«12. . .1,0871,0881,0891,0901,0911,0921,093. . .2,1822,183»
Is about time for us = USA to invade some sovereign nation that has smaller military force then we have.
Man we are a war like people
If we are invading a sovereign nation or setting it on fire from the sky then we are declaring war on things that we don't like about ourselvesdon't do anything about it just declaring war on, and actually causing more harm then good.
War on poverty, War on Drugs, War on Crime, War on Street crime
But we don't have a war on homeless because there no money in it.
Thanks George carlin for your comedy and truth
Don't forget the war on Christmas....
Um, no. Firstly, the Mad Max universe resulted from the lack of gasoline and such made the national government enact and enforce martial law. In order to get their much needed gasoline, the citizens armed themselves and began raiding fuel depots, gas stations, etc. The government then had to basically create a task force dedicated to eradicating the citizens. That's not what would happen if we got rid of government today.
There have actually been several successful forms of anarchism or near-anarchism practiced throughout history. One example would be a group of three Native American tribes, the Yurok, Hupa, and Karok, in Northern California. They had extensive personal liberties as well as private courts which functioned very efficiently with far fewer disputes than we do in our current system. Another example would be the Kapauku Papuans of West who formed coalitions of villages for the purposes of economics and defense. There were no leaders with coercive powers - everything was strictly voluntary.
Another great example would be Medieval Iceland which, though not a totally anarchic society, it had a very limited government and a semi-private court (but only one, singular). In fact, libertarian theorist David Friedman said "Medieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions."
Low interest rates are ultimately bad for the economy in the long-term. This may seem counter-intuitive, but once you understand what all those rates affect, it makes sense. Low interest rates mean treasury bonds accrue little interest rates. Treasury bonds are viewed as the most stable thing you can invest in because, unlike private businesses that must produce a viable product for consumers to purchase, the government has no risk of going under - they can simply tax the people to get the money to pay the interest. Thus, investors purchase a lot of treasury bonds as they are safe and have a reliable rate of return BUT when suddenly they stop making that money, these investors must reach for yield. This means they have to take on riskier investments to make the same rate of return they would have with higher interest rates. In turn, this makes the markets more volatile, leading to bubbles, declines, recessions, etc.
Oh and you have it backwards. Lower interest rates accelerate inflation while higher interest rates slow it down.
Ooooh, you'r a Chicagoan and not an Austrian. I guess we just can't be friends ;P
Another great example would be Medieval Iceland which, though not a totally anarchic society, it had a very limited government and a semi-private court (but only one, singular). In fact, libertarian theorist David Friedman said "Medieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions."
Almost every "great example" of so-called limited government is confined to remote, ancient, illiterate, or small jurisdictions. There is not a single successful example encompassing the freedom and quality of life we take for granted today. It's noteworthy that the great David D Friedman thrives under the menacing authoritarianism of the US instead of frolicking freely among the Kapauku Papuans.
I love this stupidness we are civilized where do come up with that bs oh wait the good old idiot people.
We can fly planes drive cars go under water and out of space. Yet we only species that kills it on kind for personal gain, fun, or both.
We are the only species to kill other species not just food, but fun or personal gain.
We are same savages beast if anything we are semi civilized , but we are still beast with baseball caps and automatic weapons.
Hrm, I'd like to know what 'freedoms' you think we enjoy today, because they sure as hell aren't as good as them. And to the quality of life claim, that it not a valid argument as that is just the progression of human ingenuity that can only be achieved through time.
And finally to your assertion about living with the Papuans, shouldn't it be the duty of all citizens do to the best to better their country? That's just a little something to think about, citizen involvement and such.
I'm sorry to be redundant but man we love war because we good at it with all the practice the average war or conflict is 10 to fifteen years so we are good at.
We have no cars made here exactly
99.9% of products is either china or Mexico
Anything just breaks after one used
We can't get mail from two states over with out it be over a week.
We can't give good education to our young ones
We can't get extra college with extra debt.
We have about 21% depending on government
We can't balanced budget
But we bomb the crap out of a nation alright. "Especially if your nation has a bunch brown people yeah we love that bombing brown people." George Carlin think about when was the last time we bomb white people can you remember any the German that was because they cut into our action they said they wanted dominated the world we said bs that our fricken job boom boom
Now we only bomb brown people not because they cut into our action because they are brown.
George Carlin had a point
Post self-deleted by Coltpower.
Here the http://www.realityisfree.com/stopwar.html direct quote
I just modified the fact to bring up to date since that was 1990's
I don't know that it is a duty of all citizens to make their own nation better. People--citizens or not--tend to operate in their own better interests. Sometimes that results in a better country and sometimes it doesn't. There is no predictive equation that can tell you the outcome although academics have tried.
Primitive societies such as you have presented tend to be tribal in structure, small in scope, generally devoid of what we call property rights, and encumbered by rituals and superstitions. That's not to say we cannot learn some things from them but they don't provide any kind of template of the sort you'd need to apply lessons to the secular modern world.
You're right, I did get it backwards. I need to stop writing in my sleep.
thats not entirely true, they had an idea of private property rights, and its kind of hard pressed to find a nation today that works close to anarchy, the last true anarchist country was 1920s Italy, but that fell out really fast because it was socialist anarchy and Mussolini would then assume the control over the country. so we can only use empirical evidence from a couple hundred years ago because of how hard it is for people to realize that they do not need a government to protect and tell them what to do.
Post self-deleted by Coltpower.
This just was dumb Christmas was destroyed century ago and became a commercialized which now they are trying to destroyed that.
So they are destroying something that destroyed Christmas.
#1 for best Defense.. ha! attack me will you? Well your citizens will become 'test subjects'!
Actually it is entirely true: medieval Iceland was indisputably a tribal society, counted scarcely a few tens of thousands, and existed only due to its remoteness. The only variable was the existence of property rights. It is true that one could conceivably hold perpetual title to land. But that rarely happened. Instead, titles and land rights were at best irregular. It was only by the time some kind of wealth could be accumulated in the harsh North Atlantic climate that property was in any form a right instead of an accident of birth or kinship.
Then there's the problem of banishment and exile. That could be imposed merely due to an unfalsifiable claim of sorcery. Nobody in modern North America would ever find that kind of penalty to be acceptable.
We just want to lower taxes and have accountability in our elected officials. We don't want to live as they did in medieval Iceland.
I just resolved an issue and the talking point escalated quickly:
"Children have lost interest in toy guns in favor of toy meth lab kits."
Post self-deleted by U-s-a-u-s-a.
I went from Capitalizt --> Left Leaning College State --> Inoffensive Centrist Democracy. I don't even know who I am anymore.
I've been a Capitalist Paradise for a while now, but it used to change every other issue.
After so long and so many issues things start to average out. You might even declare a dictatorship in New York Times democracy and political freedoms might barely budge.
«12. . .1,0871,0881,0891,0901,0911,0921,093. . .2,1822,183»
Advertisement
