Topic: Libertarians Are Sociopaths - page 8. (Read 11738 times)
The cartels only have the power that they do is because of the prohibition and demand from the United States. Otherwise, it would be small gang skirmishes on a Detroit level resulting from local drug laws.
So the tribal wars in Africa are ... what?
Not even in the same ball park as the wars waged by nation-states, if they can even be called wars at all.
Or the drug wars in South America?
You mean the ones caused by nation states prohibiting the production, distribution, and use of certain substances?
Have a look at what happened in Rwanda and tell me that it can't be called a war at all.
Saying it's not even in the same ball park is ignorant to the point of being offensive.
Or have a look at Darfur.
Yes, the drug wars where cartels are fighting both each other and the local government, and quite successfully too.
Not even the big bad government can fight the cartels and are now surrendering and starting to embrace legalization.
How many civilians are killed each year in drug related violence each year? I don't have the exact number, but I know it's several thousand. Each year.
Eh, the most murder occurs in African civil wars my friend. Millions of lives. The UN rapes the remains.
Are those what he was referring to by "tribal wars"?
Eh, the most murder occurs in African civil wars my friend. Millions of lives. The UN rapes the remains.
Is that what he was referring to by "tribal wars"?
Quote
The Rwandan military and Hutu militia groups, notably the Interahamwe, systematically set out to murder all the Tutsis they could reach
So the tribal wars in Africa are ... what?
Not even in the same ball park as the wars waged by nation-states, if they can even be called wars at all.
Eh, the most murder occurs in African civil wars, my friend. Millions of lives. The UN rapes the remains.
So the tribal wars in Africa are ... what?
Not even in the same ball park as the wars waged by nation-states, if they can even be called wars at all.
Or the drug wars in South America?
You mean the ones caused by nation states prohibiting the production, distribution, and use of certain substances?
There will always be government. Anarchy is only a decentralized society with very small governments possibly to the scale of individuals, if we are ever strong enough.
So let's instead talk about the nation-state. That is really what is being discussed when we talk about government today, since that is the most prevalent kind.
War, as we know it, will cease to exist with the abolition (through knowledge of its nature) of the nation-state. It is only possible to fund such large, devastating conflicts through the use of taxation.
Agree?
Agreed. However, in the end, all we are doing is scaling down sovereignty. Small sovereignty equals little to no wars.
There will always be government. Anarchy is only a decentralized society with very small governments possibly to the scale of individuals, if we are ever strong enough.
So let's instead talk about the nation-state. That is really what is being discussed when we talk about government today, since that is the most prevalent kind.
War, as we know it, will cease to exist with the abolition (through knowledge of its nature) of the nation-state. It is only possible to fund such large, devastating conflicts through the use of taxation.
Agree?
Are you saying that without governments there'd be no wars? For real?
Yep. Wars are expensive and destructive. They can only be paid for through taxes. Any private entity which engaged in war would quickly lose support of its customers and go out of business. There's no incentive to do so.
So the tribal wars in Africa are ... what? Or the drug wars in South America?
Are you saying that without governments there'd be no wars? For real?
Yep. Wars are expensive and destructive. They can only be paid for through taxes. Any private entity which engaged in war would quickly lose support of its customers and go out of business. There's no incentive to do so.
So the tribal wars in Africa are ... what? Or the drug wars in South America? From what I can tell they seem to exist without government.
Or is any entity with power to rule over others a government, even a voluntarily selected entity?
There will always be government. Anarchy is only a decentralized society with very small governments possibly to the scale of individuals, if we are ever strong enough.
I disagree. If governments were a lot smaller and more decentralized there would be fewer and less devastating wars. There would be conflict but it would be very small skirmishes.
If big governments mean big wars, small governments mean small wars, why wouldn't no governments mean no wars?
The wars would be reduced in scope, but a fued between large family clans (hatfields and McCoys?) is still a war of sorts. However, the scale of the conflict does matter. The other people who live in the area are likely to intercede.
I disagree. If governments were a lot smaller and more decentralized there would be fewer and less devastating wars. There would be conflict but it would be very small skirmishes.
If big governments mean big wars, small governments mean small wars, why wouldn't no governments mean no wars?
I disagree. If governments were a lot smaller and more decentralized there would be fewer and less devastating wars. There would be conflict but it would be very small skirmishes.
Are you saying that without governments there'd be no wars? For real?
Yep. Wars are expensive and destructive. They can only be paid for through taxes. Any private entity which engaged in war would quickly lose support of its customers and go out of business. There's no incentive to do so.
Are you saying that without governments there'd be no wars? For real?
Fucking inefficient big government. What have they ever done for humanity besides getting us to the moon and inventing the Internet?
The government did not invent the Internet. At most, the Defense budget paid for it.
In order for his argument to hold any water, he'd have to additionally argue that without DARPA funding, a computer network such as the internet would not have been created.
Further, the internet didn't flourish (or indeed become known as the internet) until it was privatized.
Fucking inefficient big government. What have they ever done for humanity besides getting us to the moon and inventing the Internet?
The government did not invent the Internet. At most, the Defense budget paid for it.
Jump to: