The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

[T-TownVol]

Kitchen faucets? I always suspected you were into pfisters and what not.....

Under-rated post imo.....

 

[Orange_Crush]

The funny thing is you place all your faith in limited government and even acknowledge the failings of the current system but refuse to take the next logical step, which is anarchism.

How would you propose that I "take the next step, which is anarchism"? Armed revolt? Go to jail for tax evasion? Sign some petitions?

And you make a lot of assumptions that I "put all [my] faith in limited gov't".

My faith is first and foremost in Jesus Christ; the Bible tells me to "give unto Cesar", and to obey the gov't authority that is in place above me.

Secondly, I put my faith in myself to produce and provide for myself and my family. We've become more producers and less consumers. IOW, we grow much of our own food, and will be growing more each year until soon, we will be producing more than we need and giving quite a bit away. We have multiple sources of clean drinking water. In other words, we've created a simplified lifestyle that fills our needs, where we can live sustainably, whether within a gov't system or not.

Here's the deal... We've had quite a problem with trespassing, theft and vandalism on our place. Under our current gov't system, I've reported the crimes and the police cruise through to help me keep an eye on things.

In Anarchism, I'd have to deal with the current, generally scummy thieves, as well as all the teet-dependent consumers that finally get to the point that they'll kill to feed their family.

Because the ugly reality will be that there will be no smooth transition. The USofA has bred and conditioned millions of people into dependence. Without our current system, supply will dry up, grocery stores will go empty, clean water will stop flowing, electricity will shut off, millions or thousands will die, and the rest will be robbing and killing one another for the few resources available.

Those few scummy criminals will get more emboldened because of need, and your kid's teacher will shoot you to feed her family.

Then we will have anarchy, which will probably settle into a serfdom, tribal lord system, because power detests a vacuum and people will follow the people who show strength and promise to care for them.

I'm willing to take the step. I'm prepared to take the step at some point in the future if it comes to that. But unlike you, I have a far different picture of what it will look like, so I'm not actively trying to make it happen.

You seem to abhor anything but an excluded middle. Your though is extremist--either have gov't or have no gov't. I simply believe that the extremes are the worst possible outcome and a limited gov't is the best that fallen, frail, sinful humanity can hope for. We will always have man-on-man crime and injustice because we will always have people. The question is, how best to mitigate that.

I simply disagree that anarchy is the answer.

 

[volbeast33]

How would you propose that I "take the next step, which is anarchism"? Armed revolt? Go to jail for tax evasion? Sign some petitions?

And you make a lot of assumptions that I "put all [my] faith in limited gov't".

My faith is first and foremost in Jesus Christ; the Bible tells me to "give unto Cesar", and to obey the gov't authority that is in place above me.

Secondly, I put my faith in myself to produce and provide for myself and my family. We've become more producers and less consumers. IOW, we grow much of our own food, and will be growing more each year until soon, we will be producing more than we need and giving quite a bit away. We have multiple sources of clean drinking water. In other words, we've created a simplified lifestyle that fills our needs, where we can live sustainably, whether within a gov't system or not.

Here's the deal... We've had quite a problem with trespassing, theft and vandalism on our place. Under our current gov't system, I've reported the crimes and the police cruise through to help me keep an eye on things.

In Anarchism, I'd have to deal with the current, generally scummy thieves, as well as all the teet-dependent consumers that finally get to the point that they'll kill to feed their family.

Because the ugly reality will be that there will be no smooth transition. The USofA has bred and conditioned millions of people into dependence. Without our current system, supply will dry up, grocery stores will go empty, clean water will stop flowing, electricity will shut off, millions or thousands will die, and the rest will be robbing and killing one another for the few resources available.

Those few scummy criminals will get more emboldened because of need, and your kid's teacher will shoot you to feed her family.

Then we will have anarchy, which will probably settle into a serfdom, tribal lord system, because power detests a vacuum and people will follow the people who show strength and promise to care for them.

I'm willing to take the step. I'm prepared to take the step at some point in the future if it comes to that. But unlike you, I have a far different picture of what it will look like, so I'm not actively trying to make it happen.

You seem to abhor anything but an excluded middle. Your though is extremist--either have gov't or have no gov't. I simply believe that the extremes are the worst possible outcome and a limited gov't is the best that fallen, frail, sinful humanity can hope for. We will always have man-on-man crime and injustice because we will always have people. The question is, how best to mitigate that.

I simply disagree that anarchy is the answer.

I agree with this

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

How would you propose that I "take the next step, which is anarchism"? Armed revolt? Go to jail for tax evasion? Sign some petitions?

And you make a lot of assumptions that I "put all [my] faith in limited gov't".

My faith is first and foremost in Jesus Christ; the Bible tells me to "give unto Cesar", and to obey the gov't authority that is in place above me.

Secondly, I put my faith in myself to produce and provide for myself and my family. We've become more producers and less consumers. IOW, we grow much of our own food, and will be growing more each year until soon, we will be producing more than we need and giving quite a bit away. We have multiple sources of clean drinking water. In other words, we've created a simplified lifestyle that fills our needs, where we can live sustainably, whether within a gov't system or not.

Here's the deal... We've had quite a problem with trespassing, theft and vandalism on our place. Under our current gov't system, I've reported the crimes and the police cruise through to help me keep an eye on things.

In Anarchism, I'd have to deal with the current, generally scummy thieves, as well as all the teet-dependent consumers that finally get to the point that they'll kill to feed their family.

Because the ugly reality will be that there will be no smooth transition. The USofA has bred and conditioned millions of people into dependence. Without our current system, supply will dry up, grocery stores will go empty, clean water will stop flowing, electricity will shut off, millions or thousands will die, and the rest will be robbing and killing one another for the few resources available.

Those few scummy criminals will get more emboldened because of need, and your kid's teacher will shoot you to feed her family.

Then we will have anarchy, which will probably settle into a serfdom, tribal lord system, because power detests a vacuum and people will follow the people who show strength and promise to care for them.

I'm willing to take the step. I'm prepared to take the step at some point in the future if it comes to that. But unlike you, I have a far different picture of what it will look like, so I'm not actively trying to make it happen.

You seem to abhor anything but an excluded middle. Your though is extremist--either have gov't or have no gov't. I simply believe that the extremes are the worst possible outcome and a limited gov't is the best that fallen, frail, sinful humanity can hope for. We will always have man-on-man crime and injustice because we will always have people. The question is, how best to mitigate that.

I simply disagree that anarchy is the answer.

First off, I'd like to salute you for your preparedness, that's a very good thing you've done. I wish more people would take those steps. I think you've already taken the step, but refuse to realize it. Anarchism isn't about violence, it isn't about taking others property, it's about being self reliant, and understanding that no one has a right to rule you.

I'm agnostic as far as religion goes, so I can't sympathize with you there. Matter of fact, history shows that accepting the government's rules in the name of religion leads to a personal extinction event. (Get in the cattle car, or else)

I have never claimed there would be a smooth transition to an ancap society, and I never will. I understand what the state has done to people, they have turned dependence into a lifestyle. It's a deplorable thing. The truly sad thing is the way it's done, for the government to do anything, they must first steal from someone else. It's a vicious cycle.

I've never quite understood the human nature argument as a reasoning for government. What it essentially does is take the absolute worst of humanity and place them in absolute power. If you cannot trust people with freedom, how can you trust the worst of humanity with power?

I don't know if you've ever read Lysander Spooner and his treatise No Treason: The constitution of no authority. I highly recommend it. Spooner was an individualist/anarchist around the 1860's. In that book Spooner lays out that either the constitution has authorized the government we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.

Make no mistake, if the government only protected life and property I would have 0 problem. However, we've seen that's hardly the case. Everything is regulated, they want absolute control over every aspect of our lives. Again, if you cannot trust people because they are frail, fallen, and sinful.(in your words) How can you trust them with power over others? We've seen how that has worked.

Again, I greatly respect the steps you've taken and I'm sure we'd probably agree a lot, if we sat down and had a conversation. Cheers

 

[Orange_Crush]

First off, I'd like to salute you for your preparedness, that's a very good thing you've done. I wish more people would take those steps. I think you've already taken the step, but refuse to realize it. Anarchism isn't about violence, it isn't about taking others property, it's about being self reliant, and understanding that no one has a right to rule you.

I'm agnostic as far as religion goes, so I can't sympathize with you there. Matter of fact, history shows that accepting the government's rules in the name of religion leads to a personal extinction event. (Get in the cattle car, or else)

I have never claimed there would be a smooth transition to an ancap society, and I never will. I understand what the state has done to people, they have turned dependence into a lifestyle. It's a deplorable thing. The truly sad thing is the way it's done, for the government to do anything, they must first steal from someone else. It's a vicious cycle.

I've never quite understood the human nature argument as a reasoning for government. What it essentially does is take the absolute worst of humanity and place them in absolute power. If you cannot trust people with freedom, how can you trust the worst of humanity with power?

I don't know if you've ever read Lysander Spooner and his treatise No Treason: The constitution of no authority. I highly recommend it. Spooner was an individualist/anarchist around the 1860's. In that book Spooner lays out that either the constitution has authorized the government we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.

Make no mistake, if the government only protected life and property I would have 0 problem. However, we've seen that's hardly the case. Everything is regulated, they want absolute control over every aspect of our lives. Again, if you cannot trust people because they are frail, fallen, and sinful.(in your words) How can you trust them with power over others? We've seen how that has worked.

Again, I greatly respect the steps you've taken and I'm sure we'd probably agree a lot, if we sat down and had a conversation. Cheers

You'd probably be surprised how much we'd likely agree on. I told my son, not long ago, that as a Libertarian I wish I could trust that anarchy would work, and I'd be an anarchist. I just can't believe that it would work, so I can't be an anarchist.

And I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but the great thrust of my response was kind of a "put your money where your mouth is" argument.

If you want anarchy, then do it. Stop keeping it at an ideological level and start taking real steps.

Sell your stuff and simplify. Pare down your needs until you can live simply. Produce for yourself. Get out of debt. Start bartering. (here's the truly subversive part...) Teach others to do the same and convince them to actually do it.

Don't like taxes? They don't tax on what you don't make. The more you make, the more they "steal" from you. So, need less so you can make less. The more you spend, the more they tax you through sales tax. So barter. Need less. Want less. Spend less. It'll dry up that avenue of support.

Get lots of people to do that. And then get them to get lots of people to do that.

It's about as subversive a thing a person can do without an overt revolt.

If you want anarchy, start living it out now. If you already are, then I salute the fact that you're not a hypocrite. :hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

Again, if you cannot trust people because they are frail, fallen, and sinful.(in your words) How can you trust them with power over others? We've seen how that has worked.

Sorry to double-up, but I thought I'd answer this question with a question...

Anarchy doesn't answer this paradox. In gov't we absolutely have fallen, frail and sinful people ruling over other fallen, frail, sinful people. And the built-in problem is that power attracts the worst of them. The people best natured to do it usually won't want to, and the power-hungry that do will inevitably rig the system so as to corrupt the 'good' ones that try.

But you will still have people ruling people in anarchy, whether you want to admit it or not. It is human nature, and I think (verbiage aside), you and I would agree on that.

So, what is the best we can hope for with human nature? No gov't? Which will turn into a free--for-all, strongest-survive social Darwinism? Or try to establish and maintain a gov't of the people, by the people, for the people?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

You'd probably be surprised how much we'd likely agree on. I told my son, not long ago, that as a Libertarian I wish I could trust that anarchy would work, and I'd be an anarchist. I just can't believe that it would work, so I can't be an anarchist.

And I'm not trying to be a jerk about it, but the great thrust of my response was kind of a "put your money where your mouth is" argument.

If you want anarchy, then do it. Stop keeping it at an ideological level and start taking real steps.

Sell your stuff and simplify. Pare down your needs until you can live simply. Produce for yourself. Get out of debt. Start bartering. (here's the truly subversive part...) Teach others to do the same and convince them to actually do it.

Don't like taxes? They don't tax on what you don't make. The more you make, the more they "steal" from you. So, need less so you can make less. The more you spend, the more they tax you through sales tax. So barter. Need less. Want less. Spend less. It'll dry up that avenue of support.

Get lots of people to do that. And then get them to get lots of people to do that.

It's about as subversive a thing a person can do without an overt revolt.

If you want anarchy, start living it out now. If you already are, then I salute the fact that you're not a hypocrite. :hi:

For me, I sat down and really asked myself the hard question of, does the government do anything that the actual free market couldn't do? Could they accomplish the goals of society minus the coercion of government? I found that nearly everything the government does could be done more efficiently by the free market. I used to be a huge neo-con statist, I was for all the wars and regulations until I found libertarianism. All the while, I kept asking myself the same question, even libertarianism doesn't go far enough. You can liken it to a cancer patient who goes in for surgery to remove the cancerous tumor and being awakening with the dr telling you, "you'll be fine, we've removed 80% of the tumor." To me, that's limited government in a nutshell. It will always grow larger because that's what government does. It grows, it never shrinks.

As for my personal life, I minimize the states involvement in my life. I pay the very least amount of taxes I can get away with. I use bitcoin as much as I can. I support Liberty organizations such as the Mises institute, Fee, and many other organizations. I spread anarchy anywhere I can in my conversations with people. I explain that the true measure of your freedom is the ability to opt out of something. I believe in secession right down to an individual level. How come when a man and a woman have what's called irreconcilable differences they can appeal to the state and dissolve the marriage. Yet, if we have irreconcilable differences with the state, we have no recourse, besides the rigged legal system, that usually ends up in a cage for those who resist. It is the government who is oppressing us.

 

[n_huffhines]

Oh bull****. You win nothing.
Your unmitigated faith that folk will "play nice" in the face of rapacious predators that exist in the various forms of socialism, communism, and capitalism today reeks of intelluctual vapidity. I'm done with this thread as it's becoming too silly for words.

"You can't reference the fall of the soviets, only I can".

"In business you play nice because it's in your best interest".

I'm trying to have a real world conversation with a middle schooler.

Phhfft! done

Your unmitigated faith in government is an affront to reality.

You are allowed to use communist russia to argue against an-cap, it's just an argument that completely backfires.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Sorry to double-up, but I thought I'd answer this question with a question...

Anarchy doesn't answer this paradox. In gov't we absolutely have fallen, frail and sinful people ruling over other fallen, frail, sinful people. And the built-in problem is that power attracts the worst of them. The people best natured to do it usually won't want to, and the power-hungry that do will inevitably rig the system so as to corrupt the 'good' ones that try.

But you will still have people ruling people in anarchy, whether you want to admit it or not. It is human nature, and I think (verbiage aside), you and I would agree on that.

So, what is the best we can hope for with human nature? No gov't? Which will turn into a free--for-all, strongest-survive social Darwinism? Or try to establish and maintain a gov't of the people, by the people, for the people?

I think the best we can hope for is not having the powerful positions of government available to the ones who seek ultimate power. Sure, people will always seek power, it is human nature. But we have to understand the differences between a local dictator who can be thwarted by local competition and an all powerful central government who claims the right to abuse, steal and kill as well as immunity to any fault on their behalf.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

I'd like to recommend this book.

 

[Orange_Crush]

For me, I sat down and really asked myself the hard question of, does the government do anything that the actual free market couldn't do? Could they accomplish the goals of society minus the coercion of government? I found that nearly everything the government does could be done more efficiently by the free market. I used to be a huge neo-con statist, I was for all the wars and regulations until I found libertarianism. All the while, I kept asking myself the same question, even libertarianism doesn't go far enough. You can liken it to a cancer patient who goes in for surgery to remove the cancerous tumor and being awakening with the dr telling you, "you'll be fine, we've removed 80% of the tumor." To me, that's limited government in a nutshell. It will always grow larger because that's what government does. It grows, it never shrinks.

I guess you could view that illustration as correct, if you think that gov't is the inherent problem. As we both agreed, perhaps gov't isn't the problem and human nature is?

In that scenario, anarchism is more like someone with a tumor, so they removed all the organs. You know... Just in case.

I read somewhere the other day that doctors are having great responses to cancer treatment with mega-doses of Vitamin C. Apparently, Vitamin C in the body creates hydrogen peroxide, which is only toxic to cancer cells but leaves healthy cells alone. Maybe, instead of removing the organs, we can leave them in and try to create a system that is toxic to cancer cells.

As for my personal life, I minimize the states involvement in my life. I pay the very least amount of taxes I can get away with. I use bitcoin as much as I can. I support Liberty organizations such as the Mises institute, Fee, and many other organizations. I spread anarchy anywhere I can in my conversations with people. I explain that the true measure of your freedom is the ability to opt out of something. I believe in secession right down to an individual level. How come when a man and a woman have what's called irreconcilable differences they can appeal to the state and dissolve the marriage. Yet, if we have irreconcilable differences with the state, we have no recourse, besides the rigged legal system, that usually ends up in a cage for those who resist. It is the government who is oppressing us.

There are a coupe of problems with that logic, imho.

First... In America, it is not the gov't that is oppressing us. It is people in the gov't using the gov't to oppress us. As a matter of fact, it is not the gov't at all. We really don't have a true American gov't anymore. We have lackeys that have been bought by corporations, who are oppressing us.

Second, your definition of "oppression" will invariably differ from another's definition of "oppression". For instance, you may consider any gov't activity "oppression", and someone else may consider you having more $$$ than them "oppression".

You may consider slavery "oppression" and someone may consider the very existence of homosexuality "oppression".

There is the need for a standard of rights to bridge the gap and enforce universal rights. Once you have that, you have gov't.

ANCAP offers the market as that bridge, standard, and enforcement. But that doesn't span the bridge. What if a community in ANCAP decides that all homosexuals should die? That's what that market believes. Has individual rights been preserved? What if a community believes that all people of dark complexion should be slaves? Does that market preserve individual rights?

And in ANCAP, just say that you find yourself, as a black homosexual, in that community? What recourse do you have? The market won't help you. Escape?

Sure, if you can escape. And that's your 'divorce'. ANCAP oppressed you just as much, or more than, current US politics. And just like current US politics, your choices are "abide by the group government or leave".

Your ideals aside, you will never have the liberties you seek. And if you find yourself in a place where you are at odds with the community standards, either change them, leave, or abide.

ANCAP in America... A bunch of words and quoted ideals isn't going to do it. "I don't know if ANCAP would be any better, but we should try..." isn't going to change the paradigm.

 

[n_huffhines]

Chortle haw ha ... you gonna take your ball and go home?

...I'm done with this thread...

Phhfft! done

Sounds like you're taking your ball and going home?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I think the best we can hope for is not having the powerful positions of government available to the ones who seek ultimate power. Sure, people will always seek power, it is human nature. But we have to understand the differences between a local dictator who can be thwarted by local competition and an all powerful central government who claims the right to abuse, steal and kill as well as immunity to any fault on their behalf.

So, you're a fan of the local warlord. That would surely be better than what we currently have. It may be, actually. But it would probably not be better than a small, central gov't that is designed and maintained in such a way that self-elected local gov'ts self-rule their constituents, all within a constitutional oversight to guards the size of the gov't and protects the individual's liberties.

You may even write riders in this constitution that limits the amount of $$$ each layer of gov't has access to, and limits the power they have against the individual citizen.

One could limit the supply of $$$ and power, the terms of leaders, the benefits of leaders, etc...

All I'm saying is that there are wide swaths of gov't design between Crony-Cap and warlords.

 

[hog88]

The reality is that we had what amounted to an An-Cap system when this country was formed. No taxes, no standing army, no federal police forces, local militias were the protection agencies, as close to an An-Caper's utopia as one could possibly get.

Then what what happened? Free people over the decades ALLOWED others through government to control them, they just didn't allow and accept it, they VOTED for it. Blow it all up and start over in an an-cap system and within 100 years there will be government.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The reality is that we had what amounted to an An-Cap system when this country was formed. No taxes, no standing army, no federal police forces, local militias were the protection agencies, as close to an An-Caper's utopia as one could possibly get.

Then what what happened? Free people over the decades ALLOWED others through government to control them, they just didn't allow and accept it, they VOTED for it. Blow it all up and start over in an an-cap system and within 100 years there will be government.

That was pre-globalization, in a vast America with plenty of room to go out into the frontier and make your own way, with plenty of natural resources, and with great seas protecting our borders.

Ancap could almost work in such circumstances. If you don't like your community, leave, start one, don't communicate with the outside world, and other communities that may try to come in and take your stuff.

Even in more modern America, in the Appalachian mountains, we had what almost equated to Anarchistic communities. Groups of people who looked alike, talked alike, and believed alike, who ruled themselves, depended on themselves, and distrusted outsiders.

If a huge % of the population died off, communication died out, and travel died off, anarchy could have a go here. If we tried it nationally today, millions would die and we'd be speaking Russian or Chinese within 50 years.

 

[n_huffhines]

The reality is that we had what amounted to an An-Cap system when this country was formed. No taxes, no standing army, no federal police forces, local militias were the protection agencies, as close to an An-Caper's utopia as one could possibly get.

Then what what happened? Free people over the decades ALLOWED others through government to control them, they just didn't allow and accept it, they VOTED for it. Blow it all up and start over in an an-cap system and within 100 years there will be government.

So basically you are saying it actually wasn't a disaster, people just ended up choosing security over freedom.

That's fine. I actually agree with that. Just because it's what the people chose doesn't make it the best system (see bad voting results all over the world, throughout history). And just because it may have been right 250 years ago, doesn't make it best now or in 100 years from now.

Less and less we will need government for security and freedom will become relatively more appealing.

 

[n_huffhines]

If a huge % of the population died off, communication died out, and travel died off, anarchy could have a go here. If we tried it nationally today, millions would die and we'd be speaking Russian or Chinese within 50 years.

To me, this is complete fantasy.

The US military is so much stronger than Russia and China and we can't conquer Afghanistan for hell's sake. Russia couldn't do it, either.

Conquering Americans on this continent would be impossible. We have more than 10x the population and more than 10x the land mass of Afghanistan, and we got lots of guns.

 

[Orange_Crush]

To me, this is complete fantasy.

The US military is so much stronger than Russia and China and we can't conquer Afghanistan for hell's sake. Russia couldn't do it, either.

Conquering Americans on this continent would be impossible. We have more than 10x the population and more than 10x the land mass of Afghanistan, and we got lots of guns.

Sure. But you're ignoring the fact that we have the number of people we have due to the infrastructure that is maintained by, and redistribution of necessities by...? guess who...? the US gov't.

Tear down the gov't today, in the state of dependence that 99% of Americans have, and you'll have great swaths of Americans die from starvation, lack of potable water, murder, etc... It will be such a shock to the country that the Chinese, who are out of space in their own country, can just walk in and sweep the few remaining refugees aside, and start putting their products directly into the malls that we built and left for them.

 

[hog88]

So basically you are saying it actually wasn't a disaster, people just ended up choosing security over freedom.

That's fine. I actually agree with that. Just because it's what the people chose doesn't make it the best system (see bad voting results all over the world, throughout history). And just because it may have been right 250 years ago, doesn't make it best now or in 100 years from now.

Less and less we will need government for security and freedom will become relatively more appealing.

As they would today. Basic human nature hasn't changed much throughout history.

And please don't think I'm completely opposed to An-Cap. As I have said before, I think that I would do very well in a completely unregulated environment. But of course even my mom says that I can be a complete heartless bastard.

 

[n_huffhines]

Sure. But you're ignoring the fact that we have the number of people we have due to the infrastructure that is maintained by, and redistribution of necessities by...? guess who...? the US gov't.

Tear down the gov't today, in the state of dependence that 99% of Americans have, and you'll have great swaths of Americans die from starvation, lack of potable water, murder, etc... It will be such a shock to the country that the Chinese, who are out of space in their own country, can just walk in and sweep the few remaining refugees aside, and start putting their products directly into the malls that we built and left for them.

I don't think government is the bread of life that you seem to think it is. Why would we not have potable water without government?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't think government is the bread of life that you seem to think it is. Why would we not have potable water without government?

That's my issue with you AnCap guys... You are promoting the dismantling of an entire civilization with sentences that invariably begin with "I don't think..." in one form or another.

"We don't know that it would work, but we should try..."

 

[n_huffhines]

Basic human nature hasn't changed much throughout history.

So I mostly agree in the sense that people follow incentives and always will. The incentives are what tend make us "good" or "bad".

The incentives are changing.

For example, Advances in science, technology, and investigative work has made it harder to get away with murder now, so there is less murder.

 

[n_huffhines]

That's my issue with you AnCap guys... You are promoting the dismantling of an entire civilization with sentences that invariably begin with "I don't think..." in one form or another.

"We don't know that it would work, but we should try..."

We don't know that anything will work until we try. We don't even know if government is working for us, because we don't know what the alternative looks like. It just appears to be working because our country sucks the least.

Thank God the founders didn't say, "why fight a revolution when we don't know democracy will work?

I'm not calling for a revolution. Really, I'd just be happy if we took some big steps towards a libertarian form of government. I think we should wait until the US government experiences financial meltdown to try an-cap. Like you guys say, there will be major disruption to the country if we do make the shift, so why not make it when there is already disruption?

I also think we could try it as an experiment. Maybe Elon Musk will buy 100k square miles of land and start a colony, and then we'll see how it goes? Only need the US government to allow it, which they won't. They don't wanna find out it works.

 

[Orange_Crush]

We don't know that anything will work until we try. We don't even know if government is working for us, because we don't know what the alternative looks like. It just appears to be working because our country sucks the least.

Thank God the founders didn't say, "why fight a revolution when we don't know democracy will work?

I'm not calling for a revolution. Really, I'd just be happy if we took some big steps towards a libertarian form of government. I think we should wait until the US government experiences financial meltdown to try an-cap. Like you guys say, there will be major disruption to the country if we do make the shift, so why not make it when there is already disruption?

I also think we could try it as an experiment. Maybe Elon Musk will buy 100k square miles of land and start a colony, and then we'll see how it goes? Only need the US government to allow it, which they won't. They don't wanna find out it works.

There were historical instances of democracies and republics for the founding fathers to draw upon. They weren't just saying: "Let's blow this turd-bucket up and see where the crap lands..."

And they went into it with the constitution and bill of rights. They had definitive things to offer. You guys just have: "Not sure. Surely it would be better than this, whatever 'it' will end up looking like."

And, as I've said, I suspect that our current abortion of a system is unsustainable. I suspect that it will crash and burn and you guys will get exactly what you want. Just be careful what you ask for, because it will take that crash and the massive loss of life for it to happen, and stick.

And, as mentioned, you'd better hope that it happens literally on a global scale and every major nation in the world experiences exactly what we do, or else one of the intact global powers will be here fairly quickly planting their flags and starting "how to speak to your new master" schools.

 

[n_huffhines]

There were historical instances of democracies and republics for the founding fathers to draw upon. They weren't just saying: "Let's blow this turd-bucket up and see where the crap lands..."

And they went into it with the constitution and bill of rights. They had definitive things to offer. You guys just have: "Not sure. Surely it would be better than this, whatever 'it' will end up looking like."

And, as I've said, I suspect that our current abortion of a system is unsustainable. I suspect that it will crash and burn and you guys will get exactly what you want. Just be careful what you ask for, because it will take that crash and the massive loss of life for it to happen, and stick.

And, as mentioned, you'd better hope that it happens literally on a global scale and every major nation in the world experiences exactly what we do, or else one of the intact global powers will be here fairly quickly planting their flags and starting "how to speak to your new master" schools.

They went into it with a constitution and bill of rights? The constitution didn't come until like 13 years after the war and the bill of rights was after that.

Democracy/republics were totally unproven. Rome had tried it, they turned into an imperialist, authoritative nation, and then they fell.

You don't have to buy into An-Cap, but I think you should join me in advocating an experiment. You have nothing to lose and a lot to gain.