View Full Version : Little Libertarians on the Praire
It's an appealing, if perhaps wishful, distillation of the idea that a free market can regulate itself perfectly well. Wilder rarely wrote extended dialogue in her own recollections, the manuscripts show; her daughter most likely invented this long exchange.
The Little House books barely mention the obvious, which is that the impoverished Ingallses never could have gone to Dakota Territory without a government grant: Like most pioneers, their livelihoods relied on the federal Homestead Act, which gave settlers 160 acres for the cost of a $14 filing fee -- one of the largest acts of federal largesse in U.S. history. The homestead law remains a given in the later books, particularly in "By the Shores of Silver Lake," but I believe its part in the stories remains in the background, even when Pa goes to file his claim, telling "Ma," Laura and the rest that he's bet Uncle Sam the filing fee that they can live on the land without starving.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/10/little-libertarians-on-the-pra.html
Interesting stuff. I had no idea that libertarians were influenced by these books or that a government grant gave the Wilders their livelihood.
Alyosha
10-17-2013, 05:19 PM
I didn't know libertarians were influenced by these books. In fact, as a libertarian I'm surprised I've never heard this before.
The Xl ? Axiomatic ? Codename Section ? Ethereal ? Chris ?
Lysander Spooner? Yes. Thomas Jefferson? Yes. Uncle Murray? Yes. Thomas Paine? Yes. Locke? Yes. Bakunin? Yes. Kropotkin? Yes.
Laura Ingalls? Nope.
The Xl
10-17-2013, 05:23 PM
I honestly wasn't influenced by any book, person, whatever. I just have a strong sense of justice and feel the need to defend what I perceive to be right, which in this case, would be freedom. I remember one of my high school teachers, who was a big drinker and supporter of the Iraq war, making fun of and putting on blast a kid in our class who get in trouble with the law for Marijuana use and sale, saying he deserved to be locked in a cell and whatnot. I was like, fuck off dude, you're worse than he is. I called him on it. Probably didn't do any favors for my grade, but hey, what do the kids say now? Yolo or some shit? Yeah, that.
Alyosha
10-17-2013, 05:29 PM
I honestly wasn't influenced by any book, person, whatever. I just have a strong sense of justice and feel the need to defend what I perceive to be right, which in this case, would be freedom. I remember one of my high school teachers, who was a big drinker and supporter of the Iraq war, making fun of and putting on blast a kid in our class who get in trouble with the law for Marijuana use and sale, saying he deserved to be locked in a cell and whatnot. I was like, fuck off dude, you're worse than he is. I called him on it. Probably didn't do any favors for my grade, but hey, what do the kids say now? Yolo or some shit? Yeah, that.
Yeh, I don't know where Democraps get this stuff about us.
I was always a rebel against laws because they always favor the rich over the poor. The more laws, the more the poor are harmed. I guess Spooner did it for me.
http://www.rugusavay.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Lysander-Spooner-Quotes-2.jpg
jillian
10-17-2013, 05:29 PM
I honestly wasn't influenced by any book, person, whatever. I just have a strong sense of justice and feel the need to defend what I perceive to be right, which in this case, would be freedom. I remember one of my high school teachers, who was a big drinker and supporter of the Iraq war, making fun of and putting on blast a kid in our class who get in trouble with the law for Marijuana use and sale, saying he deserved to be locked in a cell and whatnot. I was like, fuck off dude, you're worse than he is. I called him on it. Probably didn't do any favors for my grade, but hey, what do the kids say now? Yolo or some shit? Yeah, that.
a sense of justice should probably include a sense of humanity.
The Xl
10-17-2013, 05:34 PM
a sense of justice should probably include a sense of humanity.
I probably make less than you, yet probably still donate more time and money than you do. I have great empathy for humans, animals, hell even bugs. I don't even go out of my way to crush bugs. I value life. You don't know me, but I have a good grasp of your sort of character.
Have you even thought that maybe I actually believe small government positions will help the poor and needy? What have you accomplished by voting for a party that inflates the dollar, raping the lower classes, making savings worthless, etc? How does redistributing money to Wall Street and fighting wars for the military industrial complex help "humanity?" Because that is basically all your President and party does.
Alyosha
10-17-2013, 05:38 PM
a sense of justice should probably include a sense of humanity.
You give off the impression that you believe having a sense of humanity means giving the government more money to run programs poorly (with a 70% administrative cost for entitlements and a 60% administrative cost for DOD).
Some people think that, just like we're beyond believing that the world is flat or that the moon is made of green cheese, we're also better at understanding how to help each other and run things efficiently on our own. World Vision has a 2% administrative cost now whereas in the 70's and 80's it had a 40%, meaning that as it had to compete with other nonprofits for funding it did better.
We can do things without government. Detroit is finding that out right now.
I give a lot and would give more if I didn't have to pay so much in taxes. Eminem...Stephen King...other examples of the "once poor" people giving back to their towns. The state of Maine has snow plows because of Stephen King. Detroit schools have music and sports programs because of Eminem.
This isn't the days of the robber barons anymore. The middle class that grew out of the 1950s has a giving attitude.
jillian
10-17-2013, 05:39 PM
You give off the impression that you believe having a sense of humanity means giving the government more money to run programs poorly (with a 70% administrative cost for entitlements and a 60% administrative cost for DOD).
Some people think that, just like we're beyond believing that the world is flat or that the moon is made of green cheese, we're also better at understanding how to help each other and run things efficiently on our own. World Vision has a 2% administrative cost now whereas in the 70's and 80's it had a 40%, meaning that as it had to compete with other nonprofits for funding it did better.
We can do things without government. Detroit is finding that out right now.
I give a lot and would give more if I didn't have to pay so much in taxes. Eminem...Stephen King...other examples of the "once poor" people giving back to their towns. The state of Maine has snow plows because of Stephen King. Detroit schools have music and sports programs because of Eminem.
This isn't the days of the robber barons anymore. The middle class that grew out of the 1950s has a giving attitude.
i simply don't think it's good for society for us to be a banana republic. the naiveté that "volunteerism" works for more than teeny groups of rural people makes me laugh.
i've been to peru... i wouldn't want to live there. and i don't feel like allowing the right turning this country into the wild west.
and detroit DOES need government. it is absurd to think that there are police, and firemen and roads without government.
The Xl
10-17-2013, 05:40 PM
i simply don't think it's good for society for us to be a banana republic. the naiveté that "volunteerism" works for more than teeny groups of rural people makes me laugh.
i've been to peru... i wouldn't want to live there. and i don't feel like allowing the right turning this country into the wild west.
No, you're just a stooge for bankers and the military industrial complex. You're so cool, you help so much. Thanks for everything you do.
Axiomatic
10-17-2013, 05:41 PM
It's an appealing, if perhaps wishful, distillation of the idea that a free market can regulate itself perfectly well. Wilder rarely wrote extended dialogue in her own recollections, the manuscripts show; her daughter most likely invented this long exchange.
The Little House books barely mention the obvious, which is that the impoverished Ingallses never could have gone to Dakota Territory without a government grant: Like most pioneers, their livelihoods relied on the federal Homestead Act, which gave settlers 160 acres for the cost of a $14 filing fee -- one of the largest acts of federal largesse in U.S. history. The homestead law remains a given in the later books, particularly in "By the Shores of Silver Lake," but I believe its part in the stories remains in the background, even when Pa goes to file his claim, telling "Ma," Laura and the rest that he's bet Uncle Sam the filing fee that they can live on the land without starving.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/10/little-libertarians-on-the-pra.html
Interesting stuff. I had no idea that libertarians were influenced by these books or that a government grant gave the Wilders their livelihood.
I don't understand where the government grant comes in. If it weren't for the federal government, the land would have been $14 cheaper.
Alyosha
10-17-2013, 05:41 PM
I probably make less than you, yet probably still donate more time and money than you do. I have great empathy for humans, animals, hell even bugs. I don't even go out of my way to crush bugs. I value life. You don't know me, but I have a good grasp of your sort of character.
Have you even thought that maybe I actually believe small government positions will help the poor and needy? What have you accomplished by voting for a party that inflates the dollar, raping the lower classes, making savings worthless, etc? How does redistributing money to Wall Street and fighting wars for the military industrial complex help "humanity?" Because that is basically all your President and party does.
Hell, last year alone I spent $27k for people on my old street because their personal property taxes are 3x what their houses are worth. Almost my whole block was hit with bills for $2k on houses the city was literally giving to squatters that could come up with $500.
And that's not even all I gave, that's just what I gave to people to keep them in their homes.
People DO give back. It's horrible to think they don't...worse when our money doesn't even really get to the poor without having been recycled through a plethora of unionized federal workers and overpaid contractors.
Only about 30% of what we put in actually makes it to the people we want it to get to. Ridiculous.
Shortly after John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, four years ago, a journalist asked her sister Heather Bruce what books Sarah had read as a child. Only one came to mind: Laura Ingalls Wilder’s “Little House on the Prairie,” the third in a cycle of eight novels on pioneer life, which have sold some sixty million copies. (In 1974, when Palin was ten, the “Little House” saga was adapted as a television series that ran for nine seasons. It was Ronald Reagan’s favorite program.)
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/08/rose-wilder-lane-ayn-rand-and-americas-libertarian-literature.html
Alyosha
10-17-2013, 05:47 PM
i simply don't think it's good for society for us to be a banana republic.
I don't even understand this "banana republic" shit.
A small country that is economically dependent on a single export commodity, such as bananas, and is typically governed by a dictator or the armed forces
the naiveté that "volunteerism" works for more than teeny groups of rural people makes me laugh.
How so? Why do you think it wouldn't work? Better yet, why do you think it would work worse than a government that runs at 70% waste, has a debt that 6 generations won't be able to pay back, bombs every country that looks at it wrong, and spies on its own citizens.
I think you have a naive view of government. You think that even though it's capable of destroying Iraq to have a friend in the middle east or spying on millions of records without warrant...it's still basically "good".
i've been to peru... i wouldn't want to live there. and i don't feel like allowing the right turning this country into the wild west.
Because we should all want what you want and what you want should be good for all of us whether we like it or not. I get that. Sure.
and detroit DOES need government. it is absurd to think that there are police, and firemen and roads without government.
And yet...where have they been? The crime is no worse without cops. The streets look as shitty as they always have. The firemen never came until the house was burned down anyway, because, hell, someone might have shot at them.
We used to laugh about 911. You call...twenty minutes later people show up.
Alyosha
10-17-2013, 05:47 PM
Shortly after John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, four years ago, a journalist asked her sister Heather Bruce what books Sarah had read as a child. Only one came to mind: Laura Ingalls Wilder’s “Little House on the Prairie,” the third in a cycle of eight novels on pioneer life, which have sold some sixty million copies. (In 1974, when Palin was ten, the “Little House” saga was adapted as a television series that ran for nine seasons. It was Ronald Reagan’s favorite program.)
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/08/rose-wilder-lane-ayn-rand-and-americas-libertarian-literature.html
What does Sarah Palin have to do with libertarians?
The Xl
10-17-2013, 05:49 PM
The cops sure do help Detroit. So does the government instituted war on drugs.
Thank you, father government.
What does Sarah Palin have to do with libertarians?
Pretty much everything.
jillian
10-17-2013, 05:51 PM
Pretty much everything.
well, the pretend tea party version of it, anyway.
The Xl
10-17-2013, 05:55 PM
Pretty much everything.
wat
well, the pretend tea party version of it, anyway.
Interesting. I'm not really sure there is a real one and a pretend one or if they are both the same or merely a conspiracy theory.
Alyosha
10-17-2013, 06:21 PM
Pretty much everything.
Uh no. You know pretty much nothing. Hahahaha. Sarah Palin is a conservative dude.
Alyosha
10-17-2013, 06:22 PM
We used to sing this in Detroit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnwGC7oDYIY
9-1-1 is a joke....late 9-1-1 wears the late crown
They'd be there ten minutes after your boys drove you to the hospital.
Alyosha
10-17-2013, 06:24 PM
Interesting. I'm not really sure there is a real one and a pretend one or if they are both the same or merely a conspiracy theory.
Why are you so embracing of ignorance?
Libertarians believe that gays should marry who they want and be allowed to just like everyone else.
Sarah Palin does not.
Libertarians believe that the government should not be involved in medical issues.
Sarah Palin does not.
Libertarians believe that drugs should be made legal.
Sarah Palin does not.
Libertarians believe in militias versus contractually obligated standing military.
Sarah Palin does not.
I could go on but you're not listening anyway.
zelmo1234
10-17-2013, 06:29 PM
I probably make less than you, yet probably still donate more time and money than you do. I have great empathy for humans, animals, hell even bugs. I don't even go out of my way to crush bugs. I value life. You don't know me, but I have a good grasp of your sort of character.
Have you even thought that maybe I actually believe small government positions will help the poor and needy? What have you accomplished by voting for a party that inflates the dollar, raping the lower classes, making savings worthless, etc? How does redistributing money to Wall Street and fighting wars for the military industrial complex help "humanity?" Because that is basically all your President and party does.
I think that you are going to have to come to the understanding, that they don't want to help the poor and under privileged? THEY WANT TO LOOK LIKE THEY ARE TRYING TO HELP! and there is a huge difference.
They don't want the poor and the middle class to earn a better life? they want the totally dependent on government for their life and doing what they are told.
liberals want control over other people, not the freedom of self reliance
Chris
10-17-2013, 06:30 PM
I didn't know libertarians were influenced by these books. In fact, as a libertarian I'm surprised I've never heard this before.
The Xl ? Axiomatic ? Codename Section ? Ethereal ? Chris ?
Lysander Spooner? Yes. Thomas Jefferson? Yes. Uncle Murray? Yes. Thomas Paine? Yes. Locke? Yes. Bakunin? Yes. Kropotkin? Yes.
Laura Ingalls? Nope.
No.
The libertarian is not Laura Wilder Lane but her daughter Rose Wilder Lane, who is considered a mother of the libertarian movement for her writing, books like The Discovery of Freedom. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Wilder_Lane. For example, "Writer Albert Jay Nock wrote that Lane's and Paterson's nonfiction works were "the only intelligible books on the philosophy of individualism that have been written in America this century."" (Isabel Paterson, author of The God of the Machine) See also Brian Doherty's Radicals for Capitalism: A (Freewheeling) History of the Modern Libertarian Movement.
The PBS story is just a retelling of an article by Christine Woodside, Little Libertarians on the prairie (http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/08/09/little-libertarians-prairie-little-libertarians-prairie/DrtramwsrcrdTTIFvdzkOO/story.html): "Was Laura Ingalls Wilder’s beloved children’s series written as an anti-New Deal fable? The Wilder family papers suggest yes."
What happened was the daughter turned her mother's memoirs into the Little House novels.
The article, PBS's and Ravi's are weak attempts to discredit a great libertarian.
Alyosha
10-17-2013, 06:30 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pggvnZeBhJE/UbxihKHvzTI/AAAAAAAAabY/-ULtSt4Gv68/s1600/tumblr_mbaudeOStd1ql9opxo1_500.jpg
zelmo1234
10-17-2013, 06:34 PM
No, you're just a stooge for bankers and the military industrial complex. You're so cool, you help so much. Thanks for everything you do.
If she gives 20 dollars to charity I would be surprised!
She wants the government to tax others and give it to the poor and she wants to take credit for it.
Liberals are all the same
Mister D
10-17-2013, 06:34 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pggvnZeBhJE/UbxihKHvzTI/AAAAAAAAabY/-ULtSt4Gv68/s1600/tumblr_mbaudeOStd1ql9opxo1_500.jpg
It's amazing how often that point needs to be made.
Chris
10-17-2013, 06:36 PM
i simply don't think it's good for society for us to be a banana republic. the naiveté that "volunteerism" works for more than teeny groups of rural people makes me laugh.
i've been to peru... i wouldn't want to live there. and i don't feel like allowing the right turning this country into the wild west.
and detroit DOES need government. it is absurd to think that there are police, and firemen and roads without government.
I see you're back to the old repeated schtick of banana republics and the wild west. We've had long discussion on voluntaryism and private security, you're only contribution was to repeat your schtick then. Why schtick? Because you never defend it. Here, try: What is wrong with volunteerism? Why is private police, and firemen and roads absurd?
Mister D
10-17-2013, 06:37 PM
We've also explained to her that the Wild West is more myth than anything else.
Chris
10-17-2013, 06:39 PM
I don't understand where the government grant comes in. If it weren't for the federal government, the land would have been $14 cheaper.
Ravi's just harping back to what Obama said about you didn't build that. He, like ravi, believes in dependency on government and want to take pot shots at their bogey man of individualism. We, instead, understand no one does anything without cooperation is society.
Not real sure how government can grant what's ours. Be it right, be it land.
Chris
10-17-2013, 06:44 PM
What does Sarah Palin have to do with libertarians?
Pretty much everything.
well, the pretend tea party version of it, anyway.
Interesting. I'm not really sure there is a real one and a pretend one or if they are both the same or merely a conspiracy theory.
Palin is neither libertarian nor tea party. Except maybe in you two's fictitious fallacious world.
I'm not really sure there is a real one and a pretend one or if they are both the same or merely a conspiracy theory.
IOW, you don't know, you're just flame baiting.
Alyosha
10-17-2013, 06:46 PM
For the "libertarians" on here
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1378845_10151968697816489_652310959_n.jpg
Chris
10-17-2013, 06:48 PM
It's time to stop all social wars. The metaphor has been worn out. War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Terrorism.
Cthulhu
10-17-2013, 06:58 PM
Pretty much everything.
well, the pretend tea party version of it, anyway.
http://news.menshealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/94997321-e1318964130641-300x298.jpg
What shit smokest thou?
Dr. Who
10-17-2013, 07:05 PM
Why are you so embracing of ignorance?
Libertarians believe that gays should marry who they want and be allowed to just like everyone else.
Sarah Palin does not.
Libertarians believe that the government should not be involved in medical issues.
Sarah Palin does not.
Libertarians believe that drugs should be made legal.
Sarah Palin does not.
Libertarians believe in militias versus contractually obligated standing military.
Sarah Palin does not.
I could go on but you're not listening anyway.
Aloysha, I actually believe in many things that you stand for - in some ways I might be described as a socialistic libertarian. Some things however, that I don't understand, at least on a countrywide scale. For instance, if the US had no standing army, but a collection of volunteer militias, it could easily be overtaken by any modest military power. The very lack of a standing army would be an invitation for invasion. Given the natural resources in the US, there might be many who would want dominion over same. In fact there might be multiple armies fighting each other for the prize. Not an optimal scenario.
Chris
10-17-2013, 07:11 PM
Aloysha, I actually believe in many things that you stand for - in some ways I might be described as a socialistic libertarian. Some things however, that I don't understand, at least on a countrywide scale. For instance, if the US had no standing army, but a collection of volunteer militias, it could easily be overtaken by any modest military power. The very lack of a standing army would be an invitation for invasion. Given the natural resources in the US, there might be many who would want dominion over same. In fact there might be multiple armies fighting each other for the prize. Not an optimal scenario.
Libertarians are not isolationists but noninterventionists. IOW, we are for a strong defense, just not offense. As mainecoons sometimes quips, we need a Dept of Defense, not the Dept of Offense we now have.
If you look in history for a free market, you'll find that it has never existed in the complete libertarian ideal. Sure, there have been periods where freedom of exchange was greater than others, but there has never been a completely free market.
Alyosha
10-17-2013, 07:16 PM
Aloysha, I actually believe in many things that you stand for - in some ways I might be described as a socialistic libertarian. Some things however, that I don't understand, at least on a countrywide scale. For instance, if the US had no standing army, but a collection of volunteer militias, it could easily be overtaken by any modest military power. The very lack of a standing army would be an invitation for invasion. Given the natural resources in the US, there might be many who would want dominion over same. In fact there might be multiple armies fighting each other for the prize. Not an optimal scenario.
Costa Rica has no standing army and put all their money towards educating their public. Some might have argued it was foolish to trust their neighbors.
The 13 colonies had militias, all of whom volunteered to send those militias to fight the British before they even decided to declare "Independence". They simple got together, argued, decided to help or not help...and as Rupaul would say: made it werk!
I don't believe you can force people to do a good thing and still believe you are good yourself. Our military signs contracts that are pretty much irreversible. They are led to believe one thing and find out differently later. In any other type of contract, this would be declared null and void.
I believe in voluntary socialism and I am a communitarian. I believe in morality in all things and if you must force someone to do something against their free will you did not just commit a crime against that person, but against humanity. My...whatever he is...thinks I am too generous. He thinks I am too willing to expend of myself to make my beliefs a reality, but I am compelled to try and make the world a better place.
I don't believe that handing over the reigns of power to people who want it ever succeeds in doing that. Power is like the one ring, very few can hold it and not be affected. All governments go bad because they are given monopoly power. Had we kept our federal system ours could have lasted longer without this police state thing its turning into. But people make the argument, well, that state is horrible! We have to stop it from being horrible! And in their stopping it they sow the seeds of a greater horror.
I want peace. I want no one to die. I want no one's home to be kicked in. I want no bankers to have the deck stacked in their favor while the rest of us fight for the scraps that are left. I want everyone to have their own freedom to shine.
I look at Chloe and my brother ((kisses)) and I think that all my fighting is so that they may have a chance to be the sweet, dear hippies they are and for them to have peace.
Meh, it's late where I am. I've said too much.
Cthulhu
10-17-2013, 07:18 PM
Aloysha, I actually believe in many things that you stand for - in some ways I might be described as a socialistic libertarian. Some things however, that I don't understand, at least on a countrywide scale. For instance, if the US had no standing army, but a collection of volunteer militias, it could easily be overtaken by any modest military power. The very lack of a standing army would be an invitation for invasion. Given the natural resources in the US, there might be many who would want dominion over same. In fact there might be multiple armies fighting each other for the prize. Not an optimal scenario.
Not too sure. Vietnam tore our guys up extremely bad. Sure we were fighting some NVA guys, but the Viet Cong were the serious problem from everything I've read. Guerilla warfare is fantastically effective. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam all serve as brilliant examples of what poor people can do to make life hell for the big guy.
Chris
10-17-2013, 07:24 PM
If you look in history for a free market, you'll find that it has never existed in the complete libertarian ideal. Sure, there have been periods where freedom of exchange was greater than others, but there has never been a completely free market.
Thing is though there's no necessary connection between free markets and libertarianism. Libertarianism can be socialist or free market. Libertarianism is opposed to neither but to statism.
In general, true, there has never been an ideal or perfect free market, there has always been more or less attempts at controlling if not managing it. Thing is, even here, free market is a description of what emerges naturally as a social order if it's allowed, it's not something designed or defined and as such could never be perfect.
Mister D
10-17-2013, 07:26 PM
Not too sure. Vietnam tore our guys up extremely bad. Sure we were fighting some NVA guys, but the Viet Cong were the serious problem from everything I've read. Guerilla warfare is fantastically effective. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam all serve as brilliant examples of what poor people can do to make life hell for the big guy.
The casualty disparity in Vietnam suggests something else.
zelmo1234
10-17-2013, 07:37 PM
Not too sure. Vietnam tore our guys up extremely bad. Sure we were fighting some NVA guys, but the Viet Cong were the serious problem from everything I've read. Guerilla warfare is fantastically effective. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam all serve as brilliant examples of what poor people can do to make life hell for the big guy.
Also when we entered into Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan we went in with camera's and the press!
We don't fight wars. I WWII if the were hiding in a Church, Hospital, or School, you bombed the building anyway!
Up until Vietnam, or some would argue Korea, we bombed and killed and broke things until they surrendered, unconditionally!
We did not fight to a line and then stop and give them time to regroup and re supply!
Dr. Who
10-17-2013, 07:39 PM
Not too sure. Vietnam tore our guys up extremely bad. Sure we were fighting some NVA guys, but the Viet Cong were the serious problem from everything I've read. Guerilla warfare is fantastically effective. Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam all serve as brilliant examples of what poor people can do to make life hell for the big guy.
I don't disagree about the effectiveness of guerilla warfare, but the bigger the prize, the more likely an adversary is to use the major firepower. Vietnam was an undeclared war on essentially rural Vietnamese people. The war took place in the boonies. If you had no standing army in the US, an adversarial power would claim the big cities first and deal with the rest through a combination of guerilla warfare and starvation, by prohibiting the shipments of any goods to those areas. Let's face it, most rural Americans are not agrarians as were the Vietnamese, so deprivation would create it's own issues.
Chris
10-17-2013, 07:45 PM
I don't disagree about the effectiveness of guerilla warfare, but the bigger the prize, the more likely an adversary is to use the major firepower. Vietnam was an undeclared war on essentially rural Vietnamese people. The war took place in the boonies. If you had no standing army in the US, an adversarial power would claim the big cities first and deal with the rest through a combination of guerilla warfare and starvation, by prohibiting the shipments of any goods to those areas. Let's face it, most rural Americans are not agrarians as were the Vietnamese, so deprivation would create it's own issues.
You're also ignoring the possibility of private defense.
Cthulhu
10-17-2013, 07:46 PM
The casualty disparity in Vietnam suggests something else.
Did we win it?
Cthulhu
10-17-2013, 07:51 PM
I don't disagree about the effectiveness of guerilla warfare, but the bigger the prize, the more likely an adversary is to use the major firepower. Vietnam was an undeclared war on essentially rural Vietnamese people. The war took place in the boonies. If you had no standing army in the US, an adversarial power would claim the big cities first and deal with the rest through a combination of guerilla warfare and starvation, by prohibiting the shipments of any goods to those areas. Let's face it, most rural Americans are not agrarians as were the Vietnamese, so deprivation would create it's own issues.
Obviously there would be attrition to the rural folks. But the problem with cities is that they are not truly a source of wealth, they can be terrific production centers - no doubt. But where does the ore, the grain, etc all come from?
Cities can produce ______, but only if the ______ shipment keeps on coming in. And rural folks sit on that stuff. I would rather face a conventional army, than guerillas any day.
There is also the scorched earth philosophy of the Russians which I firmly adore - If I can't have it, neither can you. Destroying the prize while costly, reduces incentive to conquer, and ability to do so.
Conquering a nation is never easy.
Mister D
10-17-2013, 08:01 PM
Did we win it?
We never lost a battle. We lost the war because we lacked the political will.
Mister D
10-17-2013, 08:02 PM
Evil, I have no doubt about the effectiveness of an insurgency against this government. Against a determined alien power? :undecided:
Dr. Who
10-17-2013, 08:13 PM
Obviously there would be attrition to the rural folks. But the problem with cities is that they are not truly a source of wealth, they can be terrific production centers - no doubt. But where does the ore, the grain, etc all come from?
Cities can produce ______, but only if the ______ shipment keeps on coming in. And rural folks sit on that stuff. I would rather face a conventional army, than guerillas any day.
There is also the scorched earth philosophy of the Russians which I firmly adore - If I can't have it, neither can you. Destroying the prize while costly, reduces incentive to conquer, and ability to do so.
Conquering a nation is never easy.
Not to be unkind to the rural folk of America, but most have never done without food a day in their lives and with the exception of the very poor have never experienced deprivation. Afghanistan, Korea and Vietnam were and are much different places, where people eat minimally and can survive for weeks and even months on a bowl of rice or a bit of boiled grain. Americans are much different. During WWII the Russians could resist the Germans because they could survive on very little. There really is no parallel here. Americans are likely the best fed people on the planet, if not always the most nutritionally robust.
If you are a conquering army you can bring in imports to take care of the cities. You just have to wait to starve out the rural communities. I suspect it wouldn't take long, because Americans are not used to deprivation.
Dr. Who
10-17-2013, 08:14 PM
You're also ignoring the possibility of private defense.
The people with enough money to fund a defense would simply move to a safer country. People with that kind of money have no loyalty. You might raise funds from the little people, but who would be in charge of purchasing? Who would take charge of military planning? Would money even have any value in that scenario, or would you be trading livestock, and other things like precious metals for weapons?
Cthulhu
10-17-2013, 08:17 PM
We never lost a battle. We lost the war because we lacked the political will.
And a clear target.
Evil, I have no doubt about the effectiveness of an insurgency against this government. Against a determined alien power? :undecided:
Same answer, do you really think americans would willingly be subjugated by somebody blathering about in arabic or chinese? We have a hard enough time getting along with people whose language we already do understand.
American is a land of violence, and it has plenty of natural advantages in regards to defense.
Cthulhu
10-17-2013, 08:19 PM
Not to be unkind to the rural folk of America, but most have never done without food a day in their lives and with the exception of the very poor have never experienced deprivation. Afghanistan, Korea and Vietnam were and are much different places, where people eat minimally and can survive for weeks and even months on a bowl of rice or a bit of boiled grain. Americans are much different. During WWII the Russians could resist the Germans because they could survive on very little. There really is no parallel here. Americans are likely the best fed people on the planet, if not always the most nutritionally robust.
If you are a conquering army you can bring in imports to take care of the cities. You just have to wait to starve out the rural communities. I suspect it wouldn't take long, because Americans are not used to deprivation.
I will gleefully admit there will be a great deal of attrition. Perhaps this is just my nationalism talking, but I don't think a foreign power would ever want to have a toe to toe encounter with the american population.
Mister D
10-17-2013, 08:22 PM
And a clear target.
Same answer, do you really think americans would willingly be subjugated by somebody blathering about in arabic or chinese? We have a hard enough time getting along with people whose language we already do understand.
American is a land of violence, and it has plenty of natural advantages in regards to defense.
We sure killed a lot of VC and NVA. If you mean a clear strategic goal I agree.
Guerrillas have been beaten badly in the past. It takes convetional forces to win. That was true in Vietnam, for example. It was the NVA that conquered SV in 1975.
Peter1469
10-17-2013, 08:27 PM
We never lost a battle. We lost the war because we lacked the political will.
That is how a counter-insurgency works- they don't have to win- they just have to outlast the occupiers.
Mister D
10-17-2013, 08:33 PM
That is how a counter-insurgency works- they don't have to win- they just have to outlast the occupiers.
True but that doesn't always work. Sometimes the occupier (e.g. Nazis, Soviets) is ruthless and determined.
Dr. Who
10-17-2013, 08:34 PM
That is how a counter-insurgency works- they don't have to win- they just have to outlast the occupiers.
But would America outlast the occupiers? Since most are not soldiers, how many would choose to starve? You have the biggest eaters on the planet in America. If push came to shove, how many would choose to starve for idealistic reasons, and how many would simply bully the rest into caving in to the aggressors to be able to live normally?
Chris
10-17-2013, 08:36 PM
The people with enough money to fund a defense would simply move to a safer country. People with that kind of money have no loyalty. You might raise funds from the little people, but who would be in charge of purchasing? Who would take charge of military planning? Would money even have any value in that scenario, or would you be trading livestock, and other things like precious metals for weapons?
Those people would be us, who. Why would we move? Why wouldn't we be loyal to ourselves? We had a lengthy discussion of this a little ways back, where we you then?
Dr. Who
10-17-2013, 08:44 PM
Those people would be us, who. Why would we move? Why wouldn't we be loyal to ourselves? We had a lengthy discussion of this a little ways back, where we you then?
Clearly I wasn't part of that discussion. I'm only saying the wealthy would take off with their wealth, long before the currency tanks. There might be the odd one who has some sense of nationalism, but for the most part they owe their allegiance to the moneyed class. Everyone else might contribute, but currency would likely be a write-off, in which case most people would be wiped out. All they could donate are the tangible goods that they have, which could somehow be sold.
Peter1469
10-17-2013, 08:46 PM
True but that doesn't always work. Sometimes the occupier (e.g. Nazis, Soviets) is ruthless and determined.
Right. If you are willing to crush the enemy (insurgents and the civilians that support them), you can win. Alexander the Great did that in what is now Afghanistan- he tried to play nice, but when the locals kept fighting he set up forts 1 mile apart and went from place to place killing everyone. You aren't going to see that happen today.
Peter1469
10-17-2013, 08:48 PM
But would America outlast the occupiers? Since most are not soldiers, how many would choose to starve? You have the biggest eaters on the planet in America. If push came to shove, how many would choose to starve for idealistic reasons, and how many would simply bully the rest into caving in to the aggressors to be able to live normally?
I don't think that any other nation could occupy the US. No other nation has the ability to sustain combat operations across the world, the way the US does.
Dr. Who
10-17-2013, 08:51 PM
I don't think that any other nation could occupy the US. No other nation has the ability to sustain combat operations across the world, the way the US does.
This is a scenario where the US has no standing army. Without a standing army, there would be no latest and greatest military equipment. No central military command. Just millions of people with AR 15s, rifles and revolvers.
Cthulhu
10-17-2013, 08:55 PM
This is a scenario where the US has no standing army. Without a standing army, there would be no latest and greatest military equipment. No central military command. Just millions of people with AR 15s, rifles and revolvers.
And that reason alone was why General Yamamoto dreaded the ideal of attacking, and invading America. "A rifle behind every blade of grass."
Cthulhu
10-17-2013, 08:58 PM
True but that doesn't always work. Sometimes the occupier (e.g. Nazis, Soviets) is ruthless and determined.
Word would get out that there are no survivors and such. And instead of cowing an enemy, you'd be uniting him. Why do you think people try to win hearts and minds? It is less dangerous.
But would America outlast the occupiers? Since most are not soldiers, how many would choose to starve? You have the biggest eaters on the planet in America. If push came to shove, how many would choose to starve for idealistic reasons, and how many would simply bully the rest into caving in to the aggressors to be able to live normally?
And what is to stop the same hungry people from killing those who are starving them and taking their stuff? Entitled spoiled brats - we are that and much worse. But the indignant attitude and rebellious nature of people is only a few meals away from surfacing.
Dr. Who
10-17-2013, 08:58 PM
And that reason alone was why General Yamamoto dreaded the ideal of attacking, and invading America. "A rifle behind every blade of grass."
But who's to say whether some other government wouldn't use chemical and bio weapons, and then deny it afterward.
Peter1469
10-17-2013, 08:58 PM
This is a scenario where the US has no standing army. Without a standing army, there would be no latest and greatest military equipment. No central military command. Just millions of people with AR 15s, rifles and revolvers.
That is just theory. In that alternative reality, the US would be easily carved up by other powers.
Mister D
10-17-2013, 08:59 PM
Right. If you are willing to crush the enemy (insurgents and the civilians that support them), you can win. Alexander the Great did that in what is now Afghanistan- he tried to play nice, but when the locals kept fighting he set up forts 1 mile apart and went from place to place killing everyone. You aren't going to see that happen today.
Certainly no contemporary western regime would behave that way although I could see the Russians coming close. That said, perspectives and values can change quickly given the right conditions.
Dr. Who
10-17-2013, 09:00 PM
That is just theory. In that alternative reality, the US would be easily carved up by other powers.
That was my point to Aloysha.
Chris
10-17-2013, 09:10 PM
Clearly I wasn't part of that discussion. I'm only saying the wealthy would take off with their wealth, long before the currency tanks. There might be the odd one who has some sense of nationalism, but for the most part they owe their allegiance to the moneyed class. Everyone else might contribute, but currency would likely be a write-off, in which case most people would be wiped out. All they could donate are the tangible goods that they have, which could somehow be sold.
You mean like the wealthy are moving off shore and overseas under our current system?
There's be no nationalism.
You mean the way the government now sells favors to the rich?
You mean the way printing money makes currency worthless now?
Your criticizing private defense for the failing pf public defense.
See http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/17090-Private-Security?highlight=private+security for a rather interesting discussion on the topic, a rarity for this forum lately. No, there was no final agreement, lots of good disagreement, but the ideas and problems and solutions are well explored.
Chris
10-17-2013, 09:12 PM
That is just theory. In that alternative reality, the US would be easily carved up by other powers.
That would be true as well in theory in an alternate reality called the future that no one can predict.
Dr. Who
10-17-2013, 09:16 PM
That would be true as well in theory in an alternate reality called the future that no one can predict.
Aloysha was positing a US with independent militias and no standing army. In such a scenario, the US would be ripe for the picking.
Cthulhu
10-17-2013, 09:18 PM
But who's to say whether some other government wouldn't use chemical and bio weapons, and then deny it afterward.
What if this, and what if that...
I see your point.
But it goes both ways. However history would seem to agree with you. Smaller loosely fragmented powers usually get eaten for breakfast by larger more organized powers. The Chinese provinces during WWII are a good example. Japanese ate their lunch.
Chris
10-17-2013, 09:24 PM
Aloysha was positing a US with independent militias and no standing army. In such a scenario, the US would be ripe for the picking.
That to me should be the first line of defense, the first responders so to speak. But, yes, you need a higher level of defense--but there is no reason that must be public as opposed to private.
Dr. Who
10-17-2013, 09:26 PM
What if this, and what if that...
I see your point.
But it goes both ways. However history would seem to agree with you. Smaller loosely fragmented powers usually get eaten for breakfast by larger more organized powers. The Chinese provinces during WWII are a good example. Japanese ate their lunch.
Just saying that a US united is stronger than a US divided or fragmented. It is the same everywhere, but a divided US would be a major target if for nothing other than its natural resources.
Cthulhu
10-17-2013, 09:31 PM
Just saying that a US united is stronger than a US divided or fragmented. It is the same everywhere, but a divided US would be a major target if for nothing other than its natural resources.
No dispute there. But having multiple entities vying for the same prize is an advantage by itself - they may ally, or backstab each other. But I wouldn't underestimate corporate warfare potential either.
Private sector does everything better. If there is a buck to be made, they will make it.
Chris
10-17-2013, 09:37 PM
No dispute there. But having multiple entities vying for the same prize is an advantage by itself - they may ally, or backstab each other. But I wouldn't underestimate corporate warfare potential either.
Private sector does everything better. If there is a buck to be made, they will make it.
But the only way the private sector can profit, san political means, is economic means, iow, providing the products ans services the consumers of defense want. Government's only motive is attaining and preserving power.
Dr. Who
10-17-2013, 09:37 PM
No dispute there. But having multiple entities vying for the same prize is an advantage by itself - they may ally, or backstab each other. But I wouldn't underestimate corporate warfare potential either.
Private sector does everything better. If there is a buck to be made, they will make it.
I could see a scenario where the current private entities that control everything now, unite to create a legitimate corporatocracy. Sounds like something out of science fiction, but if they could take over and dispense with the constitution, well the world would be their oyster. The rest of us would be krill.
zelmo1234
10-18-2013, 03:35 AM
Not to be unkind to the rural folk of America, but most have never done without food a day in their lives and with the exception of the very poor have never experienced deprivation. Afghanistan, Korea and Vietnam were and are much different places, where people eat minimally and can survive for weeks and even months on a bowl of rice or a bit of boiled grain. Americans are much different. During WWII the Russians could resist the Germans because they could survive on very little. There really is no parallel here. Americans are likely the best fed people on the planet, if not always the most nutritionally robust.
If you are a conquering army you can bring in imports to take care of the cities. You just have to wait to starve out the rural communities. I suspect it wouldn't take long, because Americans are not used to deprivation.
Where is the food? and for example where do Russia and China get a lot of their food?
The problems with the invasion of the USA is that once you get out of the cities. and trust me there are a lot of people in this country that would gladly give someone, anyone, many of the cities in the USA, but once you get into the Rural Community you face an armed community.
So you send your army in to take and hold the USA. you loose a certain percentage to the takeover, and now you need to feed them. the food does not grow in the super market, So you have to venture out.
Now could you bomb and burn the food and starve the rural community out NO they hunt and fish. and can live off the land, but you could burn all the crops.
Causing a World famine! Including your own people likely! Now the people of the Rural community likely have allies, and the country attempting the takeover likely has additional enemies.
Good Doctor you seem the think that food grows in Supermarkets? Now you can and they will likely starve cities out, why would you know, there are few people that reside there that you would want In your country~
zelmo1234
10-18-2013, 03:42 AM
But would America outlast the occupiers? Since most are not soldiers, how many would choose to starve? You have the biggest eaters on the planet in America. If push came to shove, how many would choose to starve for idealistic reasons, and how many would simply bully the rest into caving in to the aggressors to be able to live normally?
You are still talking about city folk,
And that is the attrition that people in the country would be willing to loose.
How are you going to starve the country person out. and NO they are not a military. they have guns though and a knowledge of the land.
So lets say that every family can only kill one soldier you would still have to have an army of 100 million! China can field it, but they can't feed it!
So they would have to burn the crops that would sustain their people, while the rural people would still be able to live off the land!
I am assuming that you could not fee yourself if you were set in the middle of the woods Give me a pocket knife a piece of wire and a string and I will cook you a meal fit for a king!
zelmo1234
10-18-2013, 03:46 AM
This is a scenario where the US has no standing army. Without a standing army, there would be no latest and greatest military equipment. No central military command. Just millions of people with AR 15s, rifles and revolvers.
Why? why could not each state through the national guard keep planes, give the militias Tanks, When I owned my security company we had some pretty cool toys
If you do away with the military? many of those toys have to go somewhere.
Take a look at X's for example, they are not a national military, but likely could take over many of the worlds nations.
So here is the example, You are from country X and you want the USA. how do you take over this vast land, without completely burning it up, so it is not worth taking over.
zelmo1234
10-18-2013, 03:55 AM
No dispute there. But having multiple entities vying for the same prize is an advantage by itself - they may ally, or backstab each other. But I wouldn't underestimate corporate warfare potential either.
Private sector does everything better. If there is a buck to be made, they will make it.
And in a situation of a standing army, the rules of engagement are different. Just look at the recent past the rules for the contractors were different!
Could they use chemical and bio weapons, YES , could the people go to the Nuc power plants and make the much of the USA unlivable? YES
Dr Who is a liberal and needs the Government to feel safe.
He does not understand that people can take care of themselves. A force that would do what is necessary to take control of the USA would likely starve much of the world.
Making them the enemy of the world, and they would have wars on every front.
Not to mention that if you are going to bring a force large enough to take and hold the USA, to this country,
Who is watching and protecting your homeland.
zelmo1234
10-18-2013, 04:01 AM
Just saying that a US united is stronger than a US divided or fragmented. It is the same everywhere, but a divided US would be a major target if for nothing other than its natural resources.
What you don't understand it that the USA is gong to loose much of it's centralized power in the not so distant future, as the head toward insolvency.
They will not have the money to do anything but service the debt. and interest rates rise, and you can't keep adding money to the system and not face inflation and rising interest rates. The feds will have less and less for the states.
Here is another example IL is 400 billion in debt just to their public worker pension fund? Soon the shit is going to hit the fan because we have no leaders that are willing to make the hard choices to stop it!
Self reliance is returning to this country, and there are many that have been lead to believe that only the government can provide for them, that are facing a real harsh form of reality
Uh no. You know pretty much nothing. Hahahaha. Sarah Palin is a conservative dude.
She's a dude now? lol. She is a teapeetard, therefore she is a glibertarian.
If you look in history for a free market, you'll find that it has never existed in the complete libertarian ideal. Sure, there have been periods where freedom of exchange was greater than others, but there has never been a completely free market.
And I doubt it ever could. Libertarianism is just as idealistic as socialism. Both depend on people to act in certain ways and don't take human nature into account.
I found it highly entertaining that the Wilders were given 160 acres by the federal government. Lands that the federal government stole from native peoples and rid of native peoples. Life is so amusing.
jillian
10-18-2013, 04:50 AM
And I doubt it ever could. Libertarianism is just as idealistic as socialism. Both depend on people to act in certain ways and don't take human nature into account.
I found it highly entertaining that the Wilders were given 160 acres by the federal government. Lands that the federal government stole from native peoples and rid of native peoples. Life is so amusing.
^^^^^^
both ideologies think that everyone will sing kumbaya and everything will be happily ever after if government goes away....
it's wishful thinking in both cases.
Chris
10-18-2013, 07:45 AM
And I doubt it ever could. Libertarianism is just as idealistic as socialism. Both depend on people to act in certain ways and don't take human nature into account.
I found it highly entertaining that the Wilders were given 160 acres by the federal government. Lands that the federal government stole from native peoples and rid of native peoples. Life is so amusing.
You really don't understand libertarianism, do you. At the heart of libertarianism is not an expectation people will act in certain ways but simply the liberty to act as they see fit in the pursuit of happiness. It does take human nature into account by recognizing man is not perfect or perfectable as the reason he must be free.
Chris
10-18-2013, 07:48 AM
^^^^^^
both ideologies think that everyone will sing kumbaya and everything will be happily ever after if government goes away....
it's wishful thinking in both cases.
And your leftist ideology expect everyone to sing kumbaya in abject dependence and worship of the state. It's wishful thinking the state cares about you.
See post above on libertarianism, you're both dead wrong on it.
Alyosha
10-18-2013, 08:47 AM
That is just theory. In that alternative reality, the US would be easily carved up by other powers.
If the country went to a loose confederation, you believe that who would invade...Russia?
nic34
10-18-2013, 08:56 AM
I don't understand where the government grant comes in. If it weren't for the federal government, the land would have been $14 cheaper.
Consider it a small payment to clear out the savages...
Alyosha
10-18-2013, 08:57 AM
^^^^^^
both ideologies think that everyone will sing kumbaya and everything will be happily ever after if government goes away....
it's wishful thinking in both cases.
Are we all singing kumbaya now? Make a real argument instead of this one. You're acting like everyone's happy now with government.
No, not a bombed city in Iraq, but my home town! 3-1-3~
http://startupweekend.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/08/Detroit.jpg
Violence? Well, the state does that, too, and better than we can for being so organized.
http://havecoffeewillwrite.com/wp-content/2012/occupy-120802.jpg
Americans being killed by bombs from the skies? Shit! That's happening too!
http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/abdulrahman-al-awlaki1.jpg
^^Used to be alive until our president killed him.
I'm sorry but if you're going to talk about how terrible things will be and how dangerous and horrible things could get you need to prove that governments are not violent, that governments don't rob, don't commit crimes, or empower them. The system is corrupt and you won't even acknowledge it because to you it's better than some unknown. Well what you have is the unknown. You're looking at the giant Oz head and thinking you know the score. You're controlled by a small group of old rich mostly white guys. Your vote doesn't matter and you don't matter.
You'd find that out in an instant if OWS hadn't been infiltrated.
I'll leave this thread with a quote from one of my idols.
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Frank-Zappa.jpg
nic34
10-18-2013, 09:12 AM
And your leftist ideology expect everyone to sing kumbaya in abject dependence and worship of the state. It's wishful thinking the state cares about you.
See post above on libertarianism, you're both dead wrong on it.
Except that you and the leftist libertarians here would be perfectly happy dismantling the "state" system we have had the past 235+ years while insisting that the constitution be followed to the letter.
.... at the same time no one has shown any alternative that could reasonably take it's place.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
― Winston Churchill
Alyosha
10-18-2013, 09:16 AM
Except that you and the leftist libertarians here would be perfectly happy dismantling the "state" system we have had the past 235+ years while insisting that the constitution be followed to the letter.
nic34
if I may answer for him?
I would not be anti-state if we kept to the Constitution in its original form because within it are guaranteed protections from authoritarianism. Federalism as they codified it in Philadelphia was a beautiful thing, granting the most freedoms. This is why many libertarians push for it.
I think the Constitution is dead, however. ((pours whiskey))
Chris
10-18-2013, 09:30 AM
Except that you and the leftist libertarians here would be perfectly happy dismantling the "state" system we have had the past 235+ years while insisting that the constitution be followed to the letter.
.... at the same time no one has shown any alternative that could reasonably take it's place.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
― Winston Churchill
Except that you and the leftist libertarians here would be (A) perfectly happy dismantling the "state" system we have had the past 235+ years while (B) insisting that the constitution be followed to the letter.
(A) contradicts (B), nic. Please rephrase so it makes sense.
Chris
10-18-2013, 09:31 AM
nic34
if I may answer for him?
I would not be anti-state if we kept to the Constitution in its original form because within it are guaranteed protections from authoritarianism. Federalism as they codified it in Philadelphia was a beautiful thing, granting the most freedoms. This is why many libertarians push for it.
I think the Constitution is dead, however. ((pours whiskey))
Please do and good answer.
Cthulhu
10-18-2013, 11:28 AM
@nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572)
if I may answer for him?
I would not be anti-state if we kept to the Constitution in its original form because within it are guaranteed protections from authoritarianism. Federalism as they codified it in Philadelphia was a beautiful thing, granting the most freedoms. This is why many libertarians push for it.
I think the Constitution is dead, however. ((pours whiskey))
*pours glass of OJ*
Cheers.
Mr. Freeze
10-18-2013, 11:32 AM
@nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572)
if I may answer for him?
I would not be anti-state if we kept to the Constitution in its original form because within it are guaranteed protections from authoritarianism. Federalism as they codified it in Philadelphia was a beautiful thing, granting the most freedoms. This is why many libertarians push for it.
I think the Constitution is dead, however. ((pours whiskey))
You still have your moments. :)
If only we can cure you of reaching towards the cup of bitterness and hatred. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that.
We need positive and intelligent change in this world. Don't stoop to name-calling and losing your arguments to the ether of anger. Remember who you are.
Cthulhu
10-18-2013, 11:43 AM
You still have your moments. :)
If only we can cure you of reaching towards the cup of bitterness and hatred. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that.
We need positive and intelligent change in this world. Don't stoop to name-calling and losing your arguments to the ether of anger. Remember who you are.
Pretty difficult to retain one's cool when surrounded by idiots whose sole purpose in life seems to be pushing your buttons.
A troll deserves neither respect nor protection. Courtesy should be extended only until provocation is returned.
I do wonder why some posters are allowed here when all they do is bait, taunt, insult etc... It makes no sense.
Reporting them just seems like a stupid thing to do because it really doesn't affect me much, but they sure do clutter up the board with their inane garbage. They are quite prolific about it too.
Mr. Freeze
10-18-2013, 11:50 AM
Pretty difficult to retain one's cool when surrounded by idiots whose sole purpose in life seems to be pushing your buttons.
A troll deserves neither respect nor protection. Courtesy should be extended only until provocation is returned.
I do wonder why some posters are allowed here when all they do is bait, taunt, insult etc... It makes no sense.
Reporting them just seems like a stupid thing to do because it really doesn't affect me much, but they sure do clutter up the board with their inane garbage. They are quite prolific about it too.
There is a reason why her mother and others tease her about being "Alyosha". This is a girl who once wanted to be a nun and work in Africa to provide support for those dying of AIDs.
I am reminding her only of her own beliefs.
Trolls do not make you do anything. You choose how to respond or even to respond. Sometimes it is better to say nothing than to say something that chips away at who you are.
Cthulhu
10-18-2013, 11:58 AM
There is a reason why her mother and others tease her about being "Alyosha". This is a girl who once wanted to be a nun and work in Africa to provide support for those dying of AIDs.
I am reminding her only of her own beliefs.
Trolls do not make you do anything. You choose how to respond or even to respond. Sometimes it is better to say nothing than to say something that chips away at who you are.
No dispute with anything here. Nobody forces you to do anything. But taking garbage lying down has no merit either.
Chris
10-18-2013, 12:37 PM
There is a reason why her mother and others tease her about being "Alyosha". This is a girl who once wanted to be a nun and work in Africa to provide support for those dying of AIDs.
I am reminding her only of her own beliefs.
Trolls do not make you do anything. You choose how to respond or even to respond. Sometimes it is better to say nothing than to say something that chips away at who you are.
Trolls detract from discussion. You complained about that in your first posts here. Now it is nothing?
Mr. Freeze
10-18-2013, 12:51 PM
Trolls detract from discussion. You complained about that in your first posts here. Now it is nothing?
They absolutely do, but I want better for Alyosha because I think so highly of her.
Peter1469
10-18-2013, 03:02 PM
If the country went to a loose confederation, you believe that who would invade...Russia?
Realistically I don't think that any major power would try it. My point was that it would make their job easier were the country a loose confederation.
Chris
10-18-2013, 03:05 PM
They absolutely do, but I want better for Alyosha because I think so highly of her.
I haven't known her for long but admire her as well. She's always good for discussion. She's a fellow communitarian of yours, right?
Chris
10-18-2013, 03:07 PM
Realistically I don't think that any major power would try it. My point was that it would make their job easier were the country a loose confederation.
It could happen if the US collapses under it's debt economically.
I'd prefer a slow, gradual change.
Chris
10-18-2013, 03:50 PM
I haven't known her for long but admire her as well. She's always good for discussion. She's a fellow communitarian of yours, right?
Say, Mr. Freeze and Alyosha, I should like for you two to someday start up a thread on communitarianism, what it means to you, why you favor it, etc. Something to get up discussion and explore what it is. That would be fun.
Alyosha
10-18-2013, 03:53 PM
Realistically I don't think that any major power would try it. My point was that it would make their job easier were the country a loose confederation.
Why do you feel they wouldn't pull together to not have to learn Mandarin Chinese? Jesus, people bitch about having to learn Spanish.
Alyosha
10-18-2013, 03:54 PM
Say, @Mr. Freeze (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=892) and @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863), I should like for you two to someday start up a thread on communitarianism, what it means to you, why you favor it, etc. Something to get up discussion and explore what it is. That would be fun.
Hmmm. We could do that.
Peter1469
10-18-2013, 04:05 PM
Why do you feel they wouldn't pull together to not have to learn Mandarin Chinese? Jesus, people bitch about having to learn Spanish.
I didn't get to the point of considering whether the loose confederation would pull together or not. If they did, then my original point stands: no other nation could logistically sustain itself in an invasion of the US. But if the loose confederation didn't pull together, or even took different sides...
Realistically I don't think that any major power would try it. My point was that it would make their job easier were the country a loose confederation.
True, amphibious invasions are really difficult to pull off as is, but even the size alone of the American continent is daunting.
Dr. Who
10-18-2013, 04:47 PM
It could happen if the US collapses under it's debt economically.
I'd prefer a slow, gradual change.
Considering how much of the US is now owned by China, it might be foreclosure rather than invasion.
Chris
10-18-2013, 04:57 PM
Considering how much of the US is now owned by China, it might be foreclosure rather than invasion.
I think China sold off their debts. Smart move.
Peter1469
10-18-2013, 05:57 PM
China still holds ~$1.8T in US T-bills.
zelmo1234
10-18-2013, 06:59 PM
They absolutely do, but I want better for @Alyosha (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=863) because I think so highly of her.
Then let her be free!
zelmo1234
10-18-2013, 07:01 PM
Considering how much of the US is now owned by China, it might be foreclosure rather than invasion.
Wonder what the price of that short sale would be!
Dr. Who
10-18-2013, 07:10 PM
Wonder what the price of that short sale would be!
I don't know, but apart from the T-bills, they've been buying up US real estate and businesses like there was a fire sale.
Green Arrow
10-18-2013, 07:20 PM
There is a reason why her mother and others tease her about being "Alyosha". This is a girl who once wanted to be a nun and work in Africa to provide support for those dying of AIDs.
I am reminding her only of her own beliefs.
Trolls do not make you do anything. You choose how to respond or even to respond. Sometimes it is better to say nothing than to say something that chips away at who you are.
Who are you? I'm curious. I don't know that we've met, yet you seem to know quite a bit about "Trina."
Mr. Freeze
10-18-2013, 07:47 PM
Who are you? I'm curious. I don't know that we've met, yet you seem to know quite a bit about "Trina."
She's my sister.
Mr. Freeze
10-18-2013, 07:49 PM
Then let her be free!
I would like her to be free, but I also want her to be true to who she is. Pretending to be someone you are not always leads to trouble. She was always our mother's "Alyosha" because she was the one who believed that love and compassion would change the world.
This bitterness is what she needs to be free from. It doesn't raise the dead nor will it quiet him.
Green Arrow
10-18-2013, 07:53 PM
She's my sister.
No way! Really?
Mr. Freeze
10-18-2013, 07:54 PM
No way! Really?
Yes way! She's been my sister all my life.
AmazonTania
10-18-2013, 08:02 PM
Do you have a witness that can verify that?
Mr. Freeze
10-18-2013, 08:03 PM
Do you have a witness that can verify that?
What are you saying about our parents? :)
Mr. Freeze
10-18-2013, 08:06 PM
No way! Really?
I know who you are! The one who lives across the James river bridge, am I right?
Chris
10-18-2013, 08:07 PM
china still holds ~$1.8t in us t-bills.
$1.8t / $17t = ~10%.
AmazonTania
10-18-2013, 08:15 PM
What are you saying about our parents? :)
They must have been awesome people?
AmazonTania
10-18-2013, 08:16 PM
$1.8t / $17t = ~10%.
China actually holds over $3 Trillion in US Denominated Assets. $1.8 Trillion of which are Treasuries.
It's not just Government debt the Chinese is holding.
Chris
10-18-2013, 08:29 PM
China actually holds over $3 Trillion in US Denominated Assets. $1.8 Trillion of which are Treasuries.
It's not just Government debt the Chinese is holding.
Take your word for it but thought I'd read recently it'd sold a lot of that.
Mr. Freeze
10-18-2013, 08:32 PM
Take your word for it but thought I'd read recently it'd sold a lot of that.
I did, too.
AmazonTania
10-18-2013, 08:37 PM
A few months ago, Hong Kong and China were net sellers of US Securities (August, I think), but I'm fairly certain they still have over $3.3 Trillion.
It's really hard to know exactly since the IMF doesn't keep China's International Foreign Reserve Data.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/ir/IRProcessWeb/colist.aspx
Dr. Who
10-18-2013, 08:54 PM
A few months ago, Hong Kong and China were net sellers of US Securities (August, I think), but I'm fairly certain they still have over $3.3 Trillion.
It's really hard to know exactly since the IMF doesn't keep China's International Foreign Reserve Data.
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/ir/IRProcessWeb/colist.aspx
This paper is fairly recent:http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34314.pdf
AmazonTania
10-18-2013, 09:10 PM
This paper is fairly recent:http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34314.pdf
As I have said, around August China became a net seller of US Securities. Balance of payments is community quarterly. We do not know how much assets China holds as of Oct 1st, 2013. Could be more or less.
Green Arrow
10-18-2013, 10:33 PM
I know who you are! The one who lives across the James river bridge, am I right?
Yessir! The other half of "Trina" :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.