I haven’t really been up-to-date with this thread, but I just thought I’d drop in and let you see this absolutely inspiring Obama speech. This country has been waiting for a candidate that won’t give us up, let us down, run around or desert us for too long. This one speech makes me want to vote for him.
They are breaking in to steal something because they need it, they are not breaking in to kill you.
So what you’re saying is that you just need to hand over all your valuables?
Your and your relatives’ life is not at risk because he has no interest in killing you → No self-defense because there was no threat towards you nor your family in the first place.
Oh, I think I understand. Just because a thief breaks down your front door with an MP5 threatening your family and your children, it means he’s a nice fellow. He sees that you aren’t brandishing your own MP5 in self-defense so he starts raping your wife. Its win-win isn’t it?
Ok, so then, what’s the difference? It sounds like a return to a couple thousand years ago, followed by the development of small groups that want to work together, followed by bigger “governments”, which will progress into a group of nations. It just seems like a reset that will lead back to the same thing.
What’s the difference? The difference is we tell the government that we’re fed up with their shit. Its a historical process. Government gets too big, falls, and starts over. I think we’re at the part where the government is too big.
they also have as much right as you to own and use that gun, what makes you think they wont shoot you because of that?
They won’t come near you and try to steal because they know that they have no advantage over you. They realize that you, as well as all your close neighbors, and the government protecting you will come after them.
but you’re not allowed to shoot someone after they shot one of your relatives.
Nope, that is why we would have ‘private’ governments to operate the court system and whatnot. I mean, you can shoot them, but the government that protects them would likely to be pissed off.
So basically you think it’s alright for people to shoot someone after taking a worthless item, but you’re not allowed to do something when a valuable life has been taken?
Your obviously a bleeding heart liberal that has no idea what he’s saying. The person that comes on your property and attempts to steal something is endangering your life and your family’s life. You are shooting him in self-defense.
Ever had a friend who was in trouble very bad, unable to get out of those problems, and when you want to help them, they deny your offer? I’m talking about those kind of people, they’d rather just die in the streets instead of being helped.
And you think not having Anarchy stops this? Really? This has nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to do with Anarchism.
A “nice .45” only works while you’re awake and holding it.
You went ahead and skipped over the important part of my post.
The different between anarchy and what we have now is… huge. You understand this as well as I do, or you wouldn’t be advocating one over the other.
Yes indeed, and it works just perfectly up until someone decides they would like to takes everything you own. Unless you have armed guards patrolling the area day and night, there’s little you can do about it. Or worse, if your guards decide to take it from you.
How is this different than the scenario we have currently? That’s right, its not.
bq. A large group of the world population can’t even cook his own food, let alone respect others and make the right decisions without someone guiding them, so we can all live in harmony.
Still not agreeing with it.
I'm actually starting to like anarchism more and more. I understand what lord is saying and it makes a hell of a lot of sense. With anarchy you truly have power over your government. I also like the idea that people can choose what laws they wish to live under. Anarchy would eliminate all taxes too and that is a major plus.
it was in Georgian airspace, but it was not a ground-attack plane.
Yes, Georgia shot down the first plane. However, this plane was, as you said, in Georgian airspace. Georgia had every right to shoot that plane down. The crossing into Georgia’s airspace is the act of aggression; thus, Russia was the starter of this conflict, not Georgia.
People are too stupid to lead their own lives and need to be guided.
I cannot agree with this statement.
Anarchy doesn’t work. Absolute freedom corrupts absolutely, it seems.
Yeah, I see anarchy as chaos; but, that may be because I’m not envisioning a very slow transition into anarchy. I think the negative connotation comes from this sort of belief. However, I don’t see anarchy as something that society can cope with even with a very slow transition. Maybe lord_azaral can change my mind…
Why does the US have to ally every single little country? We’re going to be involved in 30 wars before someone finally realizes: “Hey, let’s worry about our own asses for once. Some other people can take care of themselves for like 2 seconds while we take care of ourselves. FORONCE.”