4 > Discussions; Public Archive
SH
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 20 1025 ---𝓢: Not interested in starting a new vein, ie defining what government is. I think that we are all aware.
You and I are NOT "we".
As I wrote earlier, I know, without any doubt, that you and I do NOT agree on what the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of "government" is.
I know, without any doubt, that you will reject all three of my definitions of what government actually is.
I refuse to assume you and I mean the same thing when you or I use the word "𝕘𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥".
You are refusing to look at observations that provide evidence contrary to your religious beliefs in government.
You are denying points in toto having never looked at them. Did your college education teach you to rate books and movies you've never read nor watched?
Please correct me if I'm wrong. I assume that you believe government has a right to rule.
--- End quote ---
x
--- Quote ---you forget that I was raised by a family who believes/believed the way you do. I was indoctrinated into your beliefs from birth. I have been talking about and debating all of this for years, literally since the age of 11 when I started to think that maybe something wasn't quite right with what my parents were into. It was in my mid 20s that I started to play devil's advocate a lot. This year I will be 45. I am WAY beyond redefining "government". I find these discussions to be tedious, repetitious, and dull. You demanding that I answer your questions feels entitled and coercive. All your theories, my sister's theories, the brainwashing I received from an early age, now is clearly contrived to me and a by-product of confirmation-bias mental gymnastics.
I realize that you are not going to change your mind. That's fine. I don't care what you believe. Please do me the same favor and stop trying to convince me.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 20 1110 ---social securities, food stamps and other stuff "given" are first taken. You are only pointing out the things that you believe justify violence and coercion.
And if something else is not figured out about how to take care of the elderly that are sans family or the poor within the private market or charity, you're probably going to see the very things happen that you believe the government is protecting them against. It's going to fail, under it's own weight.
Then the government is going to "come to the rescue" but you'll have to be under complete control.
Then the argument on whether government is slavery or not will be a moot point.
As for cops, all cops are bastards while in performance of their duties (except for the rare incident of malum in se, but those laws are in agreement with natural law and anyone can enforce them and I have seen regular everyday people defend against that far more often and effectively). And it's not dependent on whether or not they are decent human beings when the uniform is off. The job requires them to violate the rights of the individual on a regular day to day basis. I have on rare occasion gotten them to take off the uniform, metaphorically, and act like a human. Most times, they are the assholes they are trained to be.
If you would feel like you've overstepped a boundary by chasing someone and forcing them to pull over, then extorting them for going faster than a number on a sign, when they have caused no harm, it follows that is wrong for the cop to do as well, whether or not you think his claim to that authority is legitimate or not. There's no magic enchantment that the government has to make something immoral become moral. And calling one thing by a different name, doesn't change the action. The only thing the government and its agents have is the belief of the aggregate. Once the aggregate understands their authority is illegitimate, they will crumble.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 20 1120 ---nope, dad and mom were statists. They may have been limited statists, but there's a lot of those. They call them conservatives, Libertarians, etc. They still vote and believe we need a government.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 20 1147 ---there is no violence or coercion in my life. You should try it out for a while. Seeing victimhood in *everything* is a whole energy that I'm not into.
Ever see the movie Liar Liar? It reminds me of that scene where Jim Carrey screams "STOP BREAKING THE LAW, A$$H0LE!" into the phone.
It's like when Americans travel to another country and expect their rights, that they were raised with, to be upheld. No, freaking American, that's not how things work here. Don't complain that you got into trouble when you were the one traveling to a new place and didn't take the time to study the laws.
Only this isn't a foreign land, it is where we were raised, so we know how rights work here. And one of those rights is we get to complain as much as we want about anything and everything.
"It's all going to fail anyway" isn't a good enough excuse for "I know they'll die but I shouldn't have to help prevent that". I believe in child and elderly welfare, and yes I will die on that hill.
And police officers are still people when they wear their uniform. Like it or not, we as a species have "soldiers", like other species. Only we are sophisticated enough to have different types of "soldiers" and one of those is a type of public servant.
You know our friend who became a PO? Know what he did before that? He was a social worker. He worked 16 hour days, did night visits for families who had one parent and the children were alone at night while the parent worked night shift. He helped feed kids, helped them with homework, got firewood, helped them get $ assistance, etc etc etc. He was truly the best social worker I've ever met, and I've met/worked with a lot of them. He never turned anyone down, even if it meant he didn't get days off. When he decided to become a PO, it was right in the middle of the BLM and ACAB protests. His wife was terrified for him, of course. But I know he brought that same energy to police work. And I've known other sweethearts like him who are POs. One of them used to work for me in retail, years ago, when he was a teen boy. I ran into him during some kind of rally, this had to be 15 years later, and I was in shock. Couldn't believe he was a PO. I heard someone say "Ms Shafer?" and I turned around and there he is in uniform. I gave him the biggest hug. I am so proud of him. A few weeks later, he was shot in a domestic violence confrontation (not fatal) and I saw it in the newspaper. My heart broke. He's the nicest guy.
I don't want to live in a society with no laws, no POs, no social programs, no schools, no scientific thought, no higher learning. Sounds kinda like hell. And I don't know many who would want that either.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 20 1153 ---𝓢: You demanding that I answer your questions feels entitled and coercive.
You yourself have (rightfully) complained about assumptions I've posted about you. That's a two-way street.
I've not complained. I've asked you clarifying questions about your assumptions and claims.
When you make unsubstantiated claims, which you have done in regard to the four of us you have engaged in discussion with in this thread... Do you recall reading this when I first posted it: I challenge bullshit when bullshit is presented as truth.
If you state an assumption you have made about me, and that claim is not true... I hope you have noticed I do not ignore such statements of bullshit. Do not think for a moment that such claims, not yet challenged, won't be.
𝓢: Please do me the same favor and stop trying to convince me.
Do you recall reading this when I first posted it:
My secondary, (or is it trinary?), goal is to understand why you think as you do.
I am doing exactly what I have intended to do each and every time I've engaged with you. My goal is to examine your beliefs. Openly, publicly, for all to see.
I have found that most liars hate being questioned on their lies. Even when they have managed to forget they lied to themselves.
I asked you to correct me if my assumption was wrong. You either agree with my stated assumption or you ignored that question about my assumption. <shrug>
Do you believe government has a right to rule?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 20 1159 ---you just can't help yourself, can you?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote --- no, they didn't. Their beliefs changed in subtle ways over the years, but always came back to "government bad, libertarian good". Mom didn't vote. Dad voted begrudgingly.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 20 1528 ---I specifically remember mom and dad leaving us in Shawn's care so both could go vote.
And if mom stopped voting in the end, did she say why? Or maybe she couldn't? I don't remember her being anti voting when she stayed with me and hubby. She was also still very much for the US Constitution when she was with us.
And I spoke with dad about certain things when he was still visiting with us in Idaho, he was still very much a statist. He still believed the us government was benevolent, especially in the area of human trafficking.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 20 1718 ---you can recognize the good in government and still believe government is overall wrong. Just like you can recognize the bad in government and still believe it is overall good. Dad changed a ton over the years, but he always wanted to live off the land and be emancipated from government. So did Mom. She tried to rescind our SS numbers. Of course, they had religious reasons too. But both of our parents have always been anti government, anti modern medicine, anti education, anti anything mainstream simply because it's mainstream.
Mom didn't draw hard lines in the sand, but she certainly was not a statist. She believed she should make her own rules and didn't believe in authority. She believed, same as you, that education was indoctrination and thought that anyone in power was automatically "bad".
When she got sick, she changed a lot of her thinking because she realized she couldn't afford treatment without government aid. When she realized she was dying, she didn't care about all that stuff anymore. She even gave up being a vegetarian.
--- End quote ---
⭕001
--- Quote from: 20 1823 ---𝓢: you just can't help yourself, can you?
You need to be more precise, more specific, in what you are questioning me about.
Like this:
Do you believe government has a right to rule?
It's precise, it's specific, it's me trying to learn what you believe about a very narrow part of the world.
--- End quote ---
x
--- Quote from: 20 2154 ---you can be anti public school, anti SSN, anti allopathic, and still believe in the government and its Constitution. The back country of Idaho is full of them, lol.
In fact, Trump was (and maybe still is) their savior 😂
Dad also voted for him.
The little bit I spoke to dad about anarchy, he rejected it, just like you are. But I was still in the learning stages and wasn't fully comprehending anarchy when dad was still alive.
Mom died long before I ever came to any ideas about anarchy, but I do remember her speaking about the constitution like it was the holy grail.
Statists who want a big, powerful government call the statists who want a small, limited government, "anti government," but they are still statists.
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
⭕1
--- Quote from: 22 13:35 ---𝓢: Please do me the same favor and stop trying to convince me.
I don't need to convince you. You will do that yourself when you stop willfully ignoring data, information, and truths about the world you and I inhabit...
Unless you're NOT as intelligent as you attempt to have the four of us believe you are.
Your own words right back at you: 𝓈𝓉𝑜𝓅 𝓉𝓇𝓎𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝑜 𝑔𝒶𝓈𝓁𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉 𝓂𝑒... Prove your intelligence to me.
I am going to take your failure to answer my question (𝒟𝑜 𝓎𝑜𝓊 𝒷𝑒𝓁𝒾𝑒𝓋𝑒 𝑔𝑜𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓃𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒽𝒶𝓈 𝒶 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝓇𝓊𝓁𝑒?) as your admission that you are too much a coward to admit to what, specifically, the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of your beliefs in "government" are.
I ask again:
Do you believe government has a right to rule?
--- End quote ---
22 13:35
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 23 1459 ---Dale Eastman I have asked Sara this before.
She's pretty much mentally dependent on the state and thinks she can differ any responsibility she has for herself or her family to the state (police, emergency services, etc). She loves having her rules enforced on others through the coercion of the state and is actually proud of living within the system of aggression and lauds it as something she's grateful for.
We've gone around and around before on this, I doubt anything you say will change her mind.
She's actually a highly compassionate person, just fears that trait is extremely rare within the human race, probably due to certain life experiences.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---𝒮𝑒𝓁𝒻-𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒, 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒𝒻𝑜𝓇𝑒, 𝒶𝓈 𝒾𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝒿𝓊𝓈𝓉𝓁𝓎 𝒸𝒶𝓁𝓁𝑒𝒹 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝒾𝓂𝒶𝓇𝓎 𝓁𝒶𝓌 𝑜𝒻 𝓃𝒶𝓉𝓊𝓇𝑒, 𝓈𝑜 𝒾𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝓃𝑜𝓉, 𝓃𝑒𝒾𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝒾𝓉 𝒷𝑒 𝒾𝓃 𝒻𝒶𝒸𝓉, 𝓉𝒶𝓀𝑒𝓃 𝒶𝓌𝒶𝓎 𝒷𝓎 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓁𝒶𝓌 𝑜𝒻 𝓈𝑜𝒸𝒾𝑒𝓉𝓎.
𝐼𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝐸𝓃𝑔𝓁𝒾𝓈𝒽 𝓁𝒶𝓌 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉𝒾𝒸𝓊𝓁𝒶𝓇𝓁𝓎 𝒾𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝒽𝑒𝓁𝒹 𝒶𝓃 𝑒𝓍𝒸𝓊𝓈𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝒷𝓇𝑒𝒶𝒸𝒽𝑒𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓅𝑒𝒶𝒸𝑒, 𝓃𝒶𝓎 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃 𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝒽𝑜𝓂𝒾𝒸𝒾𝒹𝑒 𝒾𝓉𝓈𝑒𝓁𝒻: 𝒷𝓊𝓉 𝒸𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓂𝓊𝓈𝓉 𝒷𝑒 𝓉𝒶𝓀𝑒𝓃, 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝒹𝑜𝑒𝓈 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝑒𝓍𝒸𝑒𝑒𝒹 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒷𝑜𝓊𝓃𝒹𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝓂𝑒𝓇𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃; 𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝑒𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓇 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝒽𝒾𝓂𝓈𝑒𝓁𝒻 𝒷𝑒𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝒶𝓃 𝒶𝑔𝑔𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓈𝑜𝓇.
William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book III; 1768.
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 23 0852 ---Exactly 😉
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 23 0857 ---Omitted meme
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 24 0714 ---Online arguments changed my whole belief system. It’s just that I was always a quiet observer. We are (almost) never changing the minds of the one we’re communicating with on social media… they can’t while being on the spot and too defensive. It’s always the people scrolling by and quietly reading whose gears start turning. Like mine did 🤗
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 24 1022 ---I love discussion though ( ❤️❤️❤️❤️), and some don't see a difference between argument and discussion because they never learned how to discuss and bounce ideas around without getting angry or offended.
...or feel personally attacked because they identify with the ideas they hold that are being questioned.
And I don't underestimate the ability to plant a seed.
Many times I have come to understand an idea I immediately rejected in my 20s. But it's been there rattling around in my brain all them years, lol.
But yes, I definitely have no illusions of changing anyone's mind, just like planting seeds and knowing I will never see any of the tree that might grow.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 24 0717 ---I’ve had people tell me to stop wasting time and relentlessly try telling me I’m “never going to change anyone’s mind.” Those people are projecting their unwillingness and inability to ever budge their way of thinking. I’ve watched so many people drastically change in 3 years. It’s never one instance or person who changes that for someone. It’s always a process with many factors coming in all directions. Just keep dropping little seeds wherever you can. ❤️
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 24 1024 ---yes, many of the things I have learned I actually learned by researching a meme to see if it was correct, or to learn more, or to even try to disprove it, 😆
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 24 1147 ---I love discussion, too. Which is why I loved college. My favorite courses in college were Argument and Essay, Ethics, and all anthropology courses. I liked history too, especially Art History. You can learn a lot about a culture or era through their art and architecture.
But I digress. It's fine to have whatever belief system you want, it's when you try to blend belief with politics that it's not ok. Separation of church and state happened in the USA for a reason, and it's a constant fight to keep it that way (The Republican party would have us all singing hymns if they had their druthers). And when a belief system requires 100% investment from the human population to work politically, well, it will never work. That tree will NEVER grow, before or after we are gone.
We have issues that need to be solved. The major issues are caused by years of unchecked capitalism and paid lobbyists, dark money and powerful political contributors like the NRA. We need to elect more people like Bernie Sanders, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, etc who are pushing to change laws so that politicians cannot take dark money contributions or accept corporate payoffs. I keep telling you, money (the ultra rich) are the root of all evil. Bernie has been fighting the good fight for years and I love him for that. Cortez is picking up where he left off, but I do not believe she will be as effective as Bernie, for the sad fact that she is a woman in a man's world.
But that's neither here nor there, if they are all going. Take it all away and what do we have? If you know your history, you know that when a nation loses their government, they go to war. Civil war, extremist groups, mob groups, gangs, and inter-county war always occur. Always. If you want to plunge a country into famine and war, destabilize their government. Works every time. And there is no reason to believe that we would be any different. In fact, we would be the prize of all prizes. And we are within nuclear striking distance of Russia, who has already been planning a Bering Strait bridge for years.
I don't want to die in a war, do you? I don't want my kids to die in a war, do you? Especially a purposeless, senseless war. And I feel like every time I bring up "war", I see this: 🙈🙈🙈 🙉🙉🙉
Probably the biggest problem this country has right now is gun violence. There have been more mass shootings than days in the year. And mass shootings require 4 or more victims, so that's not even counting the people who only killed 3 people (underachievers, right?). Gunshot is the number one cause of death for American children. Not car accidents, not drowning, not illness. Gunshot. But your solution is more guns, arm everyone. As one of the most armed, yet least regulated, populations on the planet, how does that seem to be working out for us? 🤔
I'll tell you. That ranks us as number 129 out of 163 countries on the "safest country" list. Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Honduras, Uganda, and Egypt score safer than the USA.
So yeah, I (and most people) will never support the society that you need 100% support in order to form.
It's fine to promote natural law, or the golden rule, or whatever you want to call it. Just keep it out of politics.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 24 1245 ---well, I am on my phone at the moment, hanging out with hubby at the American Legion while he gets help with his computer 💻. Yay, it came home 😁, thanks sis and thanks to Amie too.
So hoping I can get this posted before it resets and erases my reply.
The issue with politics is politics. Anarchy is not politics, or even a system, and I stick with the word "anarchy" because it is unmistakably not politics. Everything else has been hijacked by politics, even "voluntarism" is being hijacked. Which "voluntary" is diametrically opposite of "politics," but it didn't stop them from twisting it into a political agenda.
I am not trying to put anarchy into politics. Anarchy is no politics at all. Completely voluntary society serviced by the private market.
Anarchy is what already exists, despite government trying to subvert natural order. In fact, the high incidence of issues with violence is due to government trying to subvert natural law.
Guns have nothing to do with the "gun violence" you are concerned about (I don't see a difference between violence with one tool or another and more people are killed by fists). Society has mostly been disarmed, both literally and mentally. Those who are not, are few and far between. Most have been conditioned to rely on "law enforcement" for their security, which is one of the biggest lies of government. They can not protect you.
The violence is due to the prevelence and indoctrination into moral relativism.
War is the health of the state. People don't want to go to war, government does.
And an anarchist society is far more impervious to war, (especially the US with the prevelence of arms) because they don't recognize the authority of the any self proclaimed ruler.
There's been several anarchist societies in history. The length of such societies are so long that it dwarfs the reign of societies under a government.
They are only "conquered" by being tricked into accepting rulership.
One of the best recorded societies was in Iceland before they were tricked into accepting the Norwegian King. You can read about it in the icelandic chronicles.
Another society was the Hebrews before 1Samuel in the bible (I see a lot of history documentaries on the old societies in the bible too, but they are not showing anything along the lines of how the society functioned before rule of kings).
Those are two just off the top of my head, and one has been hiding in plain sight in the most common book in the US.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 24 1330 ---yay! That was way faster than I thought it would be!
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 24 1459 ---How are you going to eliminate politics in a political world? Seriously, how? It would be disastrous on every front. Even simple things like trading with another country would be disrupted. The "free market" is political, and if you don't understand that, then you need to study econ for a minute.
"The high incidence of issues with violence is due to government trying to subvert natural law." No, it isn't . There is absolutely no evidence that that is a true statement, and I can't even come up with any kind of logical reason why that WOULD be true. It sounds like a hypothesis with no foundation and no merit. The "high issues of violence" is due to humans being human. Impulsive, stupid, and armed. And, often poor. More equitable societies experience less violence. In fact, one of the best indicators of where one will see less violence is when there is relative income stability and less income disparity. Also, societies where firearms are regulated are less violent. You can twist and turn and try to spin statistics to paint whatever picture you want, but that is a fact. There is even a psychological reason for it: basically, it's easier/less personal to kill with a gun, so that line is so much easier to step over. Most people don't have it in them to stab or strangle or beat someone to death, but pulling a trigger is nearly nothing. Just a muscle twitch. I have a story I can tell you, but it will have to be private, to illustrate exactly what I mean.
Don't get your info from the NRA, btw, they spin everything to (surprise surprise!) make guns look like God. I am aware of the report you are referring to, but remember they were talking about "long guns", not just "Guns". Handguns are the number one weapon of choice for murder, by a long shot (no pun intended). I will post a screen shot.
So what, you're just gonna tell Putin "we don't recognize your authority" and he's gonna say "oh. Ok."? That right there, without considering ANYTHING ELSE we have EVER talked about, tells me *DANGER DANGER*, and I find it a little scary that you don't have the same reaction. How do you just "not recognize" the authority of an atomic bomb? I mean, we'll be vaporized, so it doesn't matter at that point, but if you survive, what do you do? And do you even feel a little bad for all the lives lost because you wanted your own version of a political system (it's all politics, like it or not)?
--- Quote ---Some chart of murders by method.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 24 1501 ---11,476 guns total. In case you were wondering. Compared to 461 "hands fists feet".
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 24 1517 ---oh but add another 152 for shotguns. Didn't see that.
--- End quote ---
https://www.facebook.com/debra.osborn.9231/posts/pfbid0v6Ggqjeu48Lg8uBK6YCHgAULFVMFavRaybHxMdZKaAKJUx4BC9DjjykbxrEKYpQ3l
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 27 1035 ---I'm going to make this short because it's late and I'm heading to bed.
The way you change anything to do with gov is understanding it is all based on the illusion of authority.
Once enough understand that it will crumble under it's own weight. No force would be needed, unless the gov, smelling their own demise, starts something.
Government has no power in and of itself. It's us that gives it power by believing that it has legitimate authority. Government needs us, we don't need government.
I don't like the NRA, they are the worst political organization when it comes to passing gun control laws.
When I *used to* follow political stuff, I liked JPFO and GOA.
And the concept of using government to control what everyone else is doing works both ways.
Stephen couldn't wrap his head around it being none of his business about abortions and you can't seem to understand it's none of your business who acquires what tools or weapons...
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 28 0745 ---You mention, "I don't like the NRA, they are the worst political organization when it comes to passing gun control laws."
In addition, the NRA is a huge donator to the GOP! The GOP has been the one actually passing anti-gun laws since way back (Reagan, Trump, etc.).
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 28 1133 ---like I've said before, that's all great philosophy. But then there is the real world.
War is real. Bombs are real. Genocide is real. Anthrax is real. We didn't imagine it, it all actually happened.
It isn't legal for every day citizens to own military grade weapons for a reason. They are illegal, and hardly anyone has them. Because they are illegal. It takes a lot of money and a lot of connections to obtain those weapons, and that is something that the average Joe doesn't have. So no, "if you make guns illegal people will just get them illegally" isn't true. Because if it was, you wouldn't care if they were made illegal. Right?
I know the NRA is a huge donor to the GOP, that's my point. They suck. Guns suck. The GOP sucks. And no, they don't want gun legislation. They only allow the bare minimum and don't even want simple things like background checks or waiting periods. They have been VERY effective in preventing gun control measures from going through, even when faced with the parents of the children who died in Sandy Hook. They don't care, at all, about anything except $$$.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 28 1448 ---Okay, let me make this as pointed as possible.
1. State = war; Government = war; King = war; Democracy = war; Republic = war.
2. All war is because the many obey some other people who have everyone believing that their authority is legitimate, i.e. those who have the magical title of "government."
3. War is the life blood of government. They will create "false flags" to create support from the many so they can go to war.
The very thing you're championing as the prevention of war is the creator of war.
As for weapons, I'm not going to go into detail, but yes, you can.
And you are forgetting (if you ever knew) what happened in societies where only the government had/has weapons.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 28 1523 ---nah. Since the end of the second world war, war has steadily declined over the years. But why? Shouldn't we have MORE war, with rapidly expanding human populations and dwindling land and resources? 🤔 Why has war become, for lack of a better term, passée?
I can tell you why if you want, but I think it would be good for you read up on it yourself. Hint: it isn't because societies gave up government.
"Yes you can" but it's really damn difficult and rare. And that's the point.
It is simplistic and wrong to suggest that governments who have strict gun laws are, what, planning on annihilating the population? It's simply wrong. Nazi Germany is not the end point of any and all government regulation, and people need to stop calling everything "Nazi Germany" as a knee jerk reaction when they don't like something. Read the book "Human Smoke" if you want to understand the perfect storm that led to the holocaust. And also, understand that the holocaust is not the same thing as WWII.
Japan has nearly zero gun crime and some of the strictest gun laws in the world. Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Switzerland, etc have varying degrees of gun ownership laws and varying degrees of success keeping gun violence low. ALL of them are doing a drastically better job than the USA, of course.
You are ASKING for war, and you don't even know it.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 28 0827 ---How war has been diminished in any way, would be because of the protest of people. Think Hippies and flower power 😁
Governments can't go to war without the support of their people. That's why they put out all this hoopla over the news media so the people get all irate over what may or may not be happening so they support declaring war.
And referencing only Nazi Germany shows you have very little knowledge of the vast amount of democide done by many governments, either very soon or a few decades, after disarming the population. Over 260 million just in the past century alone.
If you are going to reference such countries like the UK and Australia for the success of gun control, you are dismissing the huge increase in violence after being disarmed. You also have missed that there are countries that have more freedom with firearms than the US and they are very well "behaved" with very low violent crime. There were several countries, along with some of the ones you mentioned above, like NZ and Switzerland as having low violence, but had more lax gun laws than the US at the time I was looking into it. If their laws are now stricter than the US, I would say their low violence is probably a hold over from before the laws were passed and isn't due to the stricter gun laws.
If you are only going to reference the US (which, IMO, is the best reference for the US) the cities with the strictest gun control are the worst when it comes to violence.
In fact, If you remove the most violent cities with the *strictest gun control laws,* the US is one of the least violent countries.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 28 0851 ---Omitted meme
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version