Yes, you're right. It's so much better to be forced to pay for armies to fight in OTHER people's streets.
it is, y'know...
Topic: The Biggest Gun Wins? - page 3. (Read 4620 times)
it is, y'know...
Yes, you're right. It's so much better to be forced to pay for armies to fight in OTHER people's streets.
The fighting in other people's streets has nothing to do with this discussion. If you want to discuss that, first get a grounding in ecological economics and steady state growth, which I have asked you to do now for about three weeks. I have provided the links in other threads. Then come back and we can discuss that issue.
Or you could just pay some taxes and in general, live in a nation that does not have a bunch of armies fighting each other in your backyard.
You're rambling on about the theory of whether the biggest gun wins or not, and totally missing the point. Who wants to be concerned about hiring private armies to do battle for you in the streets? I think I'd just rather pay some god damn taxes.
You're rambling on about the theory of whether the biggest gun wins or not, and totally missing the point. Who wants to be concerned about hiring private armies to do battle for you in the streets? I think I'd just rather pay some god damn taxes.
Yes, you're right. It's so much better to be forced to pay for armies to fight in OTHER people's streets.
So, let's imagine that there are no governments and that the rich and powerful have vast private armies. Let's also imagine that, as would be likely, there are a bunch of other private armies and though they are each far smaller, altogether the number of soldiers is greater than that in the private armies of the rich and powerful.
Now, let's simplify things a bit. Let's say that there is one big army of 1,000 soldiers owned by the rich and powerful and there are 500 small armies each with 100 soldiers owned by everyone else. If the big army were to attack any of the small armies one-on-one, they would win. So, it seems like whoever controls the big army, controls everything. But wait, what if the big army started attacking each of the small armies one after another to grab for that power? Would each of the small armies line up like dominoes waiting for their turn to be knocked down? I don't think so.
It's more likely that, even though the small armies are controlled by many different people, since they have a common enemy, they would unite long enough to take out the big army. It looks like it's not merely the biggest gun that wins. A bunch of smaller guns can win by working together and they have a motivation to do so, out of their own selfish sense of self-preservation. It's naive to think that you can just knock down army after army without being perceived as a threat to the others and taken out by a briefly united group of small armies.
Now, let's simplify things a bit. Let's say that there is one big army of 1,000 soldiers owned by the rich and powerful and there are 500 small armies each with 100 soldiers owned by everyone else. If the big army were to attack any of the small armies one-on-one, they would win. So, it seems like whoever controls the big army, controls everything. But wait, what if the big army started attacking each of the small armies one after another to grab for that power? Would each of the small armies line up like dominoes waiting for their turn to be knocked down? I don't think so.
It's more likely that, even though the small armies are controlled by many different people, since they have a common enemy, they would unite long enough to take out the big army. It looks like it's not merely the biggest gun that wins. A bunch of smaller guns can win by working together and they have a motivation to do so, out of their own selfish sense of self-preservation. It's naive to think that you can just knock down army after army without being perceived as a threat to the others and taken out by a briefly united group of small armies.
Or you could just pay some taxes and in general, live in a nation that does not have a bunch of armies fighting each other in your backyard.
You're rambling on about the theory of whether the biggest gun wins or not, and totally missing the point. Who wants to be concerned about hiring private armies to do battle for you in the streets? I think I'd just rather pay some god damn taxes.
Neither would the big army owner usually go openly attacking the small armies to provoke them into an alliance. Usually he will intimidate a few, get a few to be on his side for some benefits and start setting some of the smaller armies against each other. Then step in as "Big Brother" conveniently and gain positive PR points.
By the time the rest realizes what's going on, the total numbers able and willing to go up against Big Brother may no longer be sufficient.
By the time the rest realizes what's going on, the total numbers able and willing to go up against Big Brother may no longer be sufficient.
That calls for a great deal more speculation as to being able to manipulate people with a vast conspiracy without being exposed, etc, etc.
Now, let's simplify things a bit. Let's say that there is one big army of 1,000 soldiers owned by the rich and powerful and there are 500 small armies each with 100 soldiers owned by everyone else. If the big army were to attack any of the small armies one-on-one, they would win. So, it seems like whoever controls the big army, controls everything. But wait, what if the big army started attacking each of the small armies one after another to grab for that power? Would each of the small armies line up like dominoes waiting for their turn to be knocked down? I don't think so.
Neither would the big army owner usually go openly attacking the small armies to provoke them into an alliance. Usually he will intimidate a few, get a few to be on his side for some benefits and start setting some of the smaller armies against each other. Then step in as "Big Brother" conveniently and gain positive PR points.
By the time the rest realizes what's going on, the total numbers able and willing to go up against Big Brother may no longer be sufficient.
Like every other group that had to fight against the Romans.
And when they ganged up on the Romans, what happened... Oh yeah, right:
I detect no real flaw with your reasoning. The problem is however that war is actually very unprofitable without fiat money, or debt of some sort. Eliminating fiat currency would mean governments would have a hard time going that far into debt resulting in the costs of war being more directly passed on to the people in the form of taxation, creating huge political problems for any political leader.
Imagine if the citizens of those countries involved in wars had to come up with the taxes for the costs of the war every year?
So you see, bitcoin can save the world!
Imagine if the citizens of those countries involved in wars had to come up with the taxes for the costs of the war every year?
So you see, bitcoin can save the world!
The little armies don't even have to be that big. 4 guys in each are enough to outnumber the big one 2 to 1.
LOL Nice Scenario.
How about this one:
The Romans use the others for toilet paper. Why would you come here and ask us to support such a scenario ?? Do you need more toilet paper ??
How about this one:
One big army 100,000 Soldiers.
Like the Romans.
500 small armies each having 100 soldiers.
Like every other group that had to fight against the Romans.
The Romans use the others for toilet paper. Why would you come here and ask us to support such a scenario ?? Do you need more toilet paper ??
So, let's imagine that there are no governments and that the rich and powerful have vast private armies. Let's also imagine that, as would be likely, there are a bunch of other private armies and though they are each far smaller, altogether the number of soldiers is greater than that in the private armies of the rich and powerful.
Now, let's simplify things a bit. Let's say that there is one big army of 1,000 soldiers owned by the rich and powerful and there are 500 small armies each with 100 soldiers owned by everyone else. If the big army were to attack any of the small armies one-on-one, they would win. So, it seems like whoever controls the big army, controls everything. But wait, what if the big army started attacking each of the small armies one after another to grab for that power? Would each of the small armies line up like dominoes waiting for their turn to be knocked down? I don't think so.
It's more likely that, even though the small armies are controlled by many different people, since they have a common enemy, they would unite long enough to take out the big army. It looks like it's not merely the biggest gun that wins. A bunch of smaller guns can win by working together and they have a motivation to do so, out of their own selfish sense of self-preservation. It's naive to think that you can just knock down army after army without being perceived as a threat to the others and taken out by a briefly united group of small armies.
Now, let's simplify things a bit. Let's say that there is one big army of 1,000 soldiers owned by the rich and powerful and there are 500 small armies each with 100 soldiers owned by everyone else. If the big army were to attack any of the small armies one-on-one, they would win. So, it seems like whoever controls the big army, controls everything. But wait, what if the big army started attacking each of the small armies one after another to grab for that power? Would each of the small armies line up like dominoes waiting for their turn to be knocked down? I don't think so.
It's more likely that, even though the small armies are controlled by many different people, since they have a common enemy, they would unite long enough to take out the big army. It looks like it's not merely the biggest gun that wins. A bunch of smaller guns can win by working together and they have a motivation to do so, out of their own selfish sense of self-preservation. It's naive to think that you can just knock down army after army without being perceived as a threat to the others and taken out by a briefly united group of small armies.
Jump to: