Thread necromancy for the revolution, huh?

10/30/2008 1:04:57 AM

Wow, I don't even recognize this thread from earlier. I assumed it was pretty recent.

Guess I'm a dumb ass.

10/30/2008 1:41:45 AM

No, you didn't reanimate it.

I'm curious who asked duke to.

10/30/2008 1:54:56 AM

GrumpyGOP, why you hatin' on Jefferson so much? I am unaware of any anarchist rhedoric from the Jefferson; he was barely a libertarian.

And in-so-far as libertarians recognize states should exist, they should do what states do: attempt to peacefully gain territory and wage war against aggressors. Jefferson did those things, as any good libertarian would.

Ok, maybe your objection is that the US did not declare war. I find that odd myself, but they declared war on the US, not vice versa. As such, a state of war existed between the two countries regardless of what the President or Congress did or did not do.

[Edited on October 30, 2008 at 2:20 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/30/2008 2:15:17 AM

Quote :

"No, you didn't reanimate it."

No matter how big of a drunken idiot I may be, I assure you that I can read a timestamp. I didn't when I first saw the thread, but after the phrase "thread necromancy" came up I did.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP, why you hatin' on Jefferson so much?"

Well, this makes two threads in a row I've been involved in when a libertarian tried to claim Jefferson in a similarly bullshit fashion.

As to the second part of your post: I don't recognize either of those as powers granted directly to the executive as part of the Constition, something which Jefferson was quite clear should be interpreted pretty literally. Although I must admit, you've also mentioned a new part of libertarian philosophy, namely the "gain territory" area. Please to elaborate.

10/30/2008 2:22:18 AM

why the hell would a libertarian want to "gain territory"?

10/30/2008 8:22:22 AM

To spread liberty. And remember, this 'gained territory' as unincorporated, that meant no laws but one: don't be indian.

Quote :

"I don't recognize either of those as powers granted directly to the executive as part of the Constition"

Are you mad? The constitution gives congress the right to spend its money however it sees fit. If it wanted to give it as a tribute to France it could have; that it involved a change of soverign over territories to the west was not a new power, it was the same old power to ratify treaties. And the President is head of the armed forces, in-case you didn't know.

10/30/2008 9:50:15 AM

where's this spreading liberty money coming from?

10/30/2008 10:13:10 AM

nature abhors a vacuum

10/30/2008 11:04:11 AM

Quote :

"And remember, this 'gained territory' as unincorporated, that meant no laws but one: don't be indian."

So, apart from the violent racism, Jefferson was a great libertarian?

10/30/2008 1:01:20 PM

didn't he have an affair with a slave though?


but then again . . he did have slaves

10/30/2008 1:07:51 PM

I would think libertarians would be more opposed to killing, expelling, and robbing Amerindians. That shouldn't be a minor issue.

10/30/2008 1:10:18 PM

Quote :

"you keep associating anarchism with violence way to fall into 19th century propaganda do you honestly believe that people would just start beating the shit out of each other simply because the law didn't forbid it?"

I know I would.

10/30/2008 4:57:10 PM

Quote :

"The constitution gives congress the right to spend its money however it sees fit."

In a discussion of any of a vast number of other congressional actions you would not be making this argument. I'm pretty confident I'd be seeing the opposite. And if I'm mad for thinking that Jefferson was a hypocrite, then so were a large number of his contemporaries.

10/30/2008 10:40:35 PM

I am a hypocrite, as such I am certain that any man you could name is a hypocrite in some way. As such, I will accept as truth that Jefferson was too.

That said, you are incorrect. My assault upon SS is that it is a stupid ponzi scheme, not that it is unconstitutional. To the best of my knowledge, the only time 'unconstitutional' is applicible is when the Federal Government is deciding how I should live my life or engage in my chosen profession. On the state level most things, no matter how horrible, would seem constitutional. I try not to ever argue against anything on the grounds of constitutionality when an attack upon its rationality is available. But I digress.

I seriously doubt everyone that is advocating Obama for President agrees with him 100%. They are voting for him among a collection of less worthy foes. As such, since I have never been president, I shall advocate Thomas Jefferson.

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 12:05 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/31/2008 12:01:49 AM

Our cities are ridden with crime, Our schools are centers of violence, politicians have turned gov't into a chaotic mish-mash of over-regulation and mandates. The fiat dollar is approaching complete worthlessness, our country's debt makes it pretty much a bankrupt deadbeat- begging money from communist China.

We have tax-payers forced to pay off Wall Street gambler's debts, we're approaching gov't health-care-cradle to grave, We have a Supreme Court Kelo decision that basically strips us of any true ownership of anything. And we're on the eve of putting a marxist into the White House.

Anarchy? Mate... you've got it.

10/31/2008 12:40:00 AM

^ Yet we don't have anything like an anarchist society.

10/31/2008 12:44:46 AM

The only way you would have widespread functional anarchy is if resources and land were so plentiful compared to the number of humans that trade would be unnecessary and it would be more work to harm someone for something than to get it yourself.

10/31/2008 1:27:55 AM

^^I suppose anarchy is a decent way to get rid of crime by eliminating the concept. It would also drastically reduce school violence since the vast majority of schools would disappear and kids could be violent elsewhere. Anarchy as a solution for over-regulation seems similar to hand grenades and heavy machine gun fire as a solution for big crowds and long lines. The dollar isn't as bad as all that, but again, I suppose anarchy "fixes" the problem by simply eliminating the dollar. And once the government is around to beg for money from China, the Chinese can just come buy the goddamn country from all the broke people and companies. Much more direct.

If taxpayers weren't directly paying bailouts they'd be paying some other way, through lost jobs, lost savings, etc. Most people don't find the idea of lifelong healthcare objectionable, and even if the government version is bad I think few people would call it worse than nothing at all. And after we get rid of the Supreme Court and the rest of the government I can lose my remaining property rights, even if they are threadbare, to the crazy guy who lives on the other side of the valley and has more guns and crazier friends.

Overall, it seems like anarchy provides a lot of its solutions simply by recategorizing things. If smoking crack is no longer a crime, there's less crime, not less crack-smoking.

You got it, you got it.

10/31/2008 1:44:27 AM

I could see anarchy working great for villages with less than 30 people in a remote area.

The reason is if you do something fucked up in a situation like that you have to deal with the wrath of the other 29 villagers. In large societies it does not really work.

10/31/2008 2:04:31 AM

What is wrong with anarchism is it is nothing more than domestic terroism for the most part. There is no real cause like lets say the civil rights movement was.

10/31/2008 7:57:35 AM

A bunch of spoiled brats who need to go to a third world country and do community service for a year. Preferabaly someplace with no running water and maybe they will learn to love their country and appreciate America even with all her problems.

10/31/2008 8:01:16 AM

Quote :

"Our cities are ridden with crime, Our schools are centers of violence, politicians have turned gov't into a chaotic mish-mash of over-regulation and mandates. The fiat dollar is approaching complete worthlessness, our country's debt makes it pretty much a bankrupt deadbeat- begging money from communist China. We have tax-payers forced to pay off Wall Street gambler's debts, we're approaching gov't health-care-cradle to grave, We have a Supreme Court Kelo decision that basically strips us of any true ownership of anything. And we're on the eve of putting a marxist into the White House. Anarchy? Mate... you've got it."

give or take a few things this sounds exactly what the late 80's sounded like.

Our cities are much cleaner and saver and the schools are better. Wall street is in the shitcan but fuck em. The did it to themselves and with more regulations everyone will have saver money and we wont have to deal with idiot hedge funders so much.

marxist? thats just as retarded as calling McCain a little hilter.

[Edited on October 31, 2008 at 8:51 AM. Reason : quote box]

10/31/2008 8:51:14 AM

Quote :

"The only way you would have widespread functional anarchy is if resources and land were so plentiful compared to the number of humans that trade would be unnecessary and it would be more work to harm someone for something than to get it yourself."

Maybe. That's about where I'd like to go. Technology can provide the requisite abundance.

Quote :

"A bunch of spoiled brats who need to go to a third world country and do community service for a year. Preferabaly someplace with no running water and maybe they will learn to love their country and appreciate America even with all her problems."

This plan could backfire. Plenty of radicals become more radical after such experiences.

10/31/2008 11:41:53 AM

Quote :

"And we're on the eve of putting a marxist into the White House."

Marxism calls for a violent overthrow, not elections.

Get your shit straight.

10/31/2008 1:47:24 PM