(November 30, 2018 at 12:47 am)Cherub786 Wrote: A common but weak objection against anarchism and the idea of a stateless society. It presumes human beings wake up one day and say “hey, let me dice up my neighbor with my chainsaw just for the heck of it”. Society can theoretically function without a state. Our first human societies were stateless. They were organized around tribe. The modern nation state is just that - “modern”. Before that we had dynastic rule, but they were not as omnipresent as today’s modern states. There were no such thing as passports, visas, SIN, or even driver’s licences.

The problem with the rule of law is that that law is often not right.

Completely agree with your last sentence. But is the solution to that really to remove all laws? That comes with its own host of issues. 

Now, I'm not responding to the stateless society part, just to the 'no rule of law' part. Our first human societies had no state laws, sure, but that did mean that in theory you could kill someone else without repercussions in many areas. Especially before tribes. And yeah, of course now everyone is going to wake up into an anarchist society and say “hey, let me dice up my neighbor with my chainsaw just for the heck of it”, I get that, but the possibility of that happening is definitely more when there is no law in place that says what happens if you do hack up your neighbor. Lord of the Flies is an example, in my opinion, but if you think there is some glaring fallacy in that comparison, feel free to point it out.

(November 30, 2018 at 12:28 am)Cherub786 Wrote: The war to liberate Afghanistan from Soviet invasion was totally justified. And the Mujahidin were not all "Wahhabis". They represented every religious sect and ethnic group. Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbeks along with Sunnis, Shiites, Salafis and Sufis. All fought in that war to liberate their country from Soviet Union. The Soviets were desecrating mosques, defiling copies of the Quran, raping Afghan women, bombing defenseless villages, etc. You should watch the movie Charlie Wilson's War, it accurately depicts the horrors inflicted on Afghanistan by the Soviets.

I am no fan of Saudi Arabia, but to think that Saudi Arabia is worse than Kim Jong Un's North Korea is disingenuous. And for that matter, the worst places in the Middle East are not theocracies but secular fascist states that follow the Baathist ideology, like when Iraq was under Saddam and currently Syria under Assad who is using chemical weapons against children in his lust for power.

Btw, Saudi war on Yemen and its sudden turn toward authoritarianism and autocracy is under the leadership of its current crown prince MBS. MBS is actually against the Wahhabi clerics and wants to make Saudi Arabia more socially free but not politically free. He allows women to drive but will imprison and torture those same women if they speak out against the regime. The recent Khashoggi drama is a perfect example of how the most secular and supposedly liberal leaders in the Middle East are also the most depraved. General Sisi, Khalifa Haftar, Bouteflika, Assad are all Middle Eastern leaders that are secular and want to curtail religious liberty of their own people.

I'm not defending the USSR, rather I'm criticizing the American move that created an organized Islamic front to fight the USSR, using its Wahhabi allies from Saudi Arabia as a main immobilizing component for foreign and local fighters.

I will let the sources talk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen#Afghanistan

Quote:Although the mujahideen were aided by the Pakistani, U.S., and Saudi governments, the mujahideen's primary source of funding was private donors and religious charities throughout the Muslim world—particularly in the Persian Gulf. Jason Burke recounts that "as little as 25 per cent of the money for the Afghan jihad was actually supplied directly by states."[13]

[/url]

Quote:However, the mujahideen did not establish a united government, and many of the larger mujahideen groups [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992%E2%80%931996)]began to fight each other over power in Kabul. After several years of devastating fighting, a village mullah named Mohammed Omar organized a new armed movement with the backing of Pakistan. This movement became known as the Taliban ("students" in Pashto), referring to how most Taliban had grown up in refugee camps in Pakistan during the 1980s and were taught in the Saudi-backed Wahhabi madrassas, religious schools known for teaching a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. Veteran mujahideen confronted this radical splinter group in 1996.

Saudi Arabia was the fuel that gave that war its Wahhabi schools, its extreme Jihadi thought.
Osama bin Laden himself was a Saudi.

And hence; who remained are the Taliban. And the Taliban studied at Saudi backed Wahhabi schools. Right?

The soviets did commit atrocities, just like the American soldiers in Iraq in 2003, and just like Mohammed bin Salman ordering his thugs to hack Jamal Kashoggi and melt him in acid. If you wanted the truth; MBS is a disgusting man.

The Sauds are raping women in prisons, and reports were made to HRW.


I underlined a part in your post and made it bold. The Baathists were bad, but the Shiite government that came after them is even worse. They both score 0 on the human rights scale and they both are led by criminals who deserve execution. But TBH Saddam had more dignity, at least he didn't torture his people with an American tank. He did it himself.
Ruthless? yes. Deserves death? yes. But the Shiite government that came riding the American tank is no better. Both are an embarrassment to humanity and Islam. Look at Iraq now.

As for MBS. No, the man is not after something "great and complicated" like liberating his people from religion; the man is after collecting an empire of cash and it's easier to do that when you win the favor of the "west" by trying to mimic western basic habits and if the mimicry failed he pays a lot of money in bribes, flaunting in front of the world and brutalize his foes -just like he did to Kashoggi-, he is a child unworthy of his rank. He wasted the country's money on children dreams -like the 2030 plan-, the bribes to Trump and on failed wars and conflicts.

Assad is liberal? I will respect you because you are new here. But what I saw the Syrian government -under commands from Assad himself- do to the people of Syria is just making me put a huge question mark on how you dare to call this pig a liberal? this pig bombarded children with chemical weapons, gassed them just because their "city of birth" protested against him.

(November 30, 2018 at 4:17 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: I'm not defending the USSR, rather I'm criticizing the American move that created an organized Islamic front to fight the USSR, using its Wahhabi allies from Saudi Arabia as a main immobilizing component for foreign and local fighters.

I will let the sources talk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen#Afghanistan

Quote:Although the mujahideen were aided by the Pakistani, U.S., and Saudi governments, the mujahideen's primary source of funding was private donors and religious charities throughout the Muslim world—particularly in the Persian Gulf. Jason Burke recounts that "as little as 25 per cent of the money for the Afghan jihad was actually supplied directly by states."[13]

[/url]

Quote:However, the mujahideen did not establish a united government, and many of the larger mujahideen groups [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Civil_War_(1992%E2%80%931996)]began to fight each other over power in Kabul. After several years of devastating fighting, a village mullah named Mohammed Omar organized a new armed movement with the backing of Pakistan. This movement became known as the Taliban ("students" in Pashto), referring to how most Taliban had grown up in refugee camps in Pakistan during the 1980s and were taught in the Saudi-backed Wahhabi madrassas, religious schools known for teaching a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. Veteran mujahideen confronted this radical splinter group in 1996.

Saudi Arabia was the fuel that gave that war its Wahhabi schools, its extreme Jihadi thought.
Osama bin Laden himself was a Saudi.

And hence; who remained are the Taliban. And the Taliban studied at Saudi backed Wahhabi schools. Right?

The soviets did commit atrocities, just like the American soldiers in Iraq in 2003, and just like Mohammed bin Salman ordering his thugs to hack Jamal Kashoggi and melt him in acid. If you wanted the truth; MBS is a disgusting man.

The Sauds are raping women in prisons, and reports were made to HRW.


I underlined a part in your post and made it bold. The Baathists were bad, but the Shiite government that came after them is even worse. They both score 0 on the human rights scale and they both are led by criminals who deserve execution. But TBH Saddam had more dignity, at least he didn't torture his people with an American tank. He did it himself.
Ruthless? yes. Deserves death? yes. But the Shiite government that came riding the American tank is no better. Both are an embarrassment to humanity and Islam. Look at Iraq now.

As for MBS. No, the man is not after something "great and complicated" like liberating his people from religion; the man is after collecting an empire of cash and it's easier to do that when you win the favor of the "west" by trying to mimic western basic habits and if the mimicry failed he pays a lot of money in bribes, flaunting in front of the world and brutalize his foes -just like he did to Kashoggi-, he is a child unworthy of his rank. He wasted the country's money on children dreams -like the 2030 plan-, the bribes to Trump and on failed wars and conflicts.

Assad is liberal? I will respect you because you are new here. But what I saw the Syrian government -under commands from Assad himself- do to the people of Syria is just making me put a huge question mark on how you dare to call this pig a liberal? this pig bombarded children with chemical weapons, gassed them just because their "city of birth" protested against him.

• It's not as simple as saying Saudi exported Wahhabism. First you have to understand what Wahhabism is, what Deobandi is, who Syed Qutb was, who Abd al-Salam Farag was, etc. It's a lot more nuanced than what people generally think. You have to know the major players in Afghanistan during the war of the 1980s, including Osama bin Laden, but also Abdullah Azzam, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Ahmad Shah Massoud, Abdul Rashid Dostum, Abdur Rabb Rasul Sayyaf, Burhanuddin Rabbani. Then you have to understand where the Taliban came from, you have to know who the late Sami ul-Haq was, the Panjpiri school of Deobandis, etc. Until you understand all of these intricacies you will stick to the simplistic idea of saying Saudi exported Wahhabism and that created al-Qaida, Taliban, etc. Since Wikipedia is your source I encourage you to read more about these names I have listed for you on Wikipedia so you can increase your knowledge on the issue.
  
• The atrocities which the Americans committed in Iraq pale in comparison to what the Russians did in Afghanistan.
  
• I agree with you that MBS is a disgusting man. Western governments including the US should put pressure on the Saudis to sack him and appoint a new crown prince, and also end the war in Yemen and cease the blockade of Qatar.
  
• The post-Saddam governments have been corrupt and incompetent, but to say they are worse than Saddam's Baathist regime is outrageous. Iraq is now a democracy with regular elections. Of course there are major problems but don't forget how bad Baathism is. Baathism is basically fascism. Saddam was open about his admiration of Hitler and Stalin. Saddam massacred his own people, he persecuted the Kurds and Shiites, he launched the wars on Iran and then Kuwait.
  
• I never said Assad is liberal. I listed him among the list of autocratic Middle Eastern rulers that are "supposedly liberal" and "secular" because they are not "Islamist".
  

[*]It's not as simple as saying Saudi exported Wahhabism. First you have to understand what Wahhabism is, what Deobandi is, who Syed Qutb was, who Abd al-Salam Farag was, etc. It's a lot more nuanced than what people generally think. You have to know the major players in Afghanistan during the war of the 1980s, including Osama bin Laden, but also Abdullah Azzam, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Ahmad Shah Massoud, Abdul Rashid Dostum, Abdur Rabb Rasul Sayyaf, Burhanuddin Rabbani. Then you have to understand where the Taliban came from, you have to know who the late Sami ul-Haq was, the Panjpiri school of Deobandis, etc. Until you understand all of these intricacies you will stick to the simplistic idea of saying Saudi exported Wahhabism and that created al-Qaida, Taliban, etc. Since Wikipedia is your source I encourage you to read more about these names I have listed for you on Wikipedia so you can increase your knowledge on the issue.
[*]The atrocities which the Americans committed in Iraq pale in comparison to what the Russians did in Afghanistan.
[*]I agree with you that MBS is a disgusting man. Western governments including the US should put pressure on the Saudis to sack him and appoint a new crown prince, and also end the war in Yemen and cease the blockade of Qatar.
[*]The post-Saddam governments have been corrupt and incompetent, but to say they are worse than Saddam's Baathist regime is outrageous. Iraq is now a democracy with regular elections. Of course there are major problems but don't forget how bad Baathism is. Baathism is basically fascism. Saddam was open about his admiration of Hitler and Stalin. Saddam massacred his own people, he persecuted the Kurds and Shiites, he launched the wars on Iran and then Kuwait.
[*]I never said Assad is liberal. I listed him among the list of autocratic Middle Eastern rulers that are "supposedly liberal" and "secular" because they are not "Islamist".

(November 29, 2018 at 1:34 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: I am contemptuous of the state and its institutions, but feel that it is a design flaw, and the solution is to have a less omnipresent state with very limited functions. Though this ideal is conceivable in societies that fundamentally cherish individual freedom and possess the nerve to fight for it, even if that entails considerable inconvenience.

That would make you more of a libertarian than an anarchist. Anarchists want no state at all. Libertarians want a state that is limited to policing illicit coercion.

Please stop supersizing your text.

---

(November 29, 2018 at 2:53 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: Indeed a state of anarchy is far more tolerable than an Orwellian state.

That may be true, but since those aren't the only two options, your point is moot.

---

(November 29, 2018 at 9:56 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: The point is I absolutely hate any kind of authoritarianism.

Do you hate authoritarianism, or do you simply hate authority?

(November 29, 2018 at 9:56 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: As for atheists, to each his own, but it must be admitted that the Soviet Union and now China have been the bastions of state sponsored atheism and persecute religious groups. The concentration camps in Xiangjiang province and the condition of Uighurs and Kazakhs is an outright example of atheist persecution of a religious community right now as we approach the year 2019.

The Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees "freedom of religion." The reasons behind the situation in China are complex, but it has little if anything to do with atheism and state atheism.

---

(November 29, 2018 at 9:56 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: Atheism is intrinsically prone to politically authoritarian and collectivist ideologies. That is because atheism is colorless, it doesn’t understand the human condition as religion does, particularly Semitic religions, and it is from the latter that we get concept like civil disobedience and the morality of defying the state and the law when the state or law is unjust and tyrannical.

I'm going to leave your comment about atheism being colorless alone, as it's not particularly relevant and seems to do nothing more than express a prejudice. Atheism is not intrinsically prone to politically authoritarian and collectivist ideologies. Atheism is not a political system or worldview. It's possible that atheists themselves are prone to politically authoritarian and collectivist ideologies, but I see no obvious reason why this might be true, and lacking any actual documentation of your assertion, I'm inclined to dismiss it as ipse dixit. It is possible that atheists are attracted to socialism and communism preferentially, but even if so, that would seem to do more with a set of common political and social values having nothing to do with their atheism, so I don't see why you even bring it up.

---

(November 29, 2018 at 10:51 pm)Cherub786 Wrote: Like I said, when atheists persecute the religious it may not be in the name of a deity (obviously) but why does it have to be in the name of anything? Persecution is persecution regardless of motivation. When atheists persecute the religious it is simply because the atheists don't like religion and having contempt for the religious.

That may be true, and that may provide them a motive for persecuting religion. However, in that case, it would be their hatred of religion that is motivating their persecution of religion, not their atheism. As the humanist movement shows, there are plenty of atheists who aren't motivated by a hatred of religion, so your claim that atheism is responsible for religious persecution is sheer bollocks. Moreover one would need to show that hatred of religion, by atheists, is causing religious persecution. Typically the religious see persecution where none exists, or attribute to atheism what is being done for other reasons, such as in China. In neither case is atheism the cause of religious persecution.

---

And this last point, I'm going to supersize because it may deserve it.

In the past, when governments had less power than they do now, people were less free than they are now in the modern state. Even today, where law and order breaks down, scores of petty warlords and other would-be kings explode like wildfire, undermining the plausibility of your Jeffersonian view that if people simply were free of authority they would be largely good. We don't need to imagine what would happen in a lawless state. We can see it happening today.

Another aspect of my political philosophy is that I do not think it is ethical to join the armed forces, police, or any agency of the government. Of course, the agencies of the government that are not coercive or employ violence, like postal workers, teachers, clerks, etc., are not at the same level of as being a member of the armed forces and police. Being a tool for the state to maintain its coercive control over society is unethical in my humble opinion.

---

(November 30, 2018 at 10:08 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

---

I need to figure out how to do multi quotes.



Do you hate authoritarianism, or do you simply hate authority?

I hate authoritarianism


The Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees "freedom of religion."  The reasons behind the situation in China are complex, but it has little if anything to do with atheism and state atheism.

The Constitution is meaningless in a 1 party state that does what it wants to. There is absolutely no freedom of religion in China. Religions have to be pre-approved by the Communist regime. Religious institutions are controlled by the state. Even Catholic bishops are appointed by the regime not by the Vatican. Muslims are forced to eat pork and drink beer in concentration camps. There are 1 million Muslims in the camps. Muslims are not allowed to have Islamic names, Muslim women not allowed to cover their head, Muslim males not allowed to grow beards, Muslim children not allowed to enter mosques. This is a straight up Orwellian state.

---

I'm going to leave your comment about atheism being colorless alone, as it's not particularly relevant and seems to do nothing more than express a prejudice.  Atheism is not intrinsically prone to politically authoritarian and collectivist ideologies.  Atheism is not a political system or worldview.  It's possible that atheists themselves are prone to politically authoritarian and collectivist ideologies, but I see no obvious reason why this might be true, and lacking any actual documentation of your assertion, I'm inclined to dismiss it as ipse dixit.  It is possible that atheists are attracted to socialism and communism preferentially, but even if so, that would seem to do more with a set of common political and social values having nothing to do with their atheism, so I don't see why you even bring it up.

---

Atheists are more prone to authoritarian and collectivist ideologies, especially communism, as evidence by the spread of communism in East Asia and Southeast Asia, precisely because they don't have a Religion which teaches there is a higher authority than the State. A typical non-religious atheist, like a chinese or Vietnamese peasant, is never taught such ideals. To him the State might as well be God. This is how majority of atheists are prone to authoritarian and collectivist ideologies.



In the past, when governments had less power than they do now, people were less free than they are now in the modern state.  Even today, where law and order breaks down, scores of petty warlords and other would-be kings explode like wildfire, undermining the plausibility of your Jeffersonian view that if people simply were free of authority they would be largely good.  We don't need to imagine what would happen in a lawless state.  We can see it happening today.

On what basis do you say people were less free before as compared to today?
A country where warlords and militias are running free is not always necessarily a place where people have no freedom. The US constitution was intentionally written with the idea that militias will be around. The existence of militias and warlords is an insurance policy against the potential tyranny of the State

---

How do I separate a quote? My answers have been put inside the quote I was wanting to respond to?

(November 30, 2018 at 11:01 am)Cherub786 Wrote: Another aspect of my political philosophy is that I do not think it is ethical to join the armed forces, police, or any agency of the government. Of course, the agencies of the government that are not coercive or employ violence, like postal workers, teachers, clerks, etc., are not at the same level of as being a member of the armed forces and police. Being a tool for the state to maintain its coercive control over society is unethical in my humble opinion.

You've never been to a US Post Office, those fuckers are brutal...and aggressive!

I, personally, joined the service so that I could go and be a peacekeeper...you know, to help safeguard those personal liberties that abusive states and actors had robbed people of.  Boy howdy, what a monster!

Quote:

---

Atheists are more prone to authoritarian and collectivist ideologies, especially communism, as evidence by the spread of communism in East Asia and Southeast Asia, precisely because they don't have a Religion which teaches there is a higher authority than the State. A typical non-religious atheist, like a chinese or Vietnamese peasant, is never taught such ideals. To him the State might as well be God. This is how majority of atheists are prone to authoritarian and collectivist ideologies.

Utter horseshit.

Quote:On what basis do you say people were less free before as compared to today?
A country where warlords and militias are running free is not always necessarily a place where people have no freedom. The US constitution was intentionally written with the idea that militias will be around. The existence of militias and warlords is an insurance policy against the potential tyranny of the State

More horseshit.  One of the few things that our founding documents expressly permit the government to do (rather than the laundry list of don'ts) is to smack a warlord and all of his mercs directly in the mouth. It's not even so much that this is permitted...it's the stated obligation of our government to do so...and it's to this end, not the support of fucking warlords, that we arm ourselves.

You have a disturbing affinity for warlords and the countries being ruined by them for a person so concerned with personal and religious liberties.

(November 30, 2018 at 5:01 am)Cherub786 Wrote:

• It's not as simple as saying Saudi exported Wahhabism. First you have to understand what Wahhabism is, what Deobandi is, who Syed Qutb was, who Abd al-Salam Farag was, etc. It's a lot more nuanced than what people generally think. You have to know the major players in Afghanistan during the war of the 1980s, including Osama bin Laden, but also Abdullah Azzam, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Ahmad Shah Massoud, Abdul Rashid Dostum, Abdur Rabb Rasul Sayyaf, Burhanuddin Rabbani. Then you have to understand where the Taliban came from, you have to know who the late Sami ul-Haq was, the Panjpiri school of Deobandis, etc. Until you understand all of these intricacies you will stick to the simplistic idea of saying Saudi exported Wahhabism and that created al-Qaida, Taliban, etc. Since Wikipedia is your source I encourage you to read more about these names I have listed for you on Wikipedia so you can increase your knowledge on the issue.
  

I studied in a Wahhabi school all my youth.
The famous hellish book of "Mohammed Ibn Abdul-Wahhab":كتاب التوحيد الذي هو حق الله على العبيد -The book of Tawhid- was ringing in my fucking ears for 12 years. This is the book behind most "Jihadist militias" in the world today, so never lecture me about what Wahhabism is or question my knowledge with it; instead I lecture you. اسمعوا واطيعوا ولو ولي عليكم عبد اسود كان راسه زبيبة, huh? Teaching kids that is pure evill; you know.
Sayed Qutb was a "Muslim brotherhood" affiliate; he never belonged to the Wahhabi death cult.
Osama bin Laden was a Saudi. The Taliban studied at the hands of the Sauds. enough said; your post is a "names sandwitch", trying to overwhelm my point and my facts with the names of people who had nothing to do with the Afghan war.

Answer my evidence then we talk. Never drift away from the point.

The Taliban were refugees in Pakistani camps, who studied in Wahhabi schools sponsored by Saudi Arabia, just like my previous comment told you quoting from wikipedia.
Since you love names, check Osama bin Laden's nationality.

Quote:The atrocities which the Americans committed in Iraq pale in comparison to what the Russians did in Afghanistan.

Iraqies disagree.



BTW these wires are electric cables.
These bags that cover the face smell literally like shit and were used to contain shit.
We didn't see what they did behind cameras; but we hear it was nightmarish.
The soviets killed people in airstrikes, just like the U.S did.

Quote:I agree with you that MBS is a disgusting man. Western governments including the US should put pressure on the Saudis to sack him and appoint a new crown prince, and also end the war in Yemen and cease the blockade of Qatar.

The whole world should cut ties with the Saudi regime, previous kings were psychopaths too but they knew how to hide; MBS is a little bit simple, probably it's the drug he takes.
Nobody want the Sauds to rule as a family. They must go. All of them.

Quote:The post-Saddam governments have been corrupt and incompetent, but to say they are worse than Saddam's Baathist regime is outrageous. Iraq is now a democracy with regular elections. Of course there are major problems but don't forget how bad Baathism is. Baathism is basically fascism. Saddam was open about his admiration of Hitler and Stalin. Saddam massacred his own people, he persecuted the Kurds and Shiites, he launched the wars on Iran and then Kuwait.

"outrageous"? buddy; you are defending the Sauds and Assad; and lecturing me about what is outrageous?

The current Shiite government in Iraq is by far worse; the comparison between Iraq now and Iraq in Saddam's reign is enough to reply to your point.

Keep repeating "Baathism" like a parrot is very laughable -if you excuse me-; the Baathist are long gone. The "CD" is getting old, you know.

Quote:I never said Assad is liberal. I listed him among the list of autocratic Middle Eastern rulers that are "supposedly liberal" and "secular" because they are not "Islamist".

Good. Then I misunderstood.
He is an autocratic piece of evil shit that wasted the life of millions to stay in throne. 

(November 30, 2018 at 11:37 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: I, personally, joined the service so that I could go and be a peacekeeper...you know, to help safeguard those personal liberties that abusive states and actors had robbed people of.  Boy howdy, what a monster!

Noble intentions. But the problem with joining the armed forces is you have to obey orders. You don't have a choice as to where you will be deployed. This is why I encourage people not to join the military or the police. Perhaps its just the freedom lover in me, I could never put on a uniform and become a "yes sir" "no sir" person. We were meant to be free.
Until I figure out how to separate quotes excuse me for writing in red!


More horseshit.  One of the few things that our founding documents expressly permit the government to do (rather than the laundry list of don'ts) is to smack a warlord and all of his mercs directly in the mouth.  It's not even so much that this is permitted...it's the stated obligation of our government to do so...and it's to this end, not the support of fucking warlords, that we arm ourselves.  

You have a disturbing affinity for warlords and the countries being ruined by them for a person so concerned with personal and religious liberties.

In a truly anarchist society there will naturally have to be warlords to ensure that a foreign power doesn't come in and try to impose order on what it considers to be chaos. It was the Afghan warlords who kicked Soviet butt and truly fulfilled the American anarchist slogan "We are ungovernable" (I saw that in the video you posted on this thread)
I admit I have a certain romantic notion about warlords, especially when they are fighting Goliath.

I also have an affinity for gun culture. I don't think any country is truly free until ordinary people can fire their machine guns or rifles or whatever into the air to celebrate a birth, wedding, etc. The servile Chinese peasant cannot even imagine that kind of freedom.

(November 30, 2018 at 11:56 am)Cherub786 Wrote: Noble intentions. But the problem with joining the armed forces is you have to obey orders. You don't have a choice as to where you will be deployed. This is why I encourage people not to join the military or the police. Perhaps its just the freedom lover in me, I could never put on a uniform and become a "yes sir" "no sir" person. We were meant to be free.
Until I figure out how to separate quotes excuse me for writing in red!

Wrong again.  A US soldier has an obligation to refuse to obey any criminal order. Failure to do so is, itself, a criminal act.

Quote:In a truly anarchist society there will naturally have to be warlords to ensure that a foreign power doesn't come in and try to impose order on what it considers to be chaos. It was the Afghan warlords who kicked Soviet butt and truly fulfilled the American anarchist slogan "We are ungovernable" (I saw that in the video you posted on this thread)
I admit I have a certain romantic notion about warlords, especially when they are fighting Goliath.

Then the warlords -are- the state.  Many...many, bickering and murderous states, in point of fact.

Quote:I also have an affinity for gun culture. I don't think any country is truly free until ordinary people can fire their machine guns or rifles or whatever into the air to celebrate a birth, wedding, etc. The servile Chinese peasant cannot even imagine that kind of freedom.

The servile chinese peasant also doesn't have to worry about a toddler shooting him in the mouth with daddys pistol. Being free to shoot bullets up into the air is nothing more or less than being free to shit on the liberty of others to not have them fall on their heads.

Pro-tip from a super user in a gun culture. Never.....EVER......fire without a backstop.