huffhines said:
Thanks for your opinions. Democracy would have been total chaos 1,000 years ago. We weren't ready for it. We aren't ready for anarcho-capitalism at this moment, and we were even less ready 50 years ago, but improvements in technology are making it more and more viable.

You say it can't/won't happen, because you are stuck in your current framework.
Click to expand...

It isn't about being "ready" for it. It is matter of anarchy being totally unfeasible. There will always be some sort if power structure. Whether you want to officially recognize it as a "state" or "government" is up to you.
 
#309
#309
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#310
#310
PKT_VOL said:
It isn't about being "ready" for it. It is matter of anarchy being totally unfeasible. There will always be some sort if power structure. Whether you want to officially recognize it as a "state" or "government" is up to you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I want non-governmental power structures.
 
#314
#314
LouderVol said:
instead of voting we are buying goods from those who we want to make decisions for us. sounds like a great plan....
Click to expand...

You vote with your dollars. Government forces you to give them those votes. The dollar is the great equalizer in the market place. Start misbehaving and you start losing votes.
 
#315
#315
Danl said:
But isn't that just semantics? Isn't any power structure, by definition, governmental?
Click to expand...

The difference is that government has a monopoly on force. Monopolies are bad. Force is really bad. Monopolies on force are really, really bad.
 
#316
#316
n_huffhines said:
Start misbehaving and you start losing votes.
Click to expand...

this is how our government in idea should work. the only problem is the other guys are just as bad, same in the corporate world. and our politicians are more talking heads for the corporations now-a-days anyways and you want to remove them and let the corporations have at it?
 
#317
#317
LouderVol said:
this is how our government in idea should work. the only problem is the other guys are just as bad, same in the corporate world. and our politicians are more talking heads for the corporations now-a-days anyways and you want to remove them and let the corporations have at it?
Click to expand...

Government is a vehicle through which the rich and wealthy businesses achieve and maintain their market/monopoly power.

I can prove it to you. Name fortune 500 companies that supported Ron Paul or Gary Johnson (de-regulators). Now name the fortune 500s who gave money to Romney and Obama (regulators).

Are these companies stupid? Why give money to the regulators? Remove government, and the marketplace becomes a king of the hill competition where the best business wins. Fortune 500s don't want that. That's why they need government. That's one reason you should want to get rid of government. Your heart is in the right place in making this point, but you are ignoring the reality of what the relationship is between government and big business.
 
#320
#320
hog88 said:
Nice that Wikipedia left out expansion of territory which required the conquered to convert. Again take GVs advice and study history.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't sound like today's brand of terrorism. Sounds more like what early Christianity did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#322
#322
n_huffhines said:
The difference is that government has a monopoly on force. Monopolies are bad. Force is really bad. Monopolies on force are really, really bad.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe that government has a monopoly on force? That doesn't seem to be true at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#323
#323
hog88 said:
You're right, ISIS and Al-Qaida never wanted to expand influence, territory or their brand of religion. :thud:
Click to expand...

Conquering to convert sounds more like what early Christianity did.

Name any organization ever that didn't want to expand influence?

Sure Barbary Pirates had some things in common with modern day terrorists. I'm sure they had some things in common with you and I.

Modern day Islamic terrorism against the west is all about blowback. Not slavery. Not dividing and conquering (I'm sure they'd like to). It's about utilizing the only method they can to fight a superpower who intervenes in their part of the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top