PDA

View Full Version : Total Government Control or Anarchy?



Rebel Yell
03-26-2009, 09:10 AM
I saw this chart on Glenn Beck yesterday ( I recreated it the best I could). It shows why so many Americans are frustrated.

This what we think todays political landscape looks like....

Left (Liberals) __________________________________________________ ___Right (Conservatives)


But in reality, it's more like this.....

No Gov_____4_______3_________________________________ _____________2___1__Total Gov

1. Articles of Confederation 1777 (too close to anarchy, didn't work)


2. U.S. Constitution 1787 (just enough control to keep people in line)


3. Today's Republican Party


4. Today's Democratic Party



This got me thinking. Which would be better to you, total government control or complete anarchy? Personally, I'd rather live in anarchy than under a totalitarian rule. What about you?

Rebel Yell
03-26-2009, 09:40 AM
I know how Feeb will vote, it's everyone else I'm curious about.

patriot45
03-26-2009, 09:44 AM
Need 1 more choice! But I guess anarchy rather than under the gov thumb. http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/734_enraged.gif

FeebMaster
03-26-2009, 09:57 AM
I know how Feeb will vote, it's everyone else I'm curious about.

:)

Do you think they'll be honest?

Lars1701a
03-26-2009, 09:59 AM
No JJJJJOOOOOOSSSSS?



what kind of choice is this? both are the worst of the worst.

Rebel Yell
03-26-2009, 10:08 AM
No JJJJJOOOOOOSSSSS?



what kind of choice is this? both are the worst of the worst.

Yeah, opposite ends of the worst case spectrum. I would rather live with no government than an oppressive one, though. I'd rather take my chances taking care of myself than be totally dependant on someone else.

megimoo
03-26-2009, 10:49 AM
Yeah, opposite ends of the worst case spectrum. I would rather live with no government than an oppressive one, though. I'd rather take my chances taking care of myself than be totally dependant on someone else.
The first shot will be complaints to the FCC about Conservative radio shows like Limbaugh's and that is starting up already.Next will be the FCC establishing rules and a bill to establish draconian CyberSecurity control of the net.That's why the White House wants that control in their hands.Rahm Emmanuel is the key to all of this takeover of America.He's gong to do it,make no mistake this is for real !

Molon Labe
03-26-2009, 11:06 AM
I saw this chart on Glenn Beck yesterday ( I recreated it the best I could). It shows why so many Americans are frustrated.

This what we think todays political landscape looks like....

Left (Liberals) __________________________________________________ ___Right (Conservatives)


But in reality, it's more like this.....

No Gov_____4_______3_________________________________ _____________2___1__Total Gov

1. Articles of Confederation 1777 (too close to anarchy, didn't work)


2. U.S. Constitution 1787 (just enough control to keep people in line)


3. Today's Republican Party


4. Today's Democratic Party



This got me thinking. Which would be better to you, total government control or complete anarchy? Personally, I'd rather live in anarchy than under a totalitarian rule. What about you?


Yeah...it's some scary shat. And there's a bunch of Republican's running around still believing their the "small government" party.

I'm no anarchist, but given the choice, I would choose to take my own security into my own hands rather than have a bunch of idiots who want to lord over people just for the sake of it.

Wait...Too late.

Rebel Yell
03-26-2009, 11:09 AM
Yeah...it's some scary shat. And there's a bunch of Republican's running around still believing their the "small government" party.

I'm no anarchist, but given the choice, I would choose to take my own security into my own hands rather than have a bunch of idiots who want to lord over people just for the sake of it.

Wait...Too late.

I wish I could find the video of this from Glenn Beck yesterday, but I can't.

hazlnut
03-26-2009, 11:40 AM
The first shot will be complaints to the FCC about Conservative radio shows like Limbaugh's and that is starting up already.Next will be the FCC establishing rules and a bill to establish draconian CyberSecurity control of the net.That's why the White House wants that control in their hands.Rahm Emmanuel is the key to all of this takeover of America.He's gong to do it,make no mistake this is for real !

What a wonderful imagination you have. I can make some calls and setup a pitch meeting with the SciFi Channel if you like.

I vote we stick the imperfect but striving to improve Republic.

Molon Labe
03-26-2009, 11:59 AM
No JJJJJOOOOOOSSSSS?



what kind of choice is this? both are the worst of the worst.


Look at it this way. Every single world war or genocide in the 20th century has been caused or perpetrated by an all powerful state system. The less that state has control the less it can perpetuate control over groups of people.

Rebel Yell
03-26-2009, 12:06 PM
I vote we stick the imperfect but striving to improve Republic.

I'm sorry, but I don't see it getting any better. Actually, It has gotten progressively worse since the mid 1800's.

Molon Labe
03-26-2009, 03:22 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't see it getting any better. Actually, It has gotten progressively worse since the mid 1800's.

It's gotten much worse...so much so that some great conservatives take some intesting turns when they become disallusioned.

The reluctant anarchist. by Sobran.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=121082#post121082

Rebel Yell
03-26-2009, 03:26 PM
It's gotten much worse...so much so that some great conservatives take some intesting turns when they become disallusioned.

The reluctant anarchist. by Sobran.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=121082#post121082

There are no conservatives in government anymore. All the power Obama obtains for the federal government, do you think any republican will actually give it back when they take power?

Molon Labe
03-26-2009, 03:32 PM
There are no conservatives in government anymore. All the power Obama obtains for the federal government, do you think any republican will actually give it back when they take power?

nope...and vice versa. All the little executive powers we loved Bush having are now a Democrats. Not a good thing. Be careful what you wish for cause the other guy get's the toys once your done playing with them.

A great thinker used to say that no matter how moral the people in government are to start out with and how great and caring a government is in it's inception.......
The worst will always get on top - F. Hayek.
Another reason why decentralized government is a plus.

Rebel Yell
03-26-2009, 03:38 PM
nope...and vice versa. All the little executive powers we loved Bush having are now a Democrats. Not a good thing. Be careful what you wish for cause the other guy get's the toys once your done playing with them.

A great thinker used to say that no matter how moral the people in government are to start out with and how great and caring a government is in it's inception....... .
Another reason why decentralized government is a plus.

That's what Rush was talking about today. Democrats are making their own bed. Once they set the precedent, they'll have to deal with republicans using that same authority over them. You're right though, it works both ways.

AlmostThere
03-26-2009, 04:01 PM
I have a friend, a very educated man who has advocated anarchy for at least the 20 years I've known him. I've never understood why he would prefer anarchy over government that existed at the time. At the rate we are going, I am beginning to understand.

Maryland's Senator Cardin introduced a bill that would make newspapers tax exempt organizations as long as they don't endorse a candidate. Our Founding Fathers must have rolled in their graves with just the suggestion of this bill.

I think if the Fairness Doctrine, Cardin's bill , Card Check for Unions, Treasury's attempt to super-regulate America's businesses all become law, anarchy might well be preferable.

I haven't had a whole lot of respect for the average American citizen ever since they forfeited their right to think for themselves.. But today some oblivious American people are forfeiting their freedom as well.

Yea, I'd take anarchy.

PoliCon
03-26-2009, 05:44 PM
I'll take anarchy simply because there - I know what I would be getting.

ReaganForRus
03-26-2009, 06:05 PM
The first shot will be complaints to the FCC about Conservative radio shows like Limbaugh's and that is starting up already.Next will be the FCC establishing rules and a bill to establish draconian CyberSecurity control of the net.That's why the White House wants that control in their hands.Rahm Emmanuel is the key to all of this takeover of America.He's gong to do it,make no mistake this is for real !

Astute point...........you couple the Cybersecurity of network servers into the White House, along with the 2010 census being controlled by the White House, along with the Treasury asking to take over businesses who might be failing, along with limiting executive pay, and the demonization of AIG executives of duly executed contracts approved by the Congress ( a bill that they themselves admitted they did not read) and signed into law by B O (without him even reading what he signed)........and you start seeing a pattern developing in the first 66 days of this Administration.

The days of the Republic are numbered.

What does this mean to the world?...........The bastion of liberty and freedom will be silenced, Europe will fall under the auspices of the Russian Bear and the Far East will tremble in fear of mother China in her lust for domination of of Southeast Asia.......

A new Dark Age....with an elite, rich class and masses of slaves.

ReaganForRus
03-26-2009, 06:07 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't see it getting any better. Actually, It has gotten progressively worse since the mid 1800's.

You mean the War of Northern Aggression?.........I think Lincoln was right:eek:






(ducks for cover, awaiting Gator to enter the fray:D)

Rebel Yell
03-27-2009, 08:13 AM
You mean the War of Northern Aggression?.........I think Lincoln was right:eek:






(ducks for cover, awaiting Gator to enter the fray:D)

The damage we feel today from Lincoln isn't really the war. It was the massive expansion of the federal government. Regardless of whether he was right or wrong on the war, his massive government growth has changed what the founding fathers intended for this nation.

Gingersnap
03-27-2009, 09:15 AM
This is a difficult choice. I picked complete anarchy because I believe that I would have the best of chance of surviving until a new system was established (and it would be, people realize that anarchy is only a temporary state of affairs). With total government it might be decades before the system collapsed and I would probably be one of the ones who would be systematically oppressed or killed. :mad:

FlaGator
03-27-2009, 09:33 AM
I opted for total control. I am person who perfers order to chaos. The choice was difficult but I think that a life on no rules or thousands of small groups each with there own set of rules is a receipe for disaster after living in a rule based society. Also, eventually the anarchy would end when a few powerful leaders decided to unite the various small groups under his or her rule. Eventually you would end up wth total government control of a despot leader anyway so let's just skip the stuff in the middle.

Odysseus
03-27-2009, 09:55 AM
The damage we feel today from Lincoln isn't really the war. It was the massive expansion of the federal government. Regardless of whether he was right or wrong on the war, his massive government growth has changed what the founding fathers intended for this nation.

Except that most of that expansion came after Lincoln. Lincoln's focus was on expanding only the armed forces for the war, which any president would have had to do, although his means, a federal draft, set some dangerous precedents. After the Civil War, the US Army drew down to pre-war levels, but the civilian bureaucracy was increased by Lincoln's successors.

The choice between anarchy and totalitarianism is a false one. Totalitarian governments cannot maintain civil order and eventually devolve into anarchy (look at Russia for an example), while anarchy breeds strongmen who eventually take control of resources through violence, which results in pockets of totalitarianism.

PoliCon
03-27-2009, 10:33 AM
There's one thing I think those that have voted for total control have forgotten - there is no assurance that because there is total government control that you will be safe. The state could very easily declare you a criminal for having the wrong color nose hair.

Rebel Yell
03-27-2009, 10:44 AM
There's one thing I think those that have voted for total control have forgotten - there is no assurance that because there is total government control that you will be safe. The state could very easily declare you a criminal for having the wrong color nose hair.

I would prefer anarchy, because I trust me to keep me safe more than the government. I don't need no stinkin' safety net!!!! I might be the one to rise up and take control. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!:eek:

Odysseus
03-27-2009, 11:19 AM
I would prefer anarchy, because I trust me to keep me safe more than the government. I don't need no stinkin' safety net!!!! I might be the one to rise up and take control. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!:eek:
Naaaah... You'd hook up with the rest of us and form a civil society that would provide for common defense and protection of individual rights. Then we'd enslave the DUmmies. :D

There's one thing I think those that have voted for total control have forgotten - there is no assurance that because there is total government control that you will be safe. The state could very easily declare you a criminal for having the wrong color nose hair.
See, that's just what I'd expect from one of you blonde nose hair guys. We will have to lock you up for the common good. :D

Molon Labe
03-27-2009, 12:00 PM
The choice between anarchy and totalitarianism is a false one. Totalitarian governments cannot maintain civil order and eventually devolve into anarchy (look at Russia for an example), while anarchy breeds strongmen who eventually take control of resources through violence, which results in pockets of totalitarianism.

Try to think about it like this.


For most people, anarchy is a disturbing word, suggesting chaos, violence, antinomianism — things they hope the state can control or prevent. The term state, despite its bloody history, doesn’t disturb them. Yet it’s the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can’t assert a plausible right to rule.


He goes on to talk about how the modern "state" system has taken 200 million lives. That isn't very plausilble with little tribes running around IMO.

asdf2231
03-27-2009, 12:01 PM
Try to think about it like this.




He goes on to talk about how the modern "state" system has taken 200 million lives. That isn't very plausilble with little tribes running around IMO.


Got a link to go with the quote?

Will Dill
03-27-2009, 12:04 PM
Americans love Socialism. That's why we have socialist security and other socialist programs.

Rebel Yell
03-27-2009, 12:05 PM
Americans love Socialism. That's why we have socialist security and other socialist programs.

Americans love the perks of socialism, as long you don't call it socialism.

Molon Labe
03-27-2009, 12:24 PM
Got a link to go with the quote?

Yeah...I've posted the Sobran article about 3 times ...Guess no one's actually read it.


http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

FeebMaster
03-27-2009, 12:27 PM
Yeah...I've posted the Sobran article about 3 times ...Guess no one's actually read it.


http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

I read it in 2002. :) I was happy to see Sobran finally saw the light.

PoliCon
03-27-2009, 12:35 PM
Americans love Socialism. That's why we have socialist security and other socialist programs.

I'd be happy to see them go away myself. if you need a safety net - turn to charity and the church.

Molon Labe
03-27-2009, 12:40 PM
Americans love Socialism. That's why we have socialist security and other socialist programs.

Sure everyone wants to be taken care of. But that's not what real freedom is about. I don't really think most people really want true freedom. They like getting $1200 stimulus checks from time to time and they don't care who had to be pilaged to get it.:rolleyes:

asdf2231
03-27-2009, 01:03 PM
Yeah...I've posted the Sobran article about 3 times ...Guess no one's actually read it.
http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

So this was basically an Op-Ed piece written by the anti-semite guy who was fired from National Review in
'93?


He also argues that the 9/11 attacks were a result of the U.S. Government's policies regarding the Middle East. He claims those policies are formed by the "Jewish-Zionist powers that be in the United States."

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Joseph_Sobran#encyclopedia

This assclown is also highly beloved of Holocaust Denying websites and organizations everywhere.

You pick some really fucked up people to draw and support your viewpoints from.

asdf2231
03-27-2009, 01:11 PM
Sobran is also much beloved of Institute for Historical Review, which dotes on his articles.



History
The IHR was originally founded by Dave McCalden (also known as Lewis Brandon), a former member of the National Front, and Willis Carto, the head of the now-defunct Liberty Lobby. Dave McCalden left the IHR, and Willis eventually lost control of it, in an internal power struggle. Liberty Lobby was an antisemitic organization best known for publishing The Spotlight, now reorganized as the American Free Press. The current head of the IHR is Mark Weber.

Beginning in 1979, IHR publicly offered a reward of $50,000 for verifiable "proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." This money (and an additional $40,000) was eventually paid in 1985 to Auschwitz survivor Mel Mermelstein, who sued the IHR for breach of contract for initially ignoring his evidence (a signed testimony of his experiences in Auschwitz). As a result of Mermelstein's case, a U.S. Superior Court in California declared the Holocaust an indisputable legal fact.

David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel, Fred Leuchter, Arthur Butz, Joseph Sobran, Pete McCloskey, Bradley R. Smith, Carlo Mattogno, Jürgen Graf, Doug Collins and Radio Islam founder Ahmed Rami have attended conferences and/or contributed to publications of the IHR.

In January 2009, Weber, the IHR's director, released an essay titled, "How Relevant Is Holocaust Revisionism?" In it he noted that Holocaust denial had attracted little support over the years. Accordingly, he recommended that emphasis be placed instead on opposing "Jewish-Zionist power".[8]

Oh Hey!

Quote:

He also argues that the 9/11 attacks were a result of the U.S. Government's policies regarding the Middle East. He claims those policies are formed by the "Jewish-Zionist powers that be in the United States."

Probably just a blind coincidence that he uses the same terminology as an Anti-Semetic organization run by former white supremisists and rampant anti semites.

Molon Labe
03-27-2009, 01:49 PM
Sobran is also much beloved of Institute for Historical Review, which dotes on his articles.

Probably just a blind coincidence that he uses the same terminology as an Anti-Semetic organization run by former white supremisists and rampant anti semites.

Jeesh. The Anti Semite Card.

I guess because the article says so...it must be.
If you'd read a little further in the wiki article you'd see how Buckley admits that questions regarding lobbying interests of a particular group tends to get the "anti-semite" shaft, but are ignored if they refer to China etc. That hardly makes him one simply because those idiots latch on to what he says as if he's one of them.

And who has been a big accuser .....Norman Podhoretz....a flippin' neocon. :rolleyes:

What a surprise?

Conservatives have been reading him for decades, until paleo thought became on the outs lately. It's only recently that anyone with an agenda (see the former administration) ever tried to accuse him of being anything but a upstanding pundit. This is the same bunk people try to lay on Pat Buchanan.

asdf2231
03-27-2009, 02:03 PM
Jeesh. The Anti Semite Card.

I guess because the article says so...it must be.
If you'd read a little further in the wiki article you'd see how Buckley admits that questions regarding lobbying interests of a particular group tends to get the "anti-semite" shaft, but are ignored if they refer to China etc. That hardly makes him one simply because those idiots latch on to what he says as if he's one of them.

And who has been a big accuser .....Norman Podhoretz....a flippin' neocon. :rolleyes:

What a surprise?

Conservatives have been reading him for decades, until paleo thought became on the outs lately. It's only recently that anyone with an agenda (see the former administration) ever tried to accuse him of being anything but a upstanding pundit. This is the same bunk people try to lay on Pat Buchanan.

Hey ya know what Sparky?

This jackass was FIRED by Bill Buckley, the father of modern Conservatism. Because the guy was a raving anti semetic LOON in his opinion. Whatever comments he made about the guy afterward, I notice he didn't rehire him or change his opinion of WHY he fired him.

And nice way of blowing off the fact that your poster boy hangs out with some first rate Jew Bashing A-holes. And is quoted and adored by them.

You throw out "Ah Geez the Anti-Semite card" as if it defuses the fact that the stupid mother frakker writes anti semetic opinions, is published on anti-semetic websites and in anti-semetic print publications and hangs around with people who are devout anti-semites.

So get off your fucking high horse.

You quoted this retard and support his view points. That puts you in the category of the OTHER people that endorse his opinions. Nice club members you have there.

Oh and fuck you in the neck. I am sick to fucking death of the retarded 4% of half the country that slobbered on Ron Pauls testicles using "Neo-Con" as a deflection tool.

Molon Labe
03-27-2009, 02:10 PM
You quoted this retard and support his view points. That puts you in the category of the OTHER people that endorse his opinions. Nice club members you have there.


So does that make me an Anti semite too?

Rebel Yell
03-27-2009, 02:18 PM
Hey ya know what Sparky?

This jackass was FIRED by Bill Buckley, the father of modern Conservatism. Because the guy was a raving anti semetic LOON in his opinion. Whatever comments he made about the guy afterward, I notice he didn't rehire him or change his opinion of WHY he fired him.

And nice way of blowing off the fact that your poster boy hangs out with some first rate Jew Bashing A-holes. And is quoted and adored by them.

You throw out "Ah Geez the Anti-Semite card" as if it defuses the fact that the stupid mother frakker writes anti semetic opinions, is published on anti-semetic websites and in anti-semetic print publications and hangs around with people who are devout anti-semites.

So get off your fucking high horse.

You quoted this retard and support his view points. That puts you in the category of the OTHER people that endorse his opinions. Nice club members you have there.

Oh and fuck you in the neck. I am sick to fucking death of the retarded 4% of half the country that slobbered on Ron Pauls testicles using "Neo-Con" as a deflection tool.

I don't really know anything about the guy. If he is an anti semite, does that make him any less right in the article posted? I've noticed a huge hypocracy when it comes to this type of discussion. Soban is a racist, therefore he must be wrong about everything. Yet, y'all hold Lincoln up to be the next thing to Jesus.


“I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. … And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” – Abraham Lincoln in his fourth debate with Stephen Douglas in the campaign for the United States Senate on September 18th of 1858.


Does this mean we can never agree with anything Licoln has ever done or said? You have to have it one way or another, but not both.

asdf2231
03-27-2009, 02:22 PM
So does that make me an Anti semite too?

It makes you an idiot.

Whether you are an anti-semetic idiot is not something you would ever admit to if you were.

Besides which, this being the internet you would produce n imaginary Jewish reletive and hold them up like a shield if you WERE an anti-semite and someone called you on it.

I repeat, you support the guys opinions and think enough of him that you pimp him on the internet.

He is what he is and the people that glorify his opinions are what THEY are.

And if you gloss over someones spectacularly fucked up viewpoints because one thing they say supports some stupid theory you buy into it's like saying "Yeah he may support legalizing incest, but that doesn't negate his great theories on table tennis."

Molon Labe
03-27-2009, 02:23 PM
I don't really know anything about the guy. If he is an anti semite, does that make him any less right in the article posted? I've noticed a huge hypocracy when it comes to this type of discussion. Soban is a racist, therefore he must be wrong about everything. Yet, y'all hold Lincoln up to be the next thing to Jesus..

Rebel Yell
Sorry to turn your thread into such a mess. I had no idea that an article about anarchy would turn into a discussion about the JOOOOS. That wasn't the intent.

asdf2231
03-27-2009, 02:23 PM
I don't really know anything about the guy. If he is an anti semite, does that make him any less right in the article posted? I've noticed a huge hypocracy when it comes to this type of discussion. Soban is a racist, therefore he must be wrong about everything. Yet, y'all hold Lincoln up to be the next thing to Jesus.

Does this mean we can never agree with anything Licoln has ever done or said? You have to have it one way or another, but not both.

See my last post.

Jesus. :rolleyes:

asdf2231
03-27-2009, 02:24 PM
Rebel Yell
Sorry to turn your thread into such a mess. I had no idea that an article about anarchy would turn into a discussion about the JOOOOS. That wasn't the intent.


Maybe you shouldn't have drug one of the slicker holocaust deniers of the last few decades into it as a supporting source then.

PoliCon
03-27-2009, 02:25 PM
y'all hold Lincoln up to be the next thing to Jesus.Who does? Who here has held Lincoln up as the son of God? Hell I'd like to know who here has used Lincoln to justify any of the positions. . . . .

Rebel Yell
03-27-2009, 02:25 PM
Rebel Yell
Sorry to turn your thread into such a mess. I had no idea that an article about anarchy would turn into a discussion about the JOOOOS. That wasn't the intent.

No problem.:D

If the guy is an anti semite, that has nothing to do with what you posted. Blind squirrel will find a nut every now and then.

Gingersnap
03-27-2009, 02:29 PM
Apparently everybody has established their preferred level of suspicion and vitriol for this particular thread. Having done that, can we all just get back to the anarchy/total government issue? :rolleyes:

FeebMaster
03-27-2009, 02:34 PM
Rebel Yell
Sorry to turn your thread into such a mess. I had no idea that an article about anarchy would turn into a discussion about the JOOOOS. That wasn't the intent.

I was just thinking that. Usually when I post into a thread it devolves into a "discussion" about anarchy. Here we have a thread about anarchy and we're talking about jews. Go figure.

asdf2231
03-27-2009, 02:47 PM
So does that make me an Anti semite too?

No I am sure EVERYBODY has the same pictures you do posted on their MySpace:

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/burndol_dees.jpg

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/easter_dees.jpg

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=883006&blogId=410677532

Rebel Yell
03-27-2009, 02:49 PM
Who does? Who here has held Lincoln up as the son of God? Hell I'd like to know who here has used Lincoln to justify any of the positions. . . . .


Lincoln was a man of insight and intelligence.


Because he was the first, and by many considered greatest, Republican president. Your results may differ, but you're not on the convention committee.

There's a couple. Anytime you discuss Lincoln is a bad light, the shit starts to fly. Granted, it flies both ways. If you say Lincoln was anything other than the father of the republican party, you're a bitter southerner. "Party of Lincoln".:rolleyes:

FlaGator
03-27-2009, 02:49 PM
Try to think about it like this.




He goes on to talk about how the modern "state" system has taken 200 million lives. That isn't very plausilble with little tribes running around IMO.

There isn't much difference that the big scale state system and the little tribes running except the numbers are smaller. If the big state system kills 10 percent of it 1,000,000 people then you have 100,000 dead. If the little tribe kills ten percent of its 100 people you have 10 dead. However the survival chances of the smaller tribe is greately reduced because its 10 percent loss will have a greater social impact than big system's 10 percent loss.

Rebel Yell
03-27-2009, 02:50 PM
I was just thinking that. Usually when I post into a thread it devolves into a "discussion" about anarchy. Here we have a thread about anarchy and we're talking about jews. Go figure.

JOOS trump all on here. Sorry.:o

And to think, you actually had some people agrreing with you this time.;)

FlaGator
03-27-2009, 02:51 PM
I was just thinking that. Usually when I post into a thread it devolves into a "discussion" about anarchy. Here we have a thread about anarchy and we're talking about jews. Go figure.

Society breaks down in to anarchy and anarchy breaks down in to Judaism.... who would have thunk it.

Rebel Yell
03-27-2009, 02:55 PM
Society breaks down in to anarchy and anarchy breaks down in to Judaism.... who would have thunk it.

But what does Judaism break down into. Wait!!!! No one answer that!!!!!!:D:eek:

Gingersnap
03-27-2009, 02:58 PM
But what does Judaism break down into?

Rotarians. It's insidious.

Rebel Yell
03-27-2009, 03:05 PM
Rotarians. It's insidious.
Phew!!!!! I was afraid a Holocaust joke was coming. Actually, I thought of an answer to that as i wrote it, but it was too wrong for me.

PoliCon
03-27-2009, 03:12 PM
There's a couple. Anytime you discuss Lincoln is a bad light, the shit starts to fly. Granted, it flies both ways. If you say Lincoln was anything other than the father of the republican party, you're a bitter southerner. "Party of Lincoln".:rolleyes:
Lincoln wasn't the father of the republican party any more than Jefferson is the father of the democratic party. :rolleyes: YES - Lincoln was the first republican president - but the party wasn't founded by him - hell he wasn't even the first republican candidate! John Fremont was! :rolleyes: No one person can claim to be the father of the republican party - UNLIKE the democratic party which has a father in Andrew Jackson.

Molon Labe
03-27-2009, 03:13 PM
There isn't much difference that the big scale state system and the little tribes running except the numbers are smaller. If the big state system kills 10 percent of it 1,000,000 people then you have 100,000 dead. If the little tribe kills ten percent of its 100 people you have 10 dead. However the survival chances of the smaller tribe is greately reduced because its 10 percent loss will have a greater social impact than big system's 10 percent loss.

Thanks for lightening the mood.

Ok
Hopefully I got something a bit less controversial. It's the libertarian perspective,cause that's where you find the most anarchist apologists....but it references it from a Christian aspect. I don't think the two writers, who are a minister for the "Center for Cultural Leadership" and a software engineer, are too threatening.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sandlin/sandlin13.html

From the article.


Absence of state coercion is not equivalent to political liberty. Political liberty is possible only when there is a series of independent social institutions that check each other’s authority. These institutions are communities. Man cannot live without community (Genesis 2:18).


Now in the Bible and the Christian faith, that community is manifested primarily in the family and church, and secondarily in vocation (“business”) and other “private” spheres


The modern state is never at war with the individual. The state needs the individual (and it wants only the individual) for its sordid, tyrannical purposes. The state is at war with other communities that vie for man’s allegiance

Basically it's summed up by:


The Bible weds anarchy in the political sphere to community in the social sphere

CS Lewis once said that Christianity in it's ideal form was community oriented. "Socialist" in nature.
Do you agree?

FlaGator
03-27-2009, 03:48 PM
Basically it's summed up by:



CS Lewis once said that Christianity in it's ideal form was community oriented. "Socialist" in nature.
Do you agree?

I would agree with that. Lewis was spot on (as usual). As you read Acts the communal nature of their living arrangements is very apparent. Also, as you read through Pauls Epistles and keep in the back of your mind the socialist nature of their "churches" his words take on more meaning. It wasn't until the "offiicial" church was created that their communal lifestyle began to break down. The church, instead of being a community of people, be came the central place of meeting with people actually residing privately in the individual family groups.

AlmostThere
03-27-2009, 04:07 PM
There's one thing I think those that have voted for total control have forgotten - there is no assurance that because there is total government control that you will be safe. The state could very easily declare you a criminal for having the wrong color nose hair.
I have often feared being discovered. I dream I'm in a meeting, fully clothed for a change, but I suddenly realize that everyone KNOWS the truth. :eek: Pardon the pun.

Odysseus
03-27-2009, 07:23 PM
Jeesh. The Anti Semite Card.
And who has been a big accuser .....Norman Podhoretz....a flippin' neocon. :rolleyes:
Jeesh. The neocon card. :rolleyes:

Anti-semitism, like any bigotry, generally implies an inability to approach the world rationally and spills over into other areas, although not necessarily all of them (Wagner wrote great operas in spite of being a raving loon on the subject of Jews). In the case of Sobran, I know that if he's talking about Jews or Israel, he's probably not going to be particularly rational or relevent, but that doesn't mean that all of his other arguments are necessarily irrational. Each argument must be evaluated on its own merits, not just the biases of the speaker. Of course, if the speaker is a raving loon across the board, it tends to undercut his credibility, but even a broken clock is right twice a day (unless it's a digital clock, in which case it just keeps flashing zeros until the LED burns out).


Try to think about it like this.
He goes on to talk about how the modern "state" system has taken 200 million lives. That isn't very plausible with little tribes running around IMO.
Making the claim that 200 million lives were taken by the "modern 'state' system" is like saying that a man who ingested a pound of heroin and a glass of milk simultaneously died of lactose intolerance. By failing to make a distinction between types of states, Sobran equates them all with tyranny. This is absurd. The states that murdered hundreds of millions during the last century were totalitarian states that sought to impose total control on their people, but many of them devolved into anarchy (Cambodia being an obvious example). This is not an argument against the existence of government, but an argument for limiting its scale in order to ensure that it cannot become a danger to those who live within its jurisdiction.

The fallacy of anarchists is the assumption that people without any civil society or civic order can function in groups beyond their friends and clans. Anarchists assume that man, left to his own devices, without the constraints of law, will not accede to his basest impulses. Hobbes, Machiavelli and a host of others have put the lie to that theory. Without laws made by consensus, and courts to interpret and enforce those laws, there is no neutral means of resolving disputes. Trust becomes impossible beyond your immediate circle, contracts cannot be enforced, and any effort that involves the skills or strengths of strangers cannot be undertaken. That's anarchy. No thanks.


But what does Judaism break down into. Wait!!!! No one answer that!!!!!!:D:eek:
Reform Judaism, which breaks down into the Democratic Party, but with holidays.

Molon Labe
04-01-2009, 12:29 PM
Jeesh. The neocon card. :rolleyes:

I didn't invent the term. I haven't spent nearly 40 years developing foreign policy strategies and think tanks based on it. Irving Kristol and his disciples did, so it's hardly a "card". Shaping the world so it's "favorable to American principles and interests"? We all know what that's code for. It hardly sounds like self determination for anyone that wants it any other way does it?
I was always taught that this left wing Wilsonian Idealism was liberal dog shat. Guess people today think differently.....the real shame is calling it "conservative".


Anti-semitism, like any bigotry, generally implies an inability to approach the world rationally and spills over into other areas, although not necessarily all of them (Wagner wrote great operas in spite of being a raving loon on the subject of Jews). In the case of Sobran, I know that if he's talking about Jews or Israel, he's probably not going to be particularly rational or relevent, but that doesn't mean that all of his other arguments are necessarily irrational.

Not being familiar with the guy and basing his entire career on a Wiki though? National Review has been purging the paleos for one politically expedient reason or another for some twenty years now. Sometimes the purge is because the guys a real asshat (see David Frum). More often it's for "anti semite" bull or daring to follow realist FP principles rather than the current trend (see Buchanan). Why, they waited till Bill died to oust Chris Buckley. Doing nothing more than daring to suggest that Obama was a better option than the liberals favorite Republican, McCain.
We wouldn't or shouldn't be labeled an Islamophobe because we question extremist Islam and it's hold on Europe. I hardly think the being critical about the nature of Israel is "anti semitic" or "irrational and irrelevant"....any more so than critical assumptions about the extremist Muslims. Both are equally worthy of debate.
I remember nearly twenty years ago when the left tried to smear P. Buchanan in the same way with the anti-semite crap. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n6_v44/ai_12111769/
Now it's conservatives that try to do it to their own as if they and David Duke are synonymous.


Making the claim that 200 million lives were taken by the "modern 'state' system" is like saying that a man who ingested a pound of heroin and a glass of milk simultaneously died of lactose intolerance. By failing to make a distinction between types of states, Sobran equates them all with tyranny. This is absurd. The states that murdered hundreds of millions during the last century were totalitarian states that sought to impose total control on their people, but many of them devolved into anarchy (Cambodia being an obvious example). This is not an argument against the existence of government, but an argument for limiting its scale in order to ensure that it cannot become a danger to those who live within its jurisdiction.

This thread is/was about which is better Anarchy or Complete State control. To me it's a question of Collectivism v. Individualism. I think we both agree that limiting the central control of government is good thing, although I'm for something much closer to Jefferson intent than you probably are.
Type of state doesn't matter because of what Hayek said. The worst always get on top. It doesn't matter the system. The more collective society becomes on a macro level, the more the chance of tyranny. You should read him, it would be a good thing. The federal control most countries have today over local forms of government is not healthy.


The fallacy of anarchists is the assumption that people without any civil society or civic order can function in groups beyond their friends and clans. Anarchists assume that man, left to his own devices, without the constraints of law, will not accede to his basest impulses. Hobbes, Machiavelli and a host of others have put the lie to that theory. Without laws made by consensus, and courts to interpret and enforce those laws, there is no neutral means of resolving disputes. Trust becomes impossible beyond your immediate circle, contracts cannot be enforced, and any effort that involves the skills or strengths of strangers cannot be undertaken. That's anarchy. No thanks.

You've just described the entire international order. It seems good to me. I'm not in favor of a "civic order" to the international realm. Are you?

Odysseus
04-01-2009, 03:47 PM
[QUOTE=Odysseus;125167]Jeesh. The neocon card. :rolleyes:

I didn't invent the term. I haven't spent nearly 40 years developing foreign policy strategies and think tanks based on it. Irving Kristol and his disciples did, so it's hardly a "card". Shaping the world so it's "favorable to American principles and interests"? We all know what that's code for. It hardly sounds like self determination for anyone that wants it any other way does it?
I was always taught that this left wing Wilsonian Idealism was liberal dog shat. Guess people today think differently.....the real shame is calling it "conservative".

That's okay, I didn't invent the term antisemitism, and it's got a longer history than neoconservatism. As for "shaping the world so that it's 'favorable to American principles and interests'" being code for something, just what is it code for? I missed that at the international Neocon Conspiracy Meetings, but don't tell Kristol, or he'll force me to write OPED columns for the NY Post for the next six months as a punishment.


Not being familiar with the guy and basing his entire career on a Wiki though? National Review has been purging the paleos for one politically expedient reason or another for some twenty years now. Sometimes the purge is because the guys a real asshat (see David Frum). More often it's for "anti semite" bull or daring to follow realist FP principles rather than the current trend (see Buchanan). Why, they waited till Bill died to oust Chris Buckley. Doing nothing more than daring to suggest that Obama was a better option than the liberals favorite Republican, McCain.
We wouldn't or shouldn't be labeled an Islamophobe because we question extremist Islam and it's hold on Europe. I hardly think the being critical about the nature of Israel is "anti semitic" or "irrational and irrelevant"....any more so than critical assumptions about the extremist Muslims. Both are equally worthy of debate.
I remember nearly twenty years ago when the left tried to smear P. Buchanan in the same way with the anti-semite crap. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n6_v44/ai_12111769/
Now it's conservatives that try to do it to their own as if they and David Duke are synonymous.

I am familiar with Sobran, but it's been a while since he was tossed off of National Review, and since I wanted to remind myself of the facts, I also pulled his wikipedia article. Buchanan may not be an antisemite, but he certainly is virulently anti-Israel, and a few quotes from Buchanan should at least make you wonder:


We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people’s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.


Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?
Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud.


In Jews and American Politics, published in 1974, Stephen D. Isaacs wrote, “Richard Perle and Morris Amitay command a tiny army of Semitophiles on Capitol Hill and direct Jewish power in behalf of Jewish interests.” In 1983, the New York Times reported that Perle had taken substantial payments from an Israeli weapons manufacturer.


About the Perle-Feith-Wurmser cabal, author Michael Lind writes:


The radical Zionist right to which Perle and Feith belong is small in number but it has become a significant force in Republican policy-making circles. It is a recent phenomenon, dating back to the late 1970s and 1980s, when many formerly Democratic Jewish intellectuals joined the broad Reagan coalition. While many of these hawks speak in public about global crusades for democracy, the chief concern of many such “neo-conservatives” is the power and reputation of Israel.

Right down the smokestack.
That "right down the smokestack" comment alludes to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which Buchanan is comparing to Neocons.


Since the time of Ben Gurion, the behavior of the Israeli regime has been Jekyll and Hyde. In the 1950s, its intelligence service, the Mossad, had agents in Egypt blow up U.S. installations to make it appear the work of Cairo, to destroy U.S. relations with the new Nasser government. During the Six Day War, Israel ordered repeated attacks on the undefended USS Liberty that killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171 and included the machine-gunning of life rafts. This massacre was neither investigated nor punished by the U.S. government in an act of national cravenness.

And those are just from one article. Throw in a few obscenities and he's Gator.


This thread is/was about which is better Anarchy or Complete State control. To me it's a question of Collectivism v. Individualism. I think we both agree that limiting the central control of government is good thing, although I'm for something much closer to Jefferson intent than you probably are.
Type of state doesn't matter because of what Hayek said. The worst always get on top. It doesn't matter the system. The more collective society becomes on a macro level, the more the chance of tyranny. You should read him, it would be a good thing. The federal control most countries have today over local forms of government is not healthy.

I've read Hayek and Von Mises, but what you're failing to see is that complete anarchy breeds tyranny and collectivism as surely as collectivism breeds anarchy. Anarchy leads to rule by the strongest thug or group of thugs, who invariably impose their own rules on everyone around them, without any concept of rights. In fact, the only "right" under anarchy is whatever you can take for yourself and keep through force. That's no different from a totalitarian state that imposes the same constraints on its slaves. Ultimately freedom can only exist if there are neutral institutions within the state that guarantee that the rules are obeyed by all, equally.

The issue of whether or not a state is good or bad is not the type of state, as Hayek pointed out, but the degree to which the state assumes roles for which it is not suited. A benign dictator or king who maintains honest courts and other civil institutions with minimal intrusion in the lives of his subjects is better than a corrupt democracy that seeks to govern every aspect of the lives of its citizens. One can argue whether or not the state should deliver mail, but only a state can provide courts and police. Any attempt by a tribe or clan to do that is doomed to failure, because no one from outside of the tribe or clan can count on justice and protection, which means that you cannot have business transactions beyond the tribe or clan. The degree to which the state abandons the role of impartial referee and imposes itself as a player is the degree of tyranny in a state.


You've just described the entire international order. It seems good to me. I'm not in favor of a "civic order" to the international realm. Are you?

Nope. In fact, I adamantly oppose any form of world government. The basis of international law is sovereign governments entering into voluntary agreements, either bilaterally or in groups (NATO being an example), but that presupposes sovereign governments who accept the agreed upon rules. For an example of what happens when the rules break down, look at the Pelopinesian Wars, the First and Second World Wars and pretty much any conflict between two states. This is what you get when there is no neutral arbiter, and there cannot be a neutral arbiter between nations, unless it is a disinterested third party which is trusted by the disputing states. That happens rarely. What is far more likely to happen is that two states will either negotiate a compromise, or they will initiate hostilities. Given this, it is essential that states be able to conduct the legitimate business of governments, which is to defend themselves and their citizens and interact with other governments, in whatever way that circumstances demand. That requires enough of a central government to protect itself and to project power where its citizens may be threatened. Americans have interests throughout the world. We build and conduct business everywhere, and as a result, those threats can arise anywhere, so we must retain the capacity to put our armed forces anywhere. That doesn't mean that we are prepared to fight the rest of the world, but we must be prepared to fight whenever our legitimate interests, meaning the safety of American citizens and our property, is threatened, or we must be prepared to accept the deaths and robbery of Americans as the price for our inability to do so.