NationStates Jolt Archive

Jerome Corsi, probably best known as the lead guy in the Swift Boats desecration of the truth, has outdone himself (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965).

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada, setting the stage for North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

Sometimes, I swear, I wonder how these people remember to breathe without a reminder.

Oh god. It's only a matter of time before a black hole appears out of nowhere and sucks our system into oblivion...

Holy Jews for Jesus!

Jerome Corsi, probably best known as the lead guy in the Swift Boats desecration of the truth, has outdone himself (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965).



Sometimes, I swear, I wonder how these people remember to breathe without a reminder.

No, he is right, didn't you hear that Canada decided to break away from North America and go over to Europe? They put a lot of boat engines on the west coast of Canada, and with a lot of gas, managed to push the whole country to Europe. Its true I tell you!

Or... he could just be a moron. Your choice.

didn't you heard...

Or... he could just be a moron.

Ooookay. I think my head's about to implode.

The NAU concept has been around for years, hell Clive Cussler based a Dirk Pitt novel on it. Good book too, had James Bond in it plus hot chicks, fast cars, sadistic henchmen lots of shooting......

Hehehehe.... Anyone wonder why we Canadians gloat every time an American makes what is apparently a wise international political insight?

This is what I saw at first glance:

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAMBLA to include Canada

:eek:

had James Bond in it plus hot chicks, fast cars, sadistic henchmen lots of shooting......

Sounds a lot like Golgo 13...

..Expand NAFTA to include Canada.....uhh...hallo? Anyone in there?:eek:

I think I know 3rd graders who are more informed then this guy O_O.


didn't you heard...

Or... he could just be a moron.

:p Hahahahahaha!:D

Jerome Corsi, probably best known as the lead guy in the Swift Boats desecration of the truth, has outdone himself (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965).



Sometimes, I swear, I wonder how these people remember to breathe without a reminder.
Aside from his obvious lack of historical fact - in case some of you missed it, Canada is and has been for some time, before Bush even, a member of NAFTA - what is also interesting is that he is now attacking the president he did everything he could to get into office.

Talk about flip-flopping, eh?

Talk about flip-flopping, eh?
Yeah, I thought only Kerry did that.


"I actually voted for Bush BEFORE I voted against him."

No shortage of stupidity in the world. Yet another example of it.

Jerome Corsi, probably best known as the lead guy in the Swift Boats desecration of the truth, has outdone himself (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965).



Sometimes, I swear, I wonder how these people remember to breathe without a reminder.

While they were right about Kerry, I think he's nuts. Bush would commit political suicide with the considerable anti-immigration stuff going on now.

Yeah, I thought only Kerry did that.


"I actually voted for Bush BEFORE I voted against him."

...No, that's not it. It was:

"I was for the war before I was against it."

Not hard to believe, since he was saying that he was for the invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam, not because of any falsified nuclear weapons. But what's funny is that he never once defended any of his positions on anything. He just let the rabid, fuckjob Republicans jump all over him.

What a dumbass.

While they were right about Kerry, I think he's nuts. Bush would commit political suicide with the considerable anti-immigration stuff going on now.
You mean exactly like he is? Have you been watching the news lately? Bush is every open-border-supporter's dream.

Bush is every open-border-supporter's dream.

Oh, he is, is he? He wants to keep the current mass of illegal immigrants in the country, and once that's done, he wants to pretty much wall the borders.

I'm a supporter of totally open borders and the free movement of people. Anything less than unpatrolled bridges across the Rio Grande and open roads to Canada just won't cut it, as far as I'm concerned.

...No, that's not it. It was:

"I was for the war before I was against it."

Not hard to believe, since he was saying that he was for the invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam, not because of any falsified nuclear weapons. But what's funny is that he never once defended any of his positions on anything. He just let the rabid, fuckjob Republicans jump all over him.

What a dumbass.
No, if you remember correctly it was, "I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it," in relation to a bill for funding the troops in Iraq. What Kerry said was that the bill the first time around was a simply appropriations bill but by the time it came through again it had all kinds of rider amendments that had nothing to do with the war that he didn't like. The truth didn't bother the Bush campaign, though, because at first they just made it sound like he was against supporting our troops by saying he voted against it. Then we he defended himself by saying, "I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it," he went on to explain why, but just that sound bite alone without the accompanying explanation became the proof that Kerry was a flip-flopper.

I'm a supporter of totally open borders and the free movement of people. Anything less than unpatrolled bridges across the Rio Grande and open roads to Canada just won't cut it, as far as I'm concerned.

Then it is a good thing you don't have the authority to make that happen. This country hardly needs foreingers to talke our jobs and for criminals to be able to move freely in and out of the US. Not to mention just ASKING for terrorists to come attack us.

No, if you remember correctly it was, "I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it," in relation to a bill for funding the troops in Iraq. What Kerry said was that the bill the first time around was a simply appropriations bill but by the time it came through again it had all kinds of rider amendments that had nothing to do with the war that he didn't like. The truth didn't bother the Bush campaign, though, because at first they just made it sound like he was against supporting our troops by saying he voted against it. Then we he defended himself by saying, "I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it," he went on to explain why, but just that sound bite alone without the accompanying explanation became the proof that Kerry was a flip-flopper.

Ah, thanks. It's all coming back to me now... What a lame time, eh? I hate elections. All the fanfare and pomp, and nothing gets accomplished.

Then it is a good thing you don't have the authority to make that happen. This country hardly needs foreingers to talke our jobs and for criminals to be able to move freely in and out of the US. Not to mention just ASKING for terrorists to come attack us.

If I had the power, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I honestly don't care much for xenophobic rhetoric.

Oh, he is, is he? He wants to keep the current mass of illegal immigrants in the country, and once that's done, he wants to pretty much wall the borders.

I'm a supporter of totally open borders and the free movement of people. Anything less than unpatrolled bridges across the Rio Grande and open roads to Canada just won't cut it, as far as I'm concerned.
No he doesn't. He wants to let everyone here stay and then he wants to have a "guest worker" program that would allow in millions more. The "path to citizenship" is a different element than the "guest worker program." The Path To Citizenship is an amnesty proposal for illegal aliens already here. The Guest Worker Program is a means for more to come.

No he doesn't. He wants to let everyone here stay and then he wants to have a "guest worker" program that would allow in millions more. The "path to citizenship" is a different element than the "guest worker program." The Path To Citizenship is an amnesty proposal for illegal aliens already here. The Guest Worker Program is a means for more to come.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Even still, it doesn't grant full and complete rights, so I'm against it.

If I had the power, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I honestly don't care much for xenophobic rhetoric.

And the way I see it is that you wouldn't just leave the door to your house open for anyone to walk in. You have to give permission on who you want to let in or you are asking for serious trouble.

And the way I see it is that you wouldn't just leave the door to your house open for anyone to walk in. You have to give permission on who you want to let in or you are asking for serious trouble.

My house is my house.

The land outside is not my house. Am I to keep people from walking on the wide, open space, just because I was born here? Conversely, does anyone else have the right to do the same to me in "their" land?

I honestly don't think so. The powers at be, on the other hand...

And the way I see it is that you wouldn't just leave the door to your house open for anyone to walk in. You have to give permission on who you want to let in or you are asking for serious trouble.
He is being silly. Maybe when he matures, he will realise it.

He is being silly. Maybe when he matures, he will realise it.

And you call yourself a Libertarian? Heh.

And you call yourself a Libertarian? Heh.
I am also practical and realistic. Not just an ideologue. Even under complete anarcho-capitalism (or any form of anarchism), getting the permission of a community to enter it and be a neighbour to its members is a requirement which is not waived.

I am also practical and realistic. Not just an ideologue.

The opposite of my ideals is only deemed "practical" because the swallow-brained majority of the populace thinks it's so.

Even under complete anarcho-capitalism (or any form of anarchism), getting the permission of a community to enter it and be a neighbour to its members is a requirement which is not waived.

Yes, but I'm simply stating that we shouldn't be at the mercy of a central governing body.

The opposite of my ideals is only deemed "practical" because the swallow-brained majority of the populace thinks it's so.
Then, open up the borders completely. See the chaos that ensues. The levels of wealth between nations are not level, or even close to each other. Don't be naive.

Yes, but I'm simply stating that we shouldn't be at the mercy of a central governing body.
Sadly, this is democracy. If the government is majority-sponsored, then it is expressing the desires of said majority. And like I said, there are practical economic considerations at hand. Anarchism is unlikely to ever develop. So for now, the government is the best tool we have. True, it needs more suppression, though it has to ensure that the rate and quality of immigration is economically favourable.

Then, open up the borders completely. See the chaos that ensues. The levels of wealth between nations are not level, or even close to each other. Don't be naive.

Did you honestly believe I was hoping for a utopia? "Chaos" was the aim.

Did you honestly believe I was hoping for a utopia? "Chaos" was the aim.
Either you are being sarcastic, or you are slightly off your edge then. :)

Sadly, this is democracy. If the government is majority-sponsored, then it is expressing the desires of said majority. And like I said, there are practical economic considerations at hand.

...Which is the main reason I'm completely against Democracy as a form of government.

And yeah, while I have been messing around in this thread for the past few posts, I know that opening the borders to all countries right away would totally ruin everything. It could be possible given enough time, but it won't happen anytime soon.

Jerome Corsi, probably best known as the lead guy in the Swift Boats desecration of the truth, has outdone himself (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965).



Sometimes, I swear, I wonder how these people remember to breathe without a reminder.
we should stop reminding them.

...Which is the main reason I'm completely against Democracy as a form of government.

And yeah, while I have been messing around in this thread for the past few posts, I know that opening the borders to all countries right away would totally ruin everything. It could be possible given enough time, but it won't happen anytime soon.
Yep. It would be fine if wealth levels were more or less equal around the world. Then it will be a good idea.

Did you honestly believe I was hoping for a utopia? "Chaos" was the aim.

How exactly is order maintained with no central government?

How exactly is order maintained with no central government?

What makes you think we need a central body of fat people in business suits telling us what to do?

How exactly is order maintained with no central government?
Law provision does not vanish under anarchism (at least ideological versions of it, not just chaos for the sake of it). For instance, in anarcho-capitalism or -syndicalism, insurance agencies would mete out justice qua law providers. In anarcho-socialism, it would be must likely the local community.

Law provision does not vanish under anarchism (at least ideological versions of it, not just chaos for the sake of it). For instance, in anarcho-capitalism or -syndicalism, insurance agencies would mete out justice qua law providers. In anarcho-socialism, it would be must likely the local community.

Insurance companies rule? :rolleyes:

As for the local community how is any of the jobs that the Federal government does going to be done for local towns? The world economy would collapse and crime would skyrocket. Sounds like increased government anyway unless everyone will all coperate with each other which would never happen.

Insurance companies rule? :rolleyes:
Not quite rule, but they offer protection. They have the funds, they have legal expertise, and they are a contract-based body. They also have the economic incentive to only protect crime victims, and not perpetrators. This was at least one suggestion offered by anarcho-capitalist/-syndicalists. For other anarchist models, you will have to ask their defendants to explain.

There is a book called the Production of Security by Gustave de Molinari which goes into it in some detail. A bit old, but still good.

Not quite rule, but they offer protection. They have the funds, they have legal expertise, and they are a contract-based body. They also have the economic incentive to only protect crime victims, and not perpetrators. This was at least one suggestion offered by anarcho-capitalist/-syndicalists.

They are also all about profit and try to screw you anyway possible. As they are profit-driven they also would give you as little compensation as possible and will charge you outrageous sums to give you protection.

we should stop reminding them.

oOo Burn!:p

They are also all about profit and try to screw you anyway possible. As they are profit-driven they also would give you as little compensation as possible and will charge you outrageous sums to give you protection.
Then where will they find their clients? Offering a service that no one can afford means no clientelle. In addition, companies price-discriminate; that means, they charge the most likely price a group of consumers is willing to pay. That maximises profits. Not outrageous sums. If they follow the latter policy, then they need to revise their thinking, for it is based on faulty logic.

As for the local community how is any of the jobs that the Federal government does going to be done for local towns? The world economy would collapse and crime would skyrocket. Sounds like increased government anyway unless everyone will all coperate with each other which would never happen.

1: Since the federal government wouldn't exist, there would be no federal jobs, would there?

2: How so? When people gain even more freedom to trade however they see fit, whether through bartering or exchange for money, economies tend to rise, not fall. Of course, if you're meaning the corporations would collapse, then yes, that's a possibility. And it's a hell of a bright and happy one.

3: And your grounds for saying this are...? You make it seem as if everyone needs to be herded like sheep.

Then where will they find their clients? Offering a service that no one can afford means no clientelle. In addition, companies price-discriminate; that means, they charge the most likely price a group of consumers is willing to pay. That maximises profits. Not outrageous sums.

I think that it is clear that they charge too much given the fact that in the US there are millions without any health insurance. In this system you are giving, the insurance companies would have more power to decide the prices to charge and would probably be able to decide who they deemed was "worthy" of coverage.

I think that it is clear that they charge too much given the fact that in the US there are millions without any health insurance. In this system you are giving, the insurance companies would have more power to decide the prices to charge and would probably be able to decide who they deemed was "worthy" of coverage.
Yes, but remember it is based on the motive of profit-maximisation. They would cover anyone willing to pay their fees and who has a good criminal record (it makes little economic sense to dish out cash for a serial aggressor). Price-discrimination makes profits rise. Not fees that no one can afford. Assuming a non-monopoly situation, competition would be serious. Lower fees would be necessary to attract a clientelle. Doing a good job in reducing crime would also be vital.

Remember also, this is but one model suggested.

I think that it is clear that they charge too much given the fact that in the US there are millions without any health insurance. In this system you are giving, the insurance companies would have more power to decide the prices to charge and would probably be able to decide who they deemed was "worthy" of coverage.

Without minimum wage, people would start working for much lower sums than they already do. And that would be a lot of people.

In this case, since many people are paid little (say, $3.00 an hour, for example), they wouldn't be able to afford much of anything. This would pretty much force price drops across the board.

1: Since the federal government wouldn't exist, there would be no federal jobs, would there?

I meant the duties of the government, tax collecting to give its services. If each community has the responsibility it would become a very disasterous variation of competance of how well civil services are done.

2: How so? When people gain even more freedom to trade however they see fit, whether through bartering or exchange for money, economies tend to rise, not fall. Of course, if you're meaning the corporations would collapse, then yes, that's a possibility. And it's a hell of a bright and happy one.

How would people make a living if only small communities make deals with each other?

3: And your grounds for saying this are...? You make it seem as if everyone needs to be herded like sheep.

People in general are animals and need the fear of punishment to keep them in line. If they thought they could get away with crime many would do just that and without any serious policing and government what would keep the populace honest?

Without minimum wage, people would start working for much lower sums than they already do. And that would be a lot of people.

In this case, since many people are paid little (say, $3.00 an hour, for example), they wouldn't be able to afford much of anything. This would pretty much force price drops across the board.

Without minimum wage I'd think you'd see a rapid increase in the gap between rich and poor and a reduction of the middle class. The rich would love to pay their employees nothing and keep the profits for themselves.

I meant the duties of the government, tax collecting to give its services. If each community has the responsibility it would become a very disasterous variation of competance of how well civil services are done.


How would people make a living if only small communities make deals with each other?


People in general are animals and need the fear of punishment to keep them in line. If they thought they could get away with crime many would do just that and without any serious policing and government what would keep the populace honest?

1: Tax? Hehehehe. You think there's TAX in an Anarchist society? Funny man. And yes, the individual communities run their own civil services. And since the people are empowered, I'm sure they wouldn't tolerate shitty services.

2: Are you thinking that only communities would be able to trade with each other? The whole basis of this system is the people themselves trading with each other, making whatever deals they see fit.

3: No, they don't. Only indoctrinated types like you think that way. And why, why do you think there wouldn't be protection in these communities? There's no gun control, either, so some dumbass who tries to pull a gun on an innocent person might just get what he deserves.

Yes, but remember it is based on the motive of profit-maximisation. They would cover anyone willing to pay their fees and who has a good criminal record (it makes little economic sense to dish out cash for a serial aggressor). Price-discrimination makes profits rise. Not fees that no one can afford. Assuming a non-monopoly situation, competition would be serious. Lower fees would be necessary to attract a clientelle. Doing a good job in reducing crime would also be vital.

Remember also, this is but one model suggested.

If this system is basically run by the insurance companies then they would make the laws that must be followed and violaters could be denied coverage by these companies. I really don't have faith that any kind of government that anyone can come up with would prevent a circumstance from occuring where oppression happens. Except in some fanciful utopia man will screw anything up.

Without minimum wage I'd think you'd see a rapid increase in the gap between rich and poor and a reduction of the middle class. The rich would love to pay their employees nothing and keep the profits for themselves.

Once again, since the people themselves are empowered, and there's no threat of government retaliation, they simply wouldn't work for employers like that.

It wouldn't be prudent for a rich employer to pay his workers nothing and increase the price of his goods.

If this system is basically run by the insurance companies then they would make the laws that must be followed and violaters could be denied coverage by these companies. I really don't have faith that any kind of government that anyone can come up with would prevent a circumstance from occuring where oppression happens. Except in some fanciful utopia man will screw anything up.
Membership of an insurance agency is voluntary, ie contractually based. There would be many insurance agencies; if you don't like one, you leave it and go to one who would better cover you. They would also negotiate between each other to reconcile areas of dispute. Insurance agencies which routinely conduct themselves in the manner you suggested would be seen as inefficient and end up without clients. Law used to function in such a matter; different legal authorities came to settlements. The government is far more dangerous because it is a monopoly provider of law, and thus can deprive you of any freedoms it sees fit. And there is nothing you can do.

1: Tax? Hehehehe. You think there's TAX in an Anarchist society? Funny man. And yes, the individual communities run their own civil services. And since the people are empowered, I'm sure they wouldn't tolerate shitty services.

I didn't mean to suggest there was any tax just asking what would replace the system if there is no central government collecting funds.

2: Are you thinking that only communities would be able to trade with each other? The whole basis of this system is the people themselves trading with each other, making whatever deals they see fit.

*shrugs*

I simply can't see how this system would be strong enough to keep people out of poverty.

3: No, they don't. Only indoctrinated types like you think that way. And why, why do you think there wouldn't be protection in these communities? There's no gun control, either, so some dumbass who tries to pull a gun on an innocent person might just get what he deserves.

Even if everyone was armed it wouldn't stop crime, just increase the murder rate. People won't be able to take the chance of keeping their victim alive, would just kill the person before they could try to shoot the attacker. Gangs could still dominate unless everyone in town is full of high moral character and bravery to stand up to such a thing which I can't see happening in every case. Besides, I don't see it as some sort of indoctrination, all you have to do is look in the past, whenever there is some kind of blackout or some other trouble that blocks civil services riots have a tendency to appear quite quickly. Humans love the mob mentality and I'm sure it would easily happen whatever government you come up with.

I didn't mean to suggest there was any tax just asking what would replace the system if there is no central government collecting funds.
It is again, voluntarily done. You offer cash if you want to benefit from the community's services.

*shrugs*

I simply can't see how this system would be strong enough to keep people out of poverty.
Disraeliland offers good arguments as to why the absence of the minimum wage would not impoverish the masses. Ask him to go by it some time. In addition, workers may still freely unite into unions. That is a feature of capitalism, not statism. Here is an attack on the minimum wage by the Mises org.: http://www.mises.org/story/2130

Membership of an insurance agency is voluntary, ie contractually based. There would be many insurance agencies; if you don't like one, you leave it and go to one who would better cover you. They would also negotiate between each other to reconcile areas of dispute. Insurance agencies which routinely conduct themselves in the manner you suggested would be seen as inefficient and end up without clients. Law used to function in such a matter; different legal authorities came to settlements. The government is far more dangerous because it is a monopoly provider of law, and thus can deprive you of any freedoms it sees fit. And there is nothing you can do.

Sounds like this kind of thing could cause actual war between insurance companies. :D

I didn't mean to suggest there was any tax just asking what would replace the system if there is no central government collecting funds.



*shrugs*

I simply can't see how this system would be strong enough to keep people out of poverty.

1: There's really nothing to comment on here, so...

2: The fact is, there isn't. It's up to the people to keep themselves out of poverty.

Even if everyone was armed it wouldn't stop crime, just increase the murder rate. People won't be able to take the chance of keeping their victim alive, would just kill the person before they could try to shoot the attacker. Gangs could still dominate unless everyone in town is full of high moral character and bravery to stand up to such a thing which I can't see happening in every case. Besides, I don't see it as some sort of indoctrination, all you have to do is look in the past, whenever there is some kind of blackout or some other trouble that blocks civil services riots have a tendency to appear quite quickly. Humans love the mob mentality and I'm sure it would easily happen whatever government you come up with.

That little comment pretty much defeats the purpose of your argument. Nice job.

Sounds like this kind of thing could cause actual war between insurance companies. :D
Economic warfare, such as price wars, perhaps. But that would be good.

Once again, since the people themselves are empowered, and there's no threat of government retaliation, they simply wouldn't work for employers like that.

It wouldn't be prudent for a rich employer to pay his workers nothing and increase the price of his goods.

This kind of system sounds like something from Utopia where you have to get to this government for it to work but getting there would be pretty much impossible. Getting the people to do something to GET empowered without causing a different form of oppression seems to be unlikely.

That little comment pretty much defeats the purpose of your argument. Nice job.

I suppose you could see it that way, I see it as that any system has trouble with it and I really don't see how oppression would be kept from any system. I can't see democracy being worse then anything else.

This kind of system sounds like something from Utopia where you have to get to this government for it to work but getting there would be pretty much impossible. Getting the people to do something to GET empowered without causing a different form of oppression seems to be unlikely.
Potentially in societies where economic scarcity is a non-issue (and robots exist to replace human labour), a utopia will be built. The only working forms of anarchism I see existing, for now, are anarcho-capitalism and a anarcho-syndicalism, with a capitalist twist to it. I have doubts even then, hence I remain minarchist.

This kind of system sounds like something from Utopia where you have to get to this government for it to work but getting there would be pretty much impossible. Getting the people to do something to GET empowered without causing a different form of oppression seems to be unlikely.

The people are empowered passively. This is because there's no federal government to give kickbacks to companies, or dictate what practices employees must use to protest their wages.

It's up to people on the individual level to empower themselves.

Economic warfare, such as price wars, perhaps. But that would be good.

I can't see how civil war isn't possible when it seems like each insurance company is basically the same as a mini-government.

Potentially in societies where economic scarcity is a non-issue (and robots exist to replace human labour), a utopia will be built. The only working forms of anarchism I see existing, for now, are anarcho-capitalism and a anarcho-syndicalism, with a capitalist twist to it.

I can only really see Anarcho-Communism working when there are robots to replace all forms of labor.

Then, and only then, will every last person be *truly* free. But that's a hell of a long way off.

I can't see how civil war isn't possible when it seems like each insurance company is basically the same as a mini-government.
There are too many of them. Also, insurance agencies would be defensive, not offensive. To do otherwise would result in excessive profit losses, anger the clientelle and in the end result to counter-productivity. Economic warfare, on the other hand, would achieve the necessary aims without all the cash being wasted. Unlike government officials who are temporary wardens of the nation's wealth and thus lack foresight relative to increasing the nation's value, companies purely focus on profit.

I can only really see Anarcho-Communism working when there are robots to replace all forms of labor.

Then, and only then, will every last person be *truly* free. But that's a hell of a long way off.
In addition to a solution for the problem of scarcity; if resources remain scarce, the basic economic problem will persist. Technology may be the way out of scarcity, in the future.

The people are empowered passively. This is because there's no federal government to give kickbacks to companies, or dictate what practices employees must use to protest their wages.

It's up to people on the individual level to empower themselves.

People have to get off their ass if they want to do anything and as long as things are going decent they will have no desire to do any kind of change. The US and the other Western democracies are all wealthy enough where you are not going to literally starve. There are really no charismatic leaders trying to get people to rally and as long as the poor have TV and other media and aren't being actively oppressed then they are distracted from any vague problems in the world.

In addition to a solution for the problem of scarcity; if resources remain scarce, the basic economic problem will persist. Technology may be the way out of scarcity, in the future.

Yeah. Robots that work 24 hours a day, year-round in underground farms to make food for everyone would be the first step to alleviating the problem.

And then we have the problem of new products. I can see us needed massive asteroid-mining ships, like in Alien.

There are too many of them. Also, insurance agencies would be defensive, not offensive. To do otherwise would result in excessive profit losses, anger the clientelle and in the end result to counter-productivity. Economic warfare, on the other hand, would achieve the necessary aims without all the cash being wasted.

I would argue that people are not rational. Why do nations go to war? War is in general never good for business but it still happens. We are run by emotions after all.

People have to get off their ass if they want to do anything and as long as things are going decent they will have no desire to do any kind of change. The US and the other Western democracies are all wealthy enough where you are not going to literally starve. There are really no charismatic leaders trying to get people to rally and as long as the poor have TV and other media and aren't being actively oppressed then they are distracted from any vague problems in the world.
That is the problem most libertarians do not recognise; people are both too stupid (or perhaps reluctant) and too passive (due to contentment) to instigate and carry out any form of revolution/change.

I would argue that people are not rational. Why do nations go to war? War is in general never good for business but it still happens. We are run by emotions after all.
I updated my response. I'll repeat it anyway. Unlike government officials who are temporary wardens of the nation's wealth and thus lack foresight relative to increasing the nation's value, companies purely focus on profit. Governments go to war usually to increase their taxed population. Insurance agencies do not tax. Their clientelle is voluntarily based.

I would argue that people are not rational. Why do nations go to war? War is in general never good for business but it still happens. We are run by emotions after all.

Uh, no. Nations go to war because pig-headed politicians get political gains from it.

Not quite rule, but they offer protection. They have the funds, they have legal expertise, and they are a contract-based body. They also have the economic incentive to only protect crime victims, and not perpetrators. This was at least one suggestion offered by anarcho-capitalist/-syndicalists. For other anarchist models, you will have to ask their defendants to explain.

Damn, this sounds familiar. I can't think of the word. I believe it starts with an "M".

What, as dumb as this guy? Torricelli?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12861193/

Oh, sorry - he's a Democrat, LOL

Damn, this sounds familiar. I can't think of the word. I believe it starts with an "M".

Melkor Unchained?

Melkor Unchained?
Har-dee-fricking-har. Assuming you aren't being sarcastic, focus on the first word bolded.

Yeah. Robots that work 24 hours a day, year-round in underground farms to make food for everyone would be the first step to alleviating the problem.

And then we have the problem of new products. I can see us needed massive asteroid-mining ships, like in Alien.

Well robots that do all our manual labor is still pretty far in the future. Until then I would argue that a change in government is not the main way to improve peoples lives but improving farming technology to feed the impoverished in the Third World and elsewhere and stamp out the rampant diseases should be the goal. With these two issues reduced it would be easier to take care of any kind of oppression of the masses.

Har-dee-fricking-har. Assuming you aren't being sarcastic, focus on the first word bolded.

I was being plenty sarcastic. :D

Damn, this sounds familiar. I can't think of the word. I believe it starts with an "M".
Well go on, spit it out. (as a guess, military?)

Well robots that do all our manual labor is still pretty far in the future. Until then I would argue that a change in government is not the main way to improve peoples lives but improving farming technology to feed the impoverished in the Third World and elsewhere and stamp out the rampant diseases should be the goal. With these two issues reduced it would be easier to take care of any kind of oppression of the masses.
Until then, minarchism. :)

Until then, minarchism. :)

How about taking apart the king of evil corporations, WAL-MART?

How about taking apart the king of evil corporations, WAL-MART?
Your country's problem. Well, and China's. :)

Well go on, spit it out. (as a guess, military?)
Mafia.

Mafia.
Ah. That never entered my mind. Well, Sicily is sorta mafia-run I guess. :p About the only country (or part of one) in the world where the Mafia can publicly go on Euronews and state that its government isn't doing enough to protect the Italian family and encourage entrepreneurship. :confused:

Your country's problem. Well, and China's. :)

Don't you have an evil retail corporation in your country?

Don't you have an evil retail corporation in your country?
Many of them. They keep each other in check. :)

Your country's problem. Well, and China's. :)

Walmart isnt international???:confused:

Walmart isnt international???:confused:
More or less, but it isn't as well entrenched in Europe. Tesco, Coop, ASDA (Wal-Mart) and Spar are the big "cheap" retail brands in the UK. The more expensive ones also compete heavily with them though, like Sainsbury's or Marks and Spencer.

More or less, but it isn't as well entrenched in Europe. Tesco, Coop and Spar are the big "cheap" retail brands in the UK. The more expensive ones also compete though.

hmmm....never heard of them. Are those retail stores inter-Euro...or just in England?

hmmm....never heard of them. Are those retail stores inter-Euro...or just in England?
Tesco and Spar are international. So is Marks and Spencer. Not sure about other British brands.

What, as dumb as this guy? Torricelli?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12861193/

Oh, sorry - he's a Democrat, LOL
I think you need to learn the difference between dirty and stupid. Torricelli is dirty---part of the reason he's not a Senator anymore, and good riddance to the fucker; I wish he was less prominent in fundraising, to be perfectly frank about it. Corsi is an idiot--and dirty besides.