Gun control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
No, that video didn’t explain anything other than some ‘anarcho-capitalist’s’ revisionist pet theory. I am at a complete loss as to how this social system could possibly be described as any form of ‘anarchism’. Clan/tribal monarchies with oligarchic characteristics as I said before.[/quote]

… Are you serious right now? I’ve broken down the exact qualities ancient Ireland possessed that make it ineligible for the title of statism as I use the term several times now and your response is, once again, “nope, it’s statism” with no reference to the qualities I’ve mentioned. I’m starting to think you’re trolling me.

Ancient Ireland, organized into tuatha; had no taxation, polycentric law, no coercive monopolies and no fiat land claims. These are the building blocks of a state (other than polycentric law, obviously). If order emerges in a society void of these things, then that society is anarchic as I (and most other anarchists) use the term. You’re looking at this information and saying “well, it had order, therefore this must be statism…” which is an argument purely based in semantics.
You are defining anarchism in such a way that its failure is tautological and you’re defining statism in such a way that all order, regardless of if it’s emergent or coercive, falls under statism.

102

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… Are you serious right now? I’ve broken down the exact qualities ancient Ireland possessed that make it ineligible for the title of statism
[/quote]

Listen fella. I couldn’t be bothered with this:

Kings = Kingdoms = states. Get it?

Now if you want to espouse a theory that an anarchist came up with in 1978 that purports to explain how Ireland was an anarchist society from the 7th to the 17th centuries that’s your business.

103

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Citizens should also be allowed guns but citizens who talk endlessly about states’ rights, citizens’ militias, secession and quote the founding fathers’ revolutionary statements as if they have some relevance today should have to pass a mental health/intelligence test before being granted a permit.
[/quote]

Hilarious. Did you miss the entire “American History 101” class, or were you just in a coma? [/quote]

Please elaborate Rockscar. And don’t prod me with your forefinger. My mule don’t like when people prod me with their forefinger.[/quote]

Okey-dokey. So we can agree that I(an Australian) know more about the founding fathers, the American revolution and the civil war than you do. Right-o.

104

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… Are you serious right now? I’ve broken down the exact qualities ancient Ireland possessed that make it ineligible for the title of statism
[/quote]

Listen fella. I couldn’t be bothered with this:

Kings = Kingdoms = states. Get it?

Now if you want to espouse a theory that an anarchist came up with in 1978 that purports to explain how Ireland was an anarchist society from the 7th to the 17th centuries that’s your business.[/quote]

That’s outrageously wrong. The defining features of states are A)Monopoly on violence and B)The power of Taxation.

These kings had neither and as such there was no state. Your claim is simply flat out wrong.

As far as stateless societies are concerned, Iceland had no executive power for more than 300 years and nevertheless produced an ordered, relatively prosperous society that yielded some of the greatest literary treasures of the time. It was essentially an anarchic society and it had much less violence than even modern countries today.

105

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… Are you serious right now? I’ve broken down the exact qualities ancient Ireland possessed that make it ineligible for the title of statism
[/quote]

Listen fella. I couldn’t be bothered with this:

Kings = Kingdoms = states. Get it?

Now if you want to espouse a theory that an anarchist came up with in 1978 that purports to explain how Ireland was an anarchist society from the 7th to the 17th centuries that’s your business.[/quote]

That’s outrageously wrong. The defining features of states are A)Monopoly on violence and B)The power of Taxation.

These kings had neither and as such there was no state. Your claim is simply flat out wrong.

As far as stateless societies are concerned, Iceland had no executive power for more than 300 years and nevertheless produced an ordered, relatively prosperous society that yielded some of the greatest literary treasures of the time. It was essentially an anarchic society and it had much less violence than even modern countries today.[/quote]

Like I said. I don’t have time for this nonsense. Wikipedia entry for ‘state’:

No mention of the word ‘tax’ in the whole document. Not in the section that defines what is meant by ‘state’ in different contexts nor anywhere else. Okay?

And this ‘monopoly on violence’ crap? Don’t even know what you’re talking about.

106

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Don’t even know what you’re talking about.[/quote]

That’s because you are pretty ignorant when it comes to this issue. You really have no place in the discussion unless you decide to actually read up on what anarchism really is and what it really stands for. So far it looks like you haven’t even the faintest clue.

107

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… Are you serious right now? I’ve broken down the exact qualities ancient Ireland possessed that make it ineligible for the title of statism
[/quote]

Listen fella. I couldn’t be bothered with this:

Kings = Kingdoms = states. Get it?

Now if you want to espouse a theory that an anarchist came up with in 1978 that purports to explain how Ireland was an anarchist society from the 7th to the 17th centuries that’s your business.[/quote]

See, this is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re contributing nothing to the debate but rather you use semantics to create a tautological argument and claim victory.

I could call the president of a book club a “king”, does that magically make that book club a tribal monarchy? No. That’s stupid. The word “king” doesn’t mean a thing to me. What I’m looking at is the actual makeup of the group and labeling it based on its qualities. If this seems ridiculous to you, fine, I have no problem with having the audacity to look a little deeper than a thing’s name before defining it.

But that’s just me…

108

“A sovereign state is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.”

In other words, it has a fiat land claim and a coercive monopoly on the services it sees fit to monopolize. Granted, it’s true that this quote doesn’t mention taxation, but claiming a vast track of land doesn’t make much of a difference if you aren’t going to extract wealth from its people now does it?

109

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… Are you serious right now? I’ve broken down the exact qualities ancient Ireland possessed that make it ineligible for the title of statism
[/quote]

Listen fella. I couldn’t be bothered with this:

Kings = Kingdoms = states. Get it?

Now if you want to espouse a theory that an anarchist came up with in 1978 that purports to explain how Ireland was an anarchist society from the 7th to the 17th centuries that’s your business.[/quote]

That’s outrageously wrong. The defining features of states are A)Monopoly on violence and B)The power of Taxation.

These kings had neither and as such there was no state. Your claim is simply flat out wrong.

As far as stateless societies are concerned, Iceland had no executive power for more than 300 years and nevertheless produced an ordered, relatively prosperous society that yielded some of the greatest literary treasures of the time. It was essentially an anarchic society and it had much less violence than even modern countries today.[/quote]

Like I said. I don’t have time for this nonsense. Wikipedia entry for ‘state’:

No mention of the word ‘tax’ in the whole document. Not in the section that defines what is meant by ‘state’ in different contexts nor anywhere else. Okay?

And this ‘monopoly on violence’ crap? Don’t even know what you’re talking about.[/quote]

I can post wiki, too:

You can start with the reference section since you like to read so much.

110

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

“A sovereign state is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.”

In other words, it has a fiat land claim and a coercive monopoly on the services it sees fit to monopolize. Granted, it’s true that this quote doesn’t mention taxation, but claiming a vast track of land doesn’t make much of a difference if you aren’t going to extract wealth from its people now does it?[/quote]

Well during a large period of the time this guy is talking about(12th to 17th centuries) Norman-Gaelic monarchs/Plantagenets/Lancasters/Yorks/British nobility and land ‘owners’ ruled over a feudal system/slavery plantation inside the pale so that’s another reason this guy’s theory is absurd.

Now you can assert that I don’t know about the political ideology of anarchism and its branches but that doesn’t necessarily make it so. Let’s just agree to disagree.

111

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

“A sovereign state is a state with a defined territory on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states.”

In other words, it has a fiat land claim and a coercive monopoly on the services it sees fit to monopolize. Granted, it’s true that this quote doesn’t mention taxation, but claiming a vast track of land doesn’t make much of a difference if you aren’t going to extract wealth from its people now does it?[/quote]

Well during a large period of the time this guy is talking about(12th to 17th centuries) Norman-Gaelic monarchs/Plantagenets/Lancasters/Yorks/British nobility and land ‘owners’ ruled over a feudal system/slavery plantation inside the pale so that’s another reason this guy’s theory is absurd.

Now you can assert that I don’t know about the political ideology of anarchism and its branches but that doesn’t necessarily make it so. Let’s just agree to disagree.[/quote]

Another reason? You haven’t listed so much as one reason outside of semantics and tautology to consider ancient Ireland as statist.

Slavery =/= a state. Slavery can work in a stateless society assuming universally operational support to do so. Of course, since slavery does not have this support (at least in developed countries) currently it’s unlikely that slavery would emerge should the state be phased out.

You keep saying you understand anarchism and its “branches”, yet you have several anarchists on this thread and none of them agree with you on your use of terminology. That’s fine, you can use words as you see fit, but they’re just words. There is no objectively correct perspective on them and if you refuse to agree on these terms, even temporarily for the sake of debate, then the best you can hope for is… agreeing to disagree.

112

the “Monopoly on violence” definition of the State comes from Max Weber.
It has nothing to do with anarchist ideology.
if anything, it refutes it.
since all post-neolithic societies have had some kind of “monopoly on violence”. Ancient Ireland included.

that’s what i hinted to when i said “some had swords, and some didn’t”.
Again, it’s a myth. like the “democratic ancient iceland” myth.

oh, and before you answer, i have read Proudhon, Bakounine, Kropotkine, Reclus, Stirner, etc. I know my anarchism 101 pretty well.

If you want to learn something about stateless societies, real ones, you should read Marshall Salhins and/or Pierre Clastres. But i’m not sure these societies would really suit your tastes…

113

[quote]kamui wrote:
the “Monopoly on violence” definition of the State comes from Max Weber.
It has nothing to do with anarchist ideology.
if anything, it refutes it.
since all post-neolithic societies have had some kind of “monopoly on violence”. Ancient Ireland included.
[/quote]

Wrong. There cannot be a monopoly on violence if people can defend themselves legitimately from oppressors.

114

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

… Are you serious right now? I’ve broken down the exact qualities ancient Ireland possessed that make it ineligible for the title of statism
[/quote]

Listen fella. I couldn’t be bothered with this:

Kings = Kingdoms = states. Get it?

Now if you want to espouse a theory that an anarchist came up with in 1978 that purports to explain how Ireland was an anarchist society from the 7th to the 17th centuries that’s your business.[/quote]

That’s outrageously wrong. The defining features of states are A)Monopoly on violence and B)The power of Taxation.

These kings had neither and as such there was no state. Your claim is simply flat out wrong.

As far as stateless societies are concerned, Iceland had no executive power for more than 300 years and nevertheless produced an ordered, relatively prosperous society that yielded some of the greatest literary treasures of the time. It was essentially an anarchic society and it had much less violence than even modern countries today.[/quote]

Like I said. I don’t have time for this nonsense. Wikipedia entry for ‘state’:

No mention of the word ‘tax’ in the whole document. Not in the section that defines what is meant by ‘state’ in different contexts nor anywhere else. Okay?

And this ‘monopoly on violence’ crap? Don’t even know what you’re talking about.[/quote]

I can post wiki, too:

You can start with the reference section since you like to read so much.[/quote]

A phrase I was not familiar with. Thank you for explaining what you meant. So basically, a ‘stateless society’ is the most primitive form of society on earth right? Where life is ‘nasty, brutish and short’ as Hobbes described. Sounds great.

115

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Citizens should also be allowed guns but citizens who talk endlessly about states’ rights, citizens’ militias, secession and quote the founding fathers’ revolutionary statements as if they have some relevance today should have to pass a mental health/intelligence test before being granted a permit.
[/quote]

Hilarious. Did you miss the entire “American History 101” class, or were you just in a coma? [/quote]

Please elaborate Rockscar. And don’t prod me with your forefinger. My mule don’t like when people prod me with their forefinger.[/quote]

There are striking parallels to 1776 and today. If you ridicule people who understand history and why we have a right to bear arms, then talk of “states’ rights, citizens’ militias, secession and quote the founding fathers’ revolutionary statements” are truly American and right down the alley of the spirit of our constitution. We don’t have the right to bear arms for fun, hobby or hunting…it’s to protect us from a tyrannical government.

And the finger works well. Be intimidated.

116

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
ruled by Gaelic monarchs …[/quote]

Huh huh…huh…you said GayLick!

117

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Citizens should also be allowed guns but citizens who talk endlessly about states’ rights, citizens’ militias, secession and quote the founding fathers’ revolutionary statements as if they have some relevance today should have to pass a mental health/intelligence test before being granted a permit.
[/quote]

Hilarious. Did you miss the entire “American History 101” class, or were you just in a coma? [/quote]

Please elaborate Rockscar. And don’t prod me with your forefinger. My mule don’t like when people prod me with their forefinger.[/quote]

There are striking parallels to 1776 and today. If you ridicule people who understand history and why we have a right to bear arms, then talk of “states’ rights, citizens’ militias, secession and quote the founding fathers’ revolutionary statements” are truly American and right down the alley of the spirit of our constitution. We don’t have the right to bear arms for fun, hobby or hunting…it’s to protect us from a tyrannical government.

And the finger works well. Be intimidated.
[/quote]

Sorry, but I just can’t see these ‘striking parallels’ between 1776 and today. I understand the original intent of the second ammendment but I see it today as just an excuse for ‘fun, hobby (and) hunting’.

118

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A phrase I was not familiar with. Thank you for explaining what you meant. So basically, a ‘stateless society’ is the most primitive form of society on earth right? Where life is ‘nasty, brutish and short’ as Hobbes described. Sounds great.[/quote]

Life is nasty and brutish where ever people don’t have the means for their own survival – and even when living under governments, too.

Hobbes was too simplistic of a thinker.

120

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Rockscar wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Citizens should also be allowed guns but citizens who talk endlessly about states’ rights, citizens’ militias, secession and quote the founding fathers’ revolutionary statements as if they have some relevance today should have to pass a mental health/intelligence test before being granted a permit.
[/quote]

Hilarious. Did you miss the entire “American History 101” class, or were you just in a coma? [/quote]

Please elaborate Rockscar. And don’t prod me with your forefinger. My mule don’t like when people prod me with their forefinger.[/quote]

There are striking parallels to 1776 and today. If you ridicule people who understand history and why we have a right to bear arms, then talk of “states’ rights, citizens’ militias, secession and quote the founding fathers’ revolutionary statements” are truly American and right down the alley of the spirit of our constitution. We don’t have the right to bear arms for fun, hobby or hunting…it’s to protect us from a tyrannical government.

And the finger works well. Be intimidated.
[/quote]

Sorry, but I just can’t see these ‘striking parallels’ between 1776 and today. I understand the original intent of the second ammendment but I see it today as just an excuse for ‘fun, hobby (and) hunting’.[/quote]

One single item I will use:

Federal Mandate for me, you and anyone breathing to buy something (an expensive item) from an approved Government insurance source or be jailed or fined. This is the erosion of liberty my unseeing friend.********

There are several more to bring up, but this one alone should be enough for you to grasp it and for me to prove it.

Has this happened to us in 1776, the doo-do would be all over the fan. But, we “enlightened” modern folk like oppression and feel we deserve it and we cater to it for some insane reason.