Gun control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

I have personally seen my 35lb chain weight, female, pit bull destroy a pack of 4 coyotes. with minimal damage. She and our other working dogs have also killed bobcats, otters, weasels, raccoons, skunks, minks and other varmint all looking to loot our livestock and fields.

so what was that about a prepared area having to worry about zombies, in all seriousness I believe you are not giving lifty enough credit. It isn’t a person by themselves, freedom means voluntary interactions, in which the community works together to handle it’s problems. The federal government need not get involved unless it is requested.

In many instances it isn’t one person or family being prepared for the worst, it is small groups and communities.[/quote]

This is kinda my point. I don’t want to get into a pissing match and I don’t mean to diminish your animal’s ability to defend itself or your ability to train it as I don’t think we’re really on opposite sides of this issue, but 4 coyotes isn’t that impressive and nowhere near the number I had in mind when I say “surrounded”.

I think we can agree to this; the nearest comparisons we can draw about the collapse of the Federal Gov’t in this country is the Civil War (right?). If true, I think we can also agree that; 1.) It was very regional rather than class based., 2.) It was a war of attrition rather than a decisively military victory. You may not agree with my assertion that the above two claims don’t bode well for small, loosely/voluntarily organized communities. However, I think we can certainly agree that it was hardly a decisive military victory for either side and that smaller, more regional governments, were nearly equally likely to win as the larger, more managed Federal force.

42

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Why even bother arguing with an anarchist? They are so clearly and unambiguously full of shit that it really shouldn’t even be touched.[/quote]

Since you haven’t the ability to prove anything you say you should just keep quiet, professor.

[/quote]

Far be it from me, LIFTI, to take the side of young Sammy Mack Horstenschneimer but I can’t help but believe that no state of true anarchy within a large societal population has ever existed so therefore ye haven’t the ability to prove anything in regards to your utopian ideal either, hombre.
[/quote]

True anarchy rarely lasts long. It always transitions into some other form of government. What type of government you end up with can be good or bad. If you end up with a constitutional republic then great, if you end up with communism…well you know how that goes.
[/quote]

Well some one has to take over. Shit doesn’t just happen or even exist by itself. Anarchy defies the laws of nature. It literally can not exist.

43

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Why even bother arguing with an anarchist? They are so clearly and unambiguously full of shit that it really shouldn’t even be touched.[/quote]

Since you haven’t the ability to prove anything you say you should just keep quiet, professor.

[/quote]

Far be it from me, LIFTI, to take the side of young Sammy Mack Horstenschneimer but I can’t help but believe that no state of true anarchy within a large societal population has ever existed so therefore ye haven’t the ability to prove anything in regards to your utopian ideal either, hombre.
[/quote]

True anarchy rarely lasts long. It always transitions into some other form of government. What type of government you end up with can be good or bad. If you end up with a constitutional republic then great, if you end up with communism…well you know how that goes.
[/quote]

Well some one has to take over. Shit doesn’t just happen or even exist by itself. Anarchy defies the laws of nature. It literally can not exist.
[/quote]

That was basically my point. People want someone to follow. Anarchy doesn’t last long because someone or some group will come to power either through charisma or might.

44

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Why even bother arguing with an anarchist? They are so clearly and unambiguously full of shit that it really shouldn’t even be touched.[/quote]

Since you haven’t the ability to prove anything you say you should just keep quiet, professor.

[/quote]

Far be it from me, LIFTI, to take the side of young Sammy Mack Horstenschneimer but I can’t help but believe that no state of true anarchy within a large societal population has ever existed so therefore ye haven’t the ability to prove anything in regards to your utopian ideal either, hombre.
[/quote]

True anarchy rarely lasts long. It always transitions into some other form of government. What type of government you end up with can be good or bad. If you end up with a constitutional republic then great, if you end up with communism…well you know how that goes.
[/quote]

Well some one has to take over. Shit doesn’t just happen or even exist by itself. Anarchy defies the laws of nature. It literally can not exist.
[/quote]

Actually, humans are the only animals in nature that willingly subscribe to the idea of statism.

Nature is inherently anarchistic.

It actually requires intervention to bring about the State – it will never be brought about voluntarily.

45

[quote]lucasa wrote:

This is kinda my point. I don’t want to get into a pissing match and I don’t mean to diminish your animal’s ability to defend itself or your ability to train it as I don’t think we’re really on opposite sides of this issue, but 4 coyotes isn’t that impressive and nowhere near the number I had in mind when I say “surrounded”.

I think we can agree to this; the nearest comparisons we can draw about the collapse of the Federal Gov’t in this country is the Civil War (right?). If true, I think we can also agree that; 1.) It was very regional rather than class based., 2.) It was a war of attrition rather than a decisively military victory. You may not agree with my assertion that the above two claims don’t bode well for small, loosely/voluntarily organized communities. However, I think we can certainly agree that it was hardly a decisive military victory for either side and that smaller, more regional governments, were nearly equally likely to win as the larger, more managed Federal force. [/quote]

Oh 4 was the body count, not sure how many were there total, I heard a commotion around the hen house one night and she was the first of the dogs to the door so she got to have the fun. When I got out there with the rifle and flash light she had 4 of them lined up for me waiting for a treat.

I wouldn’t say we necessarily disagree. I don’t foresee anything happening in the near future, people are too passivized. But the only difference between this instance and the Civil War would be military support. In the current scenario I would say most of our military actually stands opposed to the current progressive expansion of the government and if it came down to it would move back to join their localized communities and help in coordinating. Not that I actually see that happening.

and as far as international support for the federales, I would take 1 or 2 of ours over a squad of blue caps any day. Most soldiers now practice guerrilla warfare as opposed to the more traditional battles of the civil war.

But again I really don’t see any of that coming to fruition.

46

apbt55,
I see your point but I disagree. I think most of the military would follow orders and in some sort of revolutionary situation, the revolutionaries would get crushed horribly by the US military. But other than that I agree with you, I don’t see anything like that coming to fruition barring a situation where people no longer get their gov’t benefits. Then people may get upset but I doubt a revolt. Awesome story about your dog btw.

47

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Why even bother arguing with an anarchist? They are so clearly and unambiguously full of shit that it really shouldn’t even be touched.[/quote]

Since you haven’t the ability to prove anything you say you should just keep quiet, professor.

[/quote]

Far be it from me, LIFTI, to take the side of young Sammy Mack Horstenschneimer but I can’t help but believe that no state of true anarchy within a large societal population has ever existed so therefore ye haven’t the ability to prove anything in regards to your utopian ideal either, hombre.
[/quote]

True anarchy rarely lasts long. It always transitions into some other form of government. What type of government you end up with can be good or bad. If you end up with a constitutional republic then great, if you end up with communism…well you know how that goes.
[/quote]

Well some one has to take over. Shit doesn’t just happen or even exist by itself. Anarchy defies the laws of nature. It literally can not exist.
[/quote]

Actually, humans are the only animals in nature that willingly subscribe to the idea of statism.

Nature is inherently anarchistic.

It actually requires intervention to bring about the State – it will never be brought about voluntarily.
[/quote]

So a lion pride is an anarchist state, with the dominant male controlling the pride and demarcating territory. or a colony of ants all working together for the common good. Or primates that will gang beat and rape insubordinate members.

I’m confused now. That doesn’t sound like anarchy to me. It sounds like a monarchy, communism and a police state.

48

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
apbt55,
I see your point but I disagree. I think most of the military would follow orders and in some sort of revolutionary situation, the revolutionaries would get crushed horribly by the US military. But other than that I agree with you, I don’t see anything like that coming to fruition barring a situation where people no longer get their gov’t benefits. Then people may get upset but I doubt a revolt. Awesome story about your dog btw.[/quote]

Yeah the dogs love doing their job, they love to work and be rewarded for their work.

In the situation you just described that is correct. You did not describe the government trying to strip the soveriegn citizens of their rights through use of the military, But even that situation could turn, an uprising for benefits would bring back the military and they would suppress it because that is their duty, that is the group feeding off of others, now if that caused the government to in turn try to dis arm and oppress the remainder, the prepared communities, the constitutional supporters, that they would not support. They are ascribed to support the constitution and the people.

There is alot going on behind the scenes in the military, it is why the government likes to keep them spread out and not here.

49

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Why even bother arguing with an anarchist? They are so clearly and unambiguously full of shit that it really shouldn’t even be touched.[/quote]

Since you haven’t the ability to prove anything you say you should just keep quiet, professor.

[/quote]

Far be it from me, LIFTI, to take the side of young Sammy Mack Horstenschneimer but I can’t help but believe that no state of true anarchy within a large societal population has ever existed so therefore ye haven’t the ability to prove anything in regards to your utopian ideal either, hombre.
[/quote]

True anarchy rarely lasts long. It always transitions into some other form of government. What type of government you end up with can be good or bad. If you end up with a constitutional republic then great, if you end up with communism…well you know how that goes.
[/quote]

Well some one has to take over. Shit doesn’t just happen or even exist by itself. Anarchy defies the laws of nature. It literally can not exist.
[/quote]

Actually, humans are the only animals in nature that willingly subscribe to the idea of statism.

Nature is inherently anarchistic.

It actually requires intervention to bring about the State – it will never be brought about voluntarily.
[/quote]

So a lion pride is an anarchist state, with the dominant male controlling the pride and demarcating territory. or a colony of ants all working together for the common good. Or primates that will gang beat and rape insubordinate members.

I’m confused now. That doesn’t sound like anarchy to me. It sounds like a monarchy, communism and a police state.
[/quote]

To the extent that we cannot prove animals act from any set of ideals we can essentially say it is instinctual behavior. We can analogizes groups of animal species as the tribe or family and it is no less true. Familial communities are voluntary because we can always choose to leave them – same is true for other animal species; this is what happens when less dominant males loose out on reproductive opportunities.

Hierarchies do naturally exist – be they physical or intellectual. It is only how we choose to use our our position in that hierarchy that sets us apart from other animals.

For example, recognizing the reality of scarcity we can choose to use violence to appropriate what we want or we can peacefully exchange our labor and property with others to bring about those same things.

History seems to indicate to me that individuals prefer peaceful exchange rather than conflict – it is only through the mantle of the State that people in the power hierarchy will use others for their own ends with violence and coercion.

51

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Why even bother arguing with an anarchist? They are so clearly and unambiguously full of shit that it really shouldn’t even be touched.[/quote]

Since you haven’t the ability to prove anything you say you should just keep quiet, professor.

[/quote]

Far be it from me, LIFTI, to take the side of young Sammy Mack Horstenschneimer but I can’t help but believe that no state of true anarchy within a large societal population has ever existed so therefore ye haven’t the ability to prove anything in regards to your utopian ideal either, hombre.
[/quote]

True anarchy rarely lasts long. It always transitions into some other form of government. What type of government you end up with can be good or bad. If you end up with a constitutional republic then great, if you end up with communism…well you know how that goes.
[/quote]

Well some one has to take over. Shit doesn’t just happen or even exist by itself. Anarchy defies the laws of nature. It literally can not exist.
[/quote]

Actually, humans are the only animals in nature that willingly subscribe to the idea of statism.

Nature is inherently anarchistic.

It actually requires intervention to bring about the State – it will never be brought about voluntarily.
[/quote]

Wolf packs
Bear dens
Fish schools
Silverback Gorillas

The list could go on for pages…

52

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Why even bother arguing with an anarchist? They are so clearly and unambiguously full of shit that it really shouldn’t even be touched.[/quote]

Since you haven’t the ability to prove anything you say you should just keep quiet, professor.

[/quote]

Far be it from me, LIFTI, to take the side of young Sammy Mack Horstenschneimer but I can’t help but believe that no state of true anarchy within a large societal population has ever existed so therefore ye haven’t the ability to prove anything in regards to your utopian ideal either, hombre.
[/quote]

True anarchy rarely lasts long. It always transitions into some other form of government. What type of government you end up with can be good or bad. If you end up with a constitutional republic then great, if you end up with communism…well you know how that goes.
[/quote]

Well some one has to take over. Shit doesn’t just happen or even exist by itself. Anarchy defies the laws of nature. It literally can not exist.
[/quote]

Actually, humans are the only animals in nature that willingly subscribe to the idea of statism.

Nature is inherently anarchistic.

It actually requires intervention to bring about the State – it will never be brought about voluntarily.
[/quote]

So a lion pride is an anarchist state, with the dominant male controlling the pride and demarcating territory. or a colony of ants all working together for the common good. Or primates that will gang beat and rape insubordinate members.

I’m confused now. That doesn’t sound like anarchy to me. It sounds like a monarchy, communism and a police state.
[/quote]

To the extent that we cannot prove animals act from any set of ideals we can essentially say it is instinctual behavior. We can analogizes groups of animal species as the tribe or family and it is no less true. Familial communities are voluntary because we can always choose to leave them – same is true for other animal species; this is what happens when less dominant males loose out on reproductive opportunities.

Hierarchies do naturally exist – be they physical or intellectual. It is only how we choose to use our our position in that hierarchy that sets us apart from other animals.

For example, recognizing the reality of scarcity we can choose to use violence to appropriate what we want or we can peacefully exchange our labor and property with others to bring about those same things.

History seems to indicate to me that individuals prefer peaceful exchange rather than conflict – it is only through the mantle of the State that people in the power hierarchy will use others for their own ends with violence and coercion.[/quote]

No, dominant male lions let the females hunt, then they chase them off and eat first. Instinct or not, you have a heirarchy of one using others for his own ends with violence and coercion. Disobedient lions and lionesses are killed or kicked out of the pride.

Queen ants too, many species of birds… this is not rare behaviour at all.

53

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

No, dominant male lions let the females hunt, then they chase them off and eat first. Instinct or not, you have a heirarchy of one using others for his own ends with violence and coercion. Disobedient lions and lionesses are killed or kicked out of the pride.

Queen ants too, many species of birds… this is not rare behaviour at all. [/quote]

Not coercion, no. Everyone is in the pride voluntarily. They can just leave. That relationship is entirely voluntary.

54

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

…it does exist…

[/quote]

Where?
[/quote]

You have to think of it in terms of interpersonal relationships and associations. Even the most general relationship such as one might have with someone in their local business community can be seen as some sort of socio-economic process. It is anarchic to the extent that it is voluntary.

We can probably agree that most relationships one might encounter in everyday life are voluntary. I see government as an institution that manipulates and thus limits natural human relationships. Anarchy, on the contrary, is a natural phenomenon that exists as a continuum of free association.

55

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
No, dominant male lions let the females hunt, then they chase them off and eat first. Instinct or not, you have a heirarchy of one using others for his own ends with violence and coercion. Disobedient lions and lionesses are killed or kicked out of the pride.

Queen ants too, many species of birds… this is not rare behaviour at all. [/quote]

And all you are doing is proving my point for peaceful and voluntary exchange.

Using violence to dominate weaker species members into submission would in fact bring us back full circle to primitive hunter-gatherer life. No other life would be possible with this mindset.

57

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
No, dominant male lions let the females hunt, then they chase them off and eat first. Instinct or not, you have a heirarchy of one using others for his own ends with violence and coercion. Disobedient lions and lionesses are killed or kicked out of the pride.

Queen ants too, many species of birds… this is not rare behaviour at all. [/quote]

And all you are doing is proving my point for peaceful and voluntary exchange.

Using violence to dominate weaker species members into submission would in fact bring us back full circle to primitive hunter-gatherer life. No other life would be possible with this mindset.[/quote]

No, I’m disproving your point that only humans use coercion to get what they want. It’s cut and dry. Anarchy is impossible for humans and nature, though humans are a part of nature so it is sufficient to say that anarchy is impossible. By agreeing with my point though, you agree this is true.

58

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

…it does exist…

[/quote]

Where?
[/quote]

You have to think of it in terms of interpersonal relationships and associations. Even the most general relationship such as one might have with someone in their local business community can be seen as some sort of socio-economic process. It is anarchic to the extent that it is voluntary.

We can probably agree that most relationships one might encounter in everyday life are voluntary. I see government as an institution that manipulates and thus limits natural human relationships. Anarchy, on the contrary, is a natural phenomenon that exists as a continuum of free association.[/quote]

Blah…blah…blah…

That’s what I thought. Nowhere.[/quote]

You are making a categorical error here: anarchy, by definition, cannot be geopolitical in nature. It transcends the idea of national borders – for obvious reasons.

It refers only to the extent that an individual is free in his socio-economic associations.

And you have to admit most of your activities in your everyday life are anarchic.

60

You are asking the wrong question because I think you don’t understand what it is.

It does not exist “anywhere” except in light of our associations.

Where ever you carry out a free association is “where” it exists.