RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Sorry...There would be no anarchy in a truely free market society. You disregard mans ability to govern himself...which we do 99.9% of every day we live. I dont advocate anarchy...I advocate the voluntary interaction among people without the use of force in a free market society.

So, you don't agree with the Constitution? You don't agree there must be regulations in place? I believe what you're advocating will work just as well as true Socialism. I.e. NOT AT ALL. Why? Neither takes into account the human factor. In Socialism as in what you're advocating, people will be concerned with one thing, power, pissing all over anyone that gets in their way to achieve their goals. Nothing wrong with having as much wealth and power as you wish to achieve, so long as it doesn't start affecting someone else. We don't live in a vacuum. In both scenarios I see what can essentially be seen in Venezuela, Guatemala, and some other hellholes I deployed to after Hurricane Mitch. The Haves and the Have Nots. The Haves had friggin' mansions, ate whatever they wanted, drove better cars than I've seen in Augusta, Ga., and lined the tops of their walled compounds with broken glass cemented into the brick. The Have Nots did everything they could just to scrape by. It's why I am a staunch capitalist who knows full well the government needs to regulate certain aspects of trade. If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere and should probably just off yourself. That's my philosophy.

I think the Constitution is mans best effort in achieving liberty thus far in history..and if we actually followed the document,we would not be a such a mess...It was designed to limit the power of government and maximize liberty to the citizenry...Whoa and Behold what we have made!!!...hardly seems to be what the founders envisioned. Government can not be reigned in by its very nature. It will always seek more power at the expense of liberty....How large will we allow it to grow? How much more libery are we willing to relinquish?...Just what "is" our tipping point?...Can we turn it around? I think not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

While some of the definitions of anarchy involve chaos, the most rigorous (in terms of political science) simply refer to a society organized by voluntary cooperation (instead of under a governement). So yes, Fo Shizzle, you are an anarchist.

jh Wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

While some of the definitions of anarchy involve chaos, the most rigorous (in terms of political science) simply refer to a society organized by voluntary cooperation (instead of under a governement). So yes, Fo Shizzle, you are an anarchist.

By strict interpertation you are correct...and I think it is obvious why I dont refer to myself in that manner. I prefer FreeMarketeer.
The term anarchy has been highjacked by those that advocate violence as a means to an end....I totally reject violence and advocate non violent civil disobediance....If you believe in violence...You believe in the State. Government at its core...is force and is violent.

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Sorry...There would be no anarchy in a truely free market society. You disregard mans ability to govern himself...which we do 99.9% of every day we live. I dont advocate anarchy...I advocate the voluntary interaction among people without the use of force in a free market society.

So, you don't agree with the Constitution? You don't agree there must be regulations in place? I believe what you're advocating will work just as well as true Socialism. I.e. NOT AT ALL. Why? Neither takes into account the human factor. In Socialism as in what you're advocating, people will be concerned with one thing, power, pissing all over anyone that gets in their way to achieve their goals. Nothing wrong with having as much wealth and power as you wish to achieve, so long as it doesn't start affecting someone else. We don't live in a vacuum. In both scenarios I see what can essentially be seen in Venezuela, Guatemala, and some other hellholes I deployed to after Hurricane Mitch. The Haves and the Have Nots. The Haves had friggin' mansions, ate whatever they wanted, drove better cars than I've seen in Augusta, Ga., and lined the tops of their walled compounds with broken glass cemented into the brick. The Have Nots did everything they could just to scrape by. It's why I am a staunch capitalist who knows full well the government needs to regulate certain aspects of trade. If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere and should probably just off yourself. That's my philosophy.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with you.

If left to their own devices without any government to keep people in check, people would screw each other over mercilessly.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with you.

If left to their own devices without any government to keep people in check, people would screw each other over mercilessly.

I never said I wasn't for regulation. I am, however, opposed to confiscation.

As for those regulations, we were talking about government in general, not the federal government. I fully think most regulation should occur at the state level.

RebelKev Wrote:

the other Greg Childers Wrote:I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with you.

If left to their own devices without any government to keep people in check, people would screw each other over mercilessly.

I never said I wasn't for regulation. I am, however, opposed to confiscation.

As for those regulations, we were talking about government in general, not the federal government. I fully think most regulation should occur at the state level.

Except when it involves interstate commerce. I believe that is mentioned in the Constitution.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:Except when it involves interstate commerce. I believe that is mentioned in the Constitution.

Oh, no, I agree there. States can't impose their own rules on another state. It's delineated in the legislative powers of the Constitution.

the other Greg Childers Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Sorry...There would be no anarchy in a truely free market society. You disregard mans ability to govern himself...which we do 99.9% of every day we live. I dont advocate anarchy...I advocate the voluntary interaction among people without the use of force in a free market society.

So, you don't agree with the Constitution? You don't agree there must be regulations in place? I believe what you're advocating will work just as well as true Socialism. I.e. NOT AT ALL. Why? Neither takes into account the human factor. In Socialism as in what you're advocating, people will be concerned with one thing, power, pissing all over anyone that gets in their way to achieve their goals. Nothing wrong with having as much wealth and power as you wish to achieve, so long as it doesn't start affecting someone else. We don't live in a vacuum. In both scenarios I see what can essentially be seen in Venezuela, Guatemala, and some other hellholes I deployed to after Hurricane Mitch. The Haves and the Have Nots. The Haves had friggin' mansions, ate whatever they wanted, drove better cars than I've seen in Augusta, Ga., and lined the tops of their walled compounds with broken glass cemented into the brick. The Have Nots did everything they could just to scrape by. It's why I am a staunch capitalist who knows full well the government needs to regulate certain aspects of trade. If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere and should probably just off yourself. That's my philosophy.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with you.

If left to their own devices without any government to keep people in check, people would screw each other over mercilessly.

Im sure the founders didnt intend for government to "keep people in check"...In fact...The "intent" was for the people to keep government in check....Oh My!

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Im sure the founders didnt intend for government to "keep people in check"...In fact...The "intent" was for the people to keep government in check....Oh My!

So, the founding fathers saw no need to have a legal system to keep people in check? The government is supposed to be comprised of the people, a civilized people who get together and dictate how they want their society to operate. I have already contended that regulation of business should be relegated to the state governments, but it's specifically entered into the legislative powers of the US Constitution that the federal government not only has, but needs the powers to regulate interstate commerce and to settle differences between the states.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Im sure the founders didnt intend for government to "keep people in check"...In fact...The "intent" was for the people to keep government in check....Oh My!

Actually I'm pretty sure their intent was for both to keep each other in check. Our entire system of government was based on dividing power in as many different ways as possible & setting them against each other. Federal vs. state, executive vs. legislative vs. judicial, government vs. private citizens. Each had its own scope and the hope was that each would jealously guard its own powers, thereby keeping the other factions in check.

jh Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Im sure the founders didnt intend for government to "keep people in check"...In fact...The "intent" was for the people to keep government in check....Oh My!

Actually I'm pretty sure their intent was for both to keep each other in check. Our entire system of government was based on dividing power in as many different ways as possible & setting them against each other. Federal vs. state, executive vs. legislative vs. judicial, government vs. private citizens. Each had its own scope and the hope was that each would jealously guard its own powers, thereby keeping the other factions in check.

Sorry Jh...Only citizens have rights...government has NONE!!
No way in hell did the founders intend that the government keep the citizens in CHECK!

I look at the Statist dribble being contantly posted here and I am sure I know why our country is in the current mess it is in....For whatever reason, the public now worships at the alter of the State without any thought the consequences... This is why people die waiting on the government to help them....This is why we have a neverending welfare state...This is why they mindlessly accept the creeping Fascism and Socialism that is destroying our nation....a nation that has no concept of true liberty...a nation infested by blood sucking parasites that feed on the productive members of society without any moral virtue...Im one of the few that understand whats happening...because I understand that the government they worship is also a blood sucking parasite without any moral virtue.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Sorry Jh...Only citizens have rights...government has NONE!!
No way in hell did the founders intend that the government keep the citizens in CHECK!

I look at the Statist dribble being contantly posted here and I am sure I know why our country is in the current mess it is in....For whatever reason, the public now worships at the alter of the State without any thought the consequences... This is why people die waiting on the government to help them....This is why we have a neverending welfare state...This is why they mindlessly accept the creeping Fascism and Socialism that is destroying our nation....a nation that has no concept of true liberty...a nation infested by blood sucking parasites that feed on the productive members of society without any moral virtue...Im one of the few that understand whats happening...because I understand that the government they worship is also a blood sucking parasite without any moral virtue.

You're taking a serious DU approach, that government is some ruling entity divorced from the populace. The government IS the populace, Fo.

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Sorry Jh...Only citizens have rights...government has NONE!!
No way in hell did the founders intend that the government keep the citizens in CHECK!

I look at the Statist dribble being contantly posted here and I am sure I know why our country is in the current mess it is in....For whatever reason, the public now worships at the alter of the State without any thought the consequences... This is why people die waiting on the government to help them....This is why we have a neverending welfare state...This is why they mindlessly accept the creeping Fascism and Socialism that is destroying our nation....a nation that has no concept of true liberty...a nation infested by blood sucking parasites that feed on the productive members of society without any moral virtue...Im one of the few that understand whats happening...because I understand that the government they worship is also a blood sucking parasite without any moral virtue.

You're taking a serious DU approach, that government is some ruling entity divorced from the populace. The government IS the populace, Fo.

NO...The populace has almost zero control over government...It has weasled its way into almost every aspect of our lives and most of us dont even notice the intrusion....You can hardly name a damn thing that you encounter in your life that is untouched by its pervasive reach...We think that because we get to elect people to represent us that we have a say in dictating policy. The fact is that those people do NOT represent you and I...they represent a small minority through lobbist and special intrests....The government does not "protect and serve" us...it protects and serves itself and those that further its growth...namely politicans.

Statism is by nature parasitic and is immoral..since it steals the fruits of your labor and forces you to support it.

RebelKev Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Im sure the founders didnt intend for government to "keep people in check"...In fact...The "intent" was for the people to keep government in check....Oh My!

So, the founding fathers saw no need to have a legal system to keep people in check? The government is supposed to be comprised of the people, a civilized people who get together and dictate how they want their society to operate. I have already contended that regulation of business should be relegated to the state governments, but it's specifically entered into the legislative powers of the US Constitution that the federal government not only has, but needs the powers to regulate interstate commerce and to settle differences between the states.

No...The legal system is there to protect the citizen and give them due process and protection against the government... not keep them in check...I have no problem with rules or laws pertaining to the harm of others and that society can choose to punish those that do harm...I strongly oppose laws against things in which there is no victim.

A lot of contradictions in your last two posts, Fo.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Sorry Jh...Only citizens have rights...government has NONE!!
No way in hell did the founders intend that the government keep the citizens in CHECK!

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

James Madison, discussing the problems of factionalism & the tyranny of the majority in direct democracies in Federalist Paper No. 10.

The founding fathers were not anarchists. They understood that anarchy is a utopian ideal, an impossibility. The fact that they formed a government at all means they wanted to keep the citizens in check (along with other reasons such as the need for national defense). That's what government is - even the best, most benign form of government is still a restraint on its citizens. Every law is a restraint on action.

jh Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:Sorry Jh...Only citizens have rights...government has NONE!!
No way in hell did the founders intend that the government keep the citizens in CHECK!

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

James Madison, discussing the problems of factionalism & the tyranny of the majority in direct democracies in Federalist Paper No. 10.

The founding fathers were not anarchists. They understood that anarchy is a utopian ideal, an impossibility. The fact that they formed a government at all means they wanted to keep the citizens in check (along with other reasons such as the need for national defense). That's what government is - even the best, most benign form of government is still a restraint on its citizens. Every law is a restraint on action.

In the absence of the existance of a voluntary society as I advocate to base his assertion upon and the fact that we dont live in a democracy(we live in a representive republic) ...I would agree with Madison that true democracy is impossible.

I contend that there has never been an attempt to live without some type of governmental force...The closest to this I know of occured in Medieval Iceland and ended in 1262 it existed 290 years..It had a system of decentralization and involved chieftans...It contained some voluntarist ideals but even it was not without some use of force.

I am under no delusion that the Freemarket volunteerism is strictly theoritical, just as Democracy is theoritical... Im just here to point out the flaws of government and its use of force and suggest that there are other ideas.