I am Brojees

[Frong]

You may trust in government. I prefer to trust in myself. By heritage we are quite divergent. Your Jewish heritage is one which has long trusted in governments, governments which have traditionally betrayed, abused and oppressed you. Yet the long suffering Jews take the stiff upper lip and struggle on through adversity.

The idea of trusting government as a result of my heritage is backwards from the actuality of the matter. The Jews have survived all this time not by always trusting whoever rules wherever we happen to be, but by maintaining our own integrity as a people and as individuals. In other words, we're more than happy to have a good government around, but we refuse to degrade our standards and submit to a bad one. That's half the reason we've ever been persecuted in the first place (e.g. by the Romans). We trust in ourselves first, which is the standard you prefer.

My heritage is one where the traditional greeting has long been, "I greet you as a free man". I am Irish Tinker, the People. Governing us has been equated to herding cats. My rejection of government is nothing more than generations of breeding as is your acceptance of same.

That reminds me of that one cat-herding commercial from a while back. I can't remember for the life of me what it was for, though. I should find it on Youtube.

By relying on your paradigms to analyze my views, you also missed a third alternative to submitting to oppression. Those appendages on the bottom of your legs are more than just shoe stretchers.

From what I can see, only three things can be done with your feet in this context: remain where you are, run towards danger, or run away from it. If faced with oppression, you obviously aren't going to want to have things stay as they are, which leaves the latter two choices. I already covered both of those. Either you stand and fight (running towards danger), or you go elsewhere, where no one is trying to oppress you (running away from it). What else is there?

By the way, you still didn't offer a counterargument about the definition of rational anarchy, you know.

[Brojees]

No sadly it is in no way backwards. Compare the action of the Jews against the Nazis vs the Irish against the British. The Irish fought back, the Jews, being culturally compliant, did not. Further the Jews are not historically a warrior race, rather a race of martyrs. The Holocaust was a classic example of citizens compliantly trusting in their government. Had the Nazis been attempting to herd Irish to the ovens they would have sustained far more casualties, that is a certainty.

"Running away from danger" carries such a negative connontation...interesting choice of phrases. I would use, "Prudently absenting ones self from oppression". No negative connontation, but rather a quite positive one, and in my opinion the only rational choice. Foolishly staying when one can see the system falling apart may seem brave to some....I call it foolhardy. To attempt to work within a broken system using the tools and rules of that failed system, (And tools and rules which you are philosophically opposed to), I call ludicrous...or libertarian.

And no, I will not engage in a semantic debate over the term Rational Anarchy LOLOLOL!!!!! That is the entire problem with the libertarian philosophy, the world's largest debating society![font=comic sans ms][/font]

[Frong]

Uh, dude... I hate to tell you this, but your view of the Jews' reaction to the Holocaust is grossly flawed. Do you seriously think the Jews made no effort to escape Europe before WWII? Thousands of us fled to other countries, like Sweden or the US, well before the Nazis took over power. There were two problems, though:

1) It simply wasn't feasable for millions of people to uproot themselves over what might or might not have been an impending disaster. Tell me this - how many people really predicted the rise of the Nazis and their subsequent slaughter of 10 million people (yes, they killed another 4 million besides the 6 million Jews)? By the time we all realized for certain the gravity of the situation, it was already too late. That brings me to problem #2...

2) The Jews were not only set upon by the ever-present Gestapo, but were betrayed by most of the remaining population, as well. Fighting would have done us no good, because we didn't have the means to actually win. It's bad enough when the secret police show up at your house in the middle of the night and haul you off at gunpoint. It's even worse when you try and hide from the police and your neighbors rat you out. Simply put, the Irish actually had a fighting chance against their oppressors, so it made sense to fight. The Jews did not.

Even then, that's not to say the Jews never attempted to fight back. How did you manage to forget about events like the Warsaw Uprising? Not all the Jews who didn't escape Europe were content to wait it out and hope they would outlast the tragedy. Some of them either joined the resistance and fought bitterly, or else they rioted outright. Unfortunately, the Warsaw Uprising was suppressed, which just goes to reinforce my point that you didn't see more fighting because most of the time, it wasn't worth the cost. The goal of any given Jew was to stay alive however possible, not to fight and die a meaningless death (THAT'S where you get into cultural values, specifically the placing of the preservation of life above everything else). Yes, it would have been meaningless, because the likelihood of an unarmed or barely armed Jew being able to kill a heavily armed Gestapo soldier was nil.

There's one other thing to consider. Compare the actions of the British vs. the Irish with those of the Nazis vs. the Jews, as well as the scale of the attacks and the intent behind them. The Nazis didn't hesitate in the slightest to use any means necessary to find and exterminate the Jews. They threw out their humanity and morals entirely. I'm not an expert on the longstanding Britain-Ireland conflict, but I guarantee you that the British are not, and have never been, like the Nazis. Did the British attempt to systematically send every last Irishman to death camps? Was their intent to wipe the Irish people off the face of the Earth? I think not. The extenuating circumstances were completely different.

Anyway, how do you equate libertarianism to attempting to work within a broken system? Libertarianism, at least as a political philosophy, attempts to reduce the influence of said system and let the rest of the country run itself without government intervention. The ones attempting to work within the system are all the way at the other end of the political spectrum, who want more government programs and spending. Those are the people, by the way, with whom I never agree on anything. I may not consider myself a libertarian or even particularly conservative, but I'm certainly further right than left.

I actually have no desire to get into a semantic debate, by the way. I suppose if there's anything worth debating in that regard, it's whether "running away from danger" has a negative connotation or not. That depends upon whether you consider avoiding danger to be the smart move or not. Personally, I'd rather run than fight. Staying away from trouble never got anybody killed. Either way, it looks like you're not going to make any effort to prove that the term "rational anarchy" has anything to do with an absence of government, which is what the word anarchy actually means. That means I win this one. Nya ha.

[Brojees]

[font=comic sans ms]First, please I am not comfortable with "Dude".[/font]

Fighting would have done us no good, because we didn't have the means to actually win.

[font=comic sans ms]That is a consideration which is foreign to the Irish[/font].

I'm not an expert on the longstanding Britain-Ireland conflict, but I guarantee you that the British are not, and have never been, like the Nazis.

[font=comic sans ms] I will readily accept the first part of your statement. The second part proves it irrefutably.

The system is broken...Libertarians attempt to work within it, (Remember they accept "some" government). The utter fallacy is the libertarian philosophy denies libertarians the tools with which to work in the system even were it not broken.[/font]

If you wish for a duel of semantics, however, then prepare to be rationalized into hamburger meat, for I shall certainly triumph! Muaha!

[font=comic sans ms]
????????[/font]

I actually have no desire to get into a semantic debate, by the way.

[font=comic sans ms]????

I will leave that contradiction for you to comment on, I believe it says enough by itself.

Look, you decided to instruct me as to Libertarian philosophy without even asking as to my knowledge and experience with the philosophy. I can assure you as a former Libertarian county chair, I have not only an intimate knowledge of the philosophy, but also considerable insight into the workings of the party. You then opted to depart on a futile endeavour to invalidate my current political philosophy by denying the label affixed to it. Now I find you offering guarantees on issues you admittedly are no expert on....?

If you would like to reasonably discuss an issue, do let me know. I might enjoy that...but no more games please...and drop the diminutive salutations, "Dude" is not my name nor is it an apt descriptor.[/font]

[Frong]

Just for starters, I use the word "dude" purely out of habit and to refer to almost anyone. I attach no negative connotation to it. Sorry for offending you.

If the British have actually attempted total genocide of the Irish people at some point in history, would you mind giving me an example? We both agree my knowledge of British history is limited (my focus in college was on E and SE Asia, not Europe). I think what I was trying to say with my "guarantee" was that I find it extremely difficult to believe that any state in the history of the British Isles has attempted to completely eradicate a population in its own or any other state. Opress? Subjugate? All but enslave? Yes. Utterly annihilate? Not that I've heard of, though it wouldn't surprise me if the history books have omitted various things here and there. Or were you basing the comparison on a different facet of the Nazi party? Either way, you're right in that I shouldn't guarantee anything.

As for trying to invalidate your philosophy or play games, as you put it, I was attempting to do neither. Let me clarify. I had two goals before:

1) Casually debate the meaning of the word "anarchy," whether it even makes sense to use the word "rational" to describe the word "anarchy" using the standard definitions of the words, and the apparent disassociation between the beliefs you expressed and the title you affixed to them.

2) Make a case for the existance of government, again going solely under the assumption that the word "anarchy" refers to a lack of government and nothing more.

It seemed to me like what you described had not to do with a lack of government but with a level of personal freedom, so I thought it would have made more sense to call it something other than anarchy. The case for having a government in spite of its inherent flaws, I brought up of my own volition. Note that at no point did I attempt to refute your use of the word "rational." I happen to think your views, by and large, ARE rational, which explains why I never outright claimed they were invalid. I would not have bothered to provide counterpoints otherwise.

????

I will leave that contradiction for you to comment on, I believe it says enough by itself.

The first line was a joke. The second was not. I certainly can't blame you for not knowing my posting habits, but I never use the smilie unless I'm playing around. Nobody here is really evil, so why use it in seriousness? The more serious I get, the more my smilie usage decreases, until I go without them entirely, such as in this post. I did think the words "hamburger meat" and "Muaha!" would also have given away my intentions, though I shouldn't assume anything. Assumption has gotten me in trouble too many times over the course of my life thus far to count. You'd think I'd have learned by now... I did accidentally leave out one important word, though. I should have put the word "serious" before the word "semantic" in the second line. Seeing as semantics refers to the meaning of words, I suppose I really did intend to debate semantics. I just didn't have any desire to get into a full-fledged argument over it.

Anyway, I admit that I badly presented my viewpoint on libertarianism before. Let me take a step back and reassess it. When you say that libertarianism denies itself the tools to work within the system, you mean because the philosophy eschews the possession and usage of political power, right? I just wonder if it's really impossible to fix, or at least slightly improve, the system without having to rely heavily upon the tools currently in place. Wouldn't it theoretically help some, though, to reduce the size of the system to start with, just so you have less you have to try and fix? I'm pretty sure that goes along with the libertarian line of thinking. Doesn't it? This is, of course, assuming the system isn't already broken beyond repair, but that's a separate issue entirely.

[Brojees]

[font=comic sans ms]As we appear to have returned to discussion, allow me to clarify a definition. Anarchy is the absence of government. An anarchist is one who believes in the absence of government.

I personally am not aware of any function which a government might perform efficiently which outweighs the negative effects of said government. Therefore, I in no way condone, support nor agree to the existence of government. That makes me an anarchist by it's purest definition.

However, I rationally, albeit grudgingly, accept the inevitability of the existence of a government. While vigilantly avoiding as many of it's negative effects as I am able and forever ready to immediately absent myself from it's influence; rationally I accept that unless all men were to embrace anarchy, government will continue to exist. This rational approach merits the modifier of "Rational" when describing myself as an anarchist.

It also helps dispel some, not all, but some of the negative reaction that the masses have been trained to present whenever anarchy is mentioned.

Allow me to deal with a few of the common objections...

Roads: Private enterprise
Welfare: Churches and other philanthropic groups
Education: Private or home schools

Defense: Ahhh... Here we have the rub. The huddled masses must have a government to protect them!! Hmmmm... Like it did on September 11, 2001? or how it protected them and cared for them during Katrina?

I would submit that first, were it not for the behind the scenes efforts of western governments over the years, Osama bin Laden would never have developed a following to begin with, thus 911 WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. Then I note that after failing to protect it's citizens in New York, D.C. and Pennsylvania, this same government has proceeded to create even greater threats by invading Iraq. At the same time, young citizens have been killed and maimed for no reason.

Katrina....A terrible storm which attacked an area where the residents were complacent in the "Security" of the protections the government had provided for them. These protections failed and then the rescue and recovery efforts of government failed miserably as well. "You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie!".

Now there were claims of "Anarchy" in the streets...Nothing could be further from the truth. This was in no way anarchy, this was the inevitable breakdown of Government. The irrefutable participation in this chaos of rogue policemen proves this to not have been anarchy in any form. This was GOVERNMENT at it's finest.

As to the history of the English and the Irish, I am going to suggest you do your own research there. I know the result you will arrive at and I am satisfied with that. It will be better accepted though after you have arrived by your own means.[/font]

[Frong]

OK, so that explains more clearly why you refer to yourself as an anarchist. Based purely on the initial description of your personal beliefs, I found the title vague, on the grounds that anarchy doesn't seem at first glance to be something that has anything to do with rationality. My thought was that anarchy, as a condition, either exists or doesn't, so how could it be rational or irrational? Now I understand properly. I think what makes your personal belief set "rational anarchy" actually stems from the fact that you, yourself, are a rational anarchist, not from the anarchy itself being rational. I was looking at it from a different starting point. I'm also glad you brought up the point that anarchy, in a rational form, would only exist if everyone actively decided to pursue it. That was the only situation I could think of under my previous viewpoint that would justify referring to anarchy as rational. I think this issue is cleared up now.

Moving on to the common objections, I have varying levels of doubt about the ability of the alternative providers you listed.

Roads - private enterprise: As I mentioned previously with the example of railroad companies using different rail gauge standards, this would probably be an extremely costly and difficult industry to manage. Road signs and lane lines would be different in different places and the materials used might even vary. Also, can you imagine how people would drive today without the threat of ever being pulled over for being reckless? The only way I can see this working would be if one extremely powerful corporation managed to secure a monopoly on road creation and management, effectively taking on the same role as a governmental regulatory agency. It seems somewhat unlikely to me that any one company would ever manage to completely control this industry, though. It'd be just too viciously competitive.

Welfare - churches and other philanthropic groups: This, I find a little more feasible. My primary worry is that the church might get too caught up in its own importance and start trying to dictate people's lives, rather than let them live their own lives and help them out if necessary. Money is a necessary evil, but it corrupts all too easily. No church is totally immune to its influence, and welfare inexorably involves money. Granted, the same thing goes for government, so this can't be much worse, if at all.

Education - private or home schools: This would work perfectly for some people and not whatsoever for others - the rich and the poor, respectively. The whole point of public education was originally so that everybody could get one, even those without the wealth to afford the high-quality but highly expensive private schools that have existed for a long time. The economy would continue to function without government around, sure, but you'd most likely start seeing a more pronounced gap between the rich and the poor again. I wouldn't be surprised to see education swept along with it. I bet a lot of poorer people would start going to the same churches for education as they go to for welfare, and that can't end well. We both know that religious education can create both charitable, excellent human beings and fanatical, violent ones.

As for defense, I particularly fear what would happen without any government around, because you already see examples of it today in Africa, SE Asia, and the Middle East. People swear allegiance to their own tribes, families, villages, religions, or whatever, and start taking up arms to defend themselves. You see small (and sometimes not so small) militias pop up everywhere, and the second two of the more radical groups get into a dispute, violence results. That's what happens with these barbaric back-and-forth revenge killings in places like Indonesia, with the Muslim-Christian feuds. Without a greater power there to hold them apart like the bickering kids they are, they'd just keep killing each other until there's nobody left to kill. The only surefire route to peace would be to have wise, peaceable leaders on all sides, and those people are sadly hard to come by. I personally would be willing to take your approach and distance myself from trouble, but left alone, trouble manages to spread everywhere, until there's no place to run. That's what really scares me.

By the way, you're right in one aspect of your argument that 9/11 wouldn't have occurred without prior Western government action. It wouldn't have occurred... on 9/11/01. It would have taken place on some other date instead. Check any book on the history of northern Africa. Note the violent spread of Islam. That was not prompted in any way by the African people, but the Muslims slaughtered them and forced their religion upon them nonetheless. The Islamic fascists that we're dealing with now don't need any prompting to attack people. They've been hell-bent on doing that since the Crusades. Yes, that's technically the West's fault, but it's more religion's fault than government.

As for the aftermath of Katrina, what you just described WAS anarchy. The breakdown of government means the government was essentially not present. That's anarchy in its most common form - unintentional. I wholeheartedly agree with you, though, on the fact that both the government efforts (or lack thereof) at all levels to prevent and then subsequently deal with the disaster were utterly pathetic. It was an ugly, ugly display of our ruling body's flaws. The REAL travesty will be if it's ever allowed to happen again. I do wonder, though, how it would have been dealt with had your preferred state of rational anarchy been present beforehand. Any ideas?

[Brojees]

Roads - private enterprise: As I mentioned previously with the example of railroad companies using different rail gauge standards, this would probably be an extremely costly and difficult industry to manage. Road signs and lane lines would be different in different places and the materials used might even vary. Also, can you imagine how people would drive today without the threat of ever being pulled over for being reckless? The only way I can see this working would be if one extremely powerful corporation managed to secure a monopoly on road creation and management, effectively taking on the same role as a governmental regulatory agency. It seems somewhat unlikely to me that any one company would ever manage to completely control this industry, though. It'd be just too viciously competitive.

[font=comic sans ms]It already is extremely costly and very difficult to manage. In fact in my opinion, private enterprise WHICH BY IT'S VERY NATURE MUST OPERATE AT A PROFIT, would vastly improve the efficiency and considerably reduce the cost to the consumer.[/font]

Welfare - churches and other philanthropic groups: This, I find a little more feasible. My primary worry is that the church might get too caught up in its own importance and start trying to dictate people's lives, rather than let them live their own lives and help them out if necessary. Money is a necessary evil, but it corrupts all too easily. No church is totally immune to its influence, and welfare inexorably involves money. Granted, the same thing goes for government, so this can't be much worse, if at all.

[font=comic sans ms]I am astounded at your primary worry about churches in light of your irrational dependence on governments. Your level of indoctrination appears to be quite deep.[/font]

Education - private or home schools: This would work perfectly for some people and not whatsoever for others - the rich and the poor, respectively. The whole point of public education was originally so that everybody could get one, even those without the wealth to afford the high-quality but highly expensive private schools that have existed for a long time. The economy would continue to function without government around, sure, but you'd most likely start seeing a more pronounced gap between the rich and the poor again. I wouldn't be surprised to see education swept along with it. I bet a lot of poorer people would start going to the same churches for education as they go to for welfare, and that can't end well. We both know that religious education can create both charitable, excellent human beings and fanatical, violent ones.

[font=comic sans ms]Is it your position that the current state of education in the US is acceptable? If that chaos is acceptable, than there will be no convincing you otherwise. Your standards are simply too low to aspire to better. I wonder when you made the inclusive comment concerning religious education....did Columbine High School just slip your mind?[/font]

As for defense, I particularly fear what would happen without any government around, because you already see examples of it today in Africa, SE Asia, and the Middle East. People swear allegiance to their own tribes, families, villages, religions, or whatever, and start taking up arms to defend themselves. You see small (and sometimes not so small) militias pop up everywhere, and the second two of the more radical groups get into a dispute, violence results. That's what happens with these barbaric back-and-forth revenge killings in places like Indonesia, with the Muslim-Christian feuds. Without a greater power there to hold them apart like the bickering kids they are, they'd just keep killing each other until there's nobody left to kill. The only surefire route to peace would be to have wise, peaceable leaders on all sides, and those people are sadly hard to come by. I personally would be willing to take your approach and distance myself from trouble, but left alone, trouble manages to spread everywhere, until there's no place to run. That's what really scares me.

[font=comic sans ms]The mightiest armed forces in the world are currently quagmired in the occupation secondary to the invasion of a sovereign nation. Incidental to this unwarranted invasion, soldiers of this mighty force have tortured, unjustly killed and brutally raped civilians of the "Liberated citizenry". The administration of this belligerent nation has been effectively using fear to control it's own citizenry and avoid their questioning of this invasion. I submit that your fears have been enhanced considerably by the government of this rogue nation to ensure your compliance and silence. And it is GOVERNMENT which if left alone manages to spread everywhere.[/font]

By the way, you're right in one aspect of your argument that 9/11 wouldn't have occurred without prior Western government action. It wouldn't have occurred... on 9/11/01. It would have taken place on some other date instead. Check any book on the history of northern Africa. Note the violent spread of Islam. That was not prompted in any way by the African people, but the Muslims slaughtered them and forced their religion upon them nonetheless. The Islamic fascists that we're dealing with now don't need any prompting to attack people. They've been hell-bent on doing that since the Crusades. Yes, that's technically the West's fault, but it's more religion's fault than government.

[font=comic sans ms]Excuse me, but Jews and Muslims have lived in peaceful coexistence more than once over the course of history. Once again a government, England, created a construct nation without the concurrence of those to be displaced, nor their neighbors. (See Balfour Agreement). This formula for failure was accomplished even while other nations were actively seeking to receive those persons England inserted in the region. England, which has long had a colonial policy of "Divide and Rule", simply did to the Middle East that which they have done in so many other instances. We all pay for this folly to this day.[/font]

As for the aftermath of Katrina, what you just described WAS anarchy. The breakdown of government means the government was essentially not present. That's anarchy in its most common form - unintentional. I wholeheartedly agree with you, though, on the fact that both the government efforts (or lack thereof) at all levels to prevent and then subsequently deal with the disaster were utterly pathetic. It was an ugly, ugly display of our ruling body's flaws. The REAL travesty will be if it's ever allowed to happen again.

[font=comic sans ms]THAT MOST CERTAINLY WAS NOT ANARCHY. Only ardent supporters of the concept of government would say that it was. Not only was government present physically, it also was present conceptually. From the failed dikes, to the botched rescues, to the chaos in the streets; people were foolishly relying on government to protect and rescue them. In a state of anarchy, there would have been no such reliance. Classic example of the domestic sheep which perishes without the shepherd whereas the wild goat thrives.[/font]

I do wonder, though, how it would have been dealt with had your preferred state of rational anarchy been present beforehand. Any ideas?

[font=comic sans ms]Well as a rational anarchist I don't make my home in front of a dike built by government. Nor do I believe I would ever sit around a civic center waiting for a government to rescue me. So take it from there.

I am curious. Your symbiotic dependent relationship with government appears quite robust. Is it truly your unwavering confidence in the efficacy of government which leads you to this exchange with me? Do remember, I share none of your confidence in government, in fact the only consistent certainty of government I recognize is it's ability to fail me.[/font]

[Diabolique]

[font=comic sans ms]My land is gone for me for the time. Hopefully Rosales will triumph over Chavez in the month coming. But that may well not happen.

[/font]

I just read the news on CNN and thought of you. Looks like Chavez won the re-election to another 6-year term...

[Brojees]

[font=comic sans ms]My land is gone for me for the time. Hopefully Rosales will triumph over Chavez in the month coming. But that may well not happen.

[/font]

I just read the news on CNN and thought of you. Looks like Chavez won the re-election to another 6-year term...

Sadly I expected no different. That deck was stacked from the get go.

[Diabolique]

Sadly I expected no different. That deck was stacked from the get go.

Yeah, I was REALLY hoping for a different outcome. I know it'd have made a BIG difference for you and know how much you miss your land. That totally sucks.

[Frong]

Sorry I didn't get around to responding faster. Various things have been keeping me busy.

A) How would the corporations sell their maintenance services to the public? One strip of road at a time? If there's a profit being made, that implies a sales transaction. Also, how would they handle service area disputes if people at the borders change companies? I can just see the endless bickering in the absence of a judicial system to straighten things out. So much for efficiency. I also wonder if the corporations would hire their own security and make their own driving laws, to avoid having people die on the roads they build and maintain. No company wants to lose business because some maniac caused a 100-car wreck on the highway from driving 200 mph on the shoulder at rush hour.

B) How does that response have anything to do with the issue at hand? You basically called me brainwashed and moved on to the next point. I know you can do better than that. Anyway, churches are no better equipped to deal with welfare than governments, since they have no good way of making sure that only people who deserve help get it, either, plus the influence of faith may make them either too compassionate or too strict. I hate the welfare system in this country, by the way, because it lets lazy people leech off my tax dollars too easily. Your first source of welfare should always be yourself. I suppose I agree with you in that regard.

C) The current state of education in the US is not acceptable, and the urban schools in particular need work. I think what I was trying to say before was that I wouldn't want the ONLY source of schooling to be religious schools. It increases the number of people who have religion ingrained into their basic thought patterns, and therefore drag it into all matters, even ones in which religion has nothing to do with them. If offered a choice, though, I absolutely encourage religious schooling for people that seek it. It can supply students with the morals and discpline needed to become quality adults, as well as provide a safe learning environment.

D) The current war in Iraq is irrelevant to this point, which is the role of government in domestic order and defense. Our military's actions in other countries do not fall under this category. While it's impossible to ever completely eliminate violence between individuals and groups of people, it can certainly be controlled. I don't trust individuals to do it because they all exercise their own judgement, and I don't trust private security companies because they're acting for their own profit and might start extorting me. Only a principally neutral government makes sense for this purpose. Also, government does not spread everywhere. Individual governments are CREATED everywhere. Religion is what is created in one place and spreads. Governments are conrete entities; religions are not. There's the difference.

E) If you really think Jews and Muslims have ever coexisted peacefully, you haven't paying close enough attention to history. When the Muslims were in charge an area, they treated the Jews like second-class citizens. As soon as the Muslims lost power in that area, they whined and complained and half the time, blamed it on the Jews for no good reason. Historically, as long as they're the alpha male, everything is fine and good as far as the Muslims are concerned. Since the Jews are always ignored when they cry foul about being oppressed, you naturally never heard about it. As far as ownership of the land of Israel/Palestine goes, the Jews originally had that land long before Islam even existed as a religion. They stole it from us first, so why should we have any obligation to give it back to them now that we have what's ours again? On top of that, Israel still offered Arafat about 99% of what he asked for at the Oslo Accords, and was rejected anyway. Where's your desire to coexist now?

F) How can you rationalize that chaos in the streets represents government? The failed dikes and chaos were products of the gross mistakes of government, yes. However, there was only chaos because the government at all levels lost control of the situation. Its influence was absent, meaning there was a state of textbook anarchy - a lack of government. The "wild goats" you just mentioned are the people who take matters into their own hands, right? Then they must have been the ones looting stores and robbing whoever they could find. They were also the ones who, rather than wait for aid, attempted to walk to safety along miles of highway... in the burning sun, with no food or water, and often with small children or the elderly. The former only added to the chaos, and sometimes killed each other off in the process; many of the latter died along the wayside. So much for that idea. Not everyone who relies upon the state is a sheep, you know. In some cases, like this one, it may make more sense to wait for help than to try and go it on your own.

G) I wholeheartedly agree with you about not building your home in front of a dike. The same thing goes for building it on a floodplain or a beach that gets hit by hurricanes every year. What I can't stand is how FEMA actually pays people to rebuild their houses in places like this, even though they know they'll only get destroyed again. What an utter waste of money. I gather that you would have been one of the people walking along the highway after Katrina, had you been there. A risky venture, but it at least it worked for some people. I'm not much for pushing my luck, so I'd rather have stayed where some kind of aid might have showed up. It certainly wasn't going to suddenly appear in the middle of the highway, anyway.

H) My relationship with government is based upon the fact that I find having government around to be useful. I have no particular burning love for the concept of government, nor has this one done such wonders for me that I feel I owe it an eternal debt of gratitude. I do, however, take a look at my life and my surroundings and see no proof that the government has done anything severely wrong. Yes, the US government wastes an incredible amount of money and has many corrupt members. On the other hand, my roads and utilities seem to work fine, the state-sponsored education I got all the way up through college ranged anywhere from good enough to excellent, and the vast majority of the country doesn't have violence in the streets. Where's the fire? Unless my quality of life changes markedly, I have no reason to drastically alter the status quo, at least as far as domestic issues go.

By this same token, I can't understand how you can have such a complete and utter distrust of all forms of government without knowing what it ever did to you. What happened in Venezuela, for example? It must have been considerably bad.

[Brojees]

Sorry I didn't get around to responding faster. Various things have been keeping me busy.

A) How would the corporations sell their maintenance services to the public? One strip of road at a time? If there's a profit being made, that implies a sales transaction. Also, how would they handle service area disputes if people at the borders change companies? I can just see the endless bickering in the absence of a judicial system to straighten things out. So much for efficiency. I also wonder if the corporations would hire their own security and make their own driving laws, to avoid having people die on the roads they build and maintain. No company wants to lose business because some maniac caused a 100-car wreck on the highway from driving 200 mph on the shoulder at rush hour.

[font=comic sans ms]My word!! Let's try a simple idea, Toll Roads. You drive, you pay. You drive fast, you pay more. You drive too fast and the Toll Road operator imposes a penalty on you, perhaps refuses you further service. You know people can survive without government.[/font]

B) How does that response have anything to do with the issue at hand? You basically called me brainwashed and moved on to the next point. I know you can do better than that. Anyway, churches are no better equipped to deal with welfare than governments, since they have no good way of making sure that only people who deserve help get it, either, plus the influence of faith may make them either too compassionate or too strict. I hate the welfare system in this country, by the way, because it lets lazy people leech off my tax dollars too easily. Your first source of welfare should always be yourself. I suppose I agree with you in that regard.

[font=comic sans ms]Well you are brainwashed, you certainly do not consider yourself to be a progressive thinker, now do you? As to churches administering social services....Who better? You cannot really claim government, can you?[/font]

C) The current state of education in the US is not acceptable, and the urban schools in particular need work. I think what I was trying to say before was that I wouldn't want the ONLY source of schooling to be religious schools. It increases the number of people who have religion ingrained into their basic thought patterns, and therefore drag it into all matters, even ones in which religion has nothing to do with them. If offered a choice, though, I absolutely encourage religious schooling for people that seek it. It can supply students with the morals and discpline needed to become quality adults, as well as provide a safe learning environment.

[font=comic sans ms]Not only religious, but private schools as well. FOR PROFIT CORPORATIONS where parents have a chance to voice their displeasure with inadequate services by REFUSING SAID SERVICE. [/font]

D) The current war in Iraq is irrelevant to this point, which is the role of government in domestic order and defense. Our military's actions in other countries do not fall under this category. While it's impossible to ever completely eliminate violence between individuals and groups of people, it can certainly be controlled. I don't trust individuals to do it because they all exercise their own judgement, and I don't trust private security companies because they're acting for their own profit and might start extorting me. Only a principally neutral government makes sense for this purpose. Also, government does not spread everywhere. Individual governments are CREATED everywhere. Religion is what is created in one place and spreads. Governments are conrete entities; religions are not. There's the difference.

[font=comic sans ms]The current war in Iraq certainly is relevant to this point, it is merely UNCOMFORTABLE to your point. And if you ever find a pricipally neutral government, please do share.[/font]

E) If you really think Jews and Muslims have ever coexisted peacefully, you haven't paying close enough attention to history. When the Muslims were in charge an area, they treated the Jews like second-class citizens. As soon as the Muslims lost power in that area, they whined and complained and half the time, blamed it on the Jews for no good reason. Historically, as long as they're the alpha male, everything is fine and good as far as the Muslims are concerned. Since the Jews are always ignored when they cry foul about being oppressed, you naturally never heard about it. As far as ownership of the land of Israel/Palestine goes, the Jews originally had that land long before Islam even existed as a religion. They stole it from us first, so why should we have any obligation to give it back to them now that we have what's ours again? On top of that, Israel still offered Arafat about 99% of what he asked for at the Oslo Accords, and was rejected anyway. Where's your desire to coexist now?

[font=comic sans ms]Please offer historical citations for your outlandish claims. "Jews being ignored"? The Irish should suffer from as much inattention as you claim for the Israelis! Just think of all that US aid!!
[/font]

F) How can you rationalize that chaos in the streets represents government? The failed dikes and chaos were products of the gross mistakes of government, yes. However, there was only chaos because the government at all levels lost control of the situation. Its influence was absent, meaning there was a state of textbook anarchy - a lack of government. The "wild goats" you just mentioned are the people who take matters into their own hands, right? Then they must have been the ones looting stores and robbing whoever they could find. They were also the ones who, rather than wait for aid, attempted to walk to safety along miles of highway... in the burning sun, with no food or water, and often with small children or the elderly. The former only added to the chaos, and sometimes killed each other off in the process; many of the latter died along the wayside. So much for that idea. Not everyone who relies upon the state is a sheep, you know. In some cases, like this one, it may make more sense to wait for help than to try and go it on your own.

[font=comic sans ms]Whether the system worked or not, the New Orleanians acted within a system of government, in no way did they act as if anarchy was the rule of law...FOR IT WAS NOT![/font]

G) I wholeheartedly agree with you about not building your home in front of a dike. The same thing goes for building it on a floodplain or a beach that gets hit by hurricanes every year. What I can't stand is how FEMA actually pays people to rebuild their houses in places like this, even though they know they'll only get destroyed again. What an utter waste of money. I gather that you would have been one of the people walking along the highway after Katrina, had you been there. A risky venture, but it at least it worked for some people. I'm not much for pushing my luck, so I'd rather have stayed where some kind of aid might have showed up. It certainly wasn't going to suddenly appear in the middle of the highway, anyway.

[font=comic sans ms]It is obvious you are not one for pushing your luck. Sad, very sad.[/font]

H) My relationship with government is based upon the fact that I find having government around to be useful. I have no particular burning love for the concept of government, nor has this one done such wonders for me that I feel I owe it an eternal debt of gratitude. I do, however, take a look at my life and my surroundings and see no proof that the government has done anything severely wrong. Yes, the US government wastes an incredible amount of money and has many corrupt members. On the other hand, my roads and utilities seem to work fine, the state-sponsored education I got all the way up through college ranged anywhere from good enough to excellent, and the vast majority of the country doesn't have violence in the streets. Where's the fire? Unless my quality of life changes markedly, I have no reason to drastically alter the status quo, at least as far as domestic issues go.

[font=comic sans ms]Hence the Rational Anarchy. I realize there will always be those who are satisfied with the status quo and dependent on their governments, not everyone can eat wild game it would appear.[/font]

By this same token, I can't understand how you can have such a complete and utter distrust of all forms of government without knowing what it ever did to you. What happened in Venezuela, for example? It must have been considerably bad.

[font=comic sans ms]You are right, you cannot understand how I or any other could have such a complte distrust in government. That is because you have a total trust and dependence in government and my perspective frightens you.[/font]

[Frong]

All right, let's get something straight here. You still seem to be under the impression for some reason that I fear the concept of anarchy, or perhaps even fear you. You are as mistaken as you could possibly be on this point. In the exact same manner you view the existance of government with great skepticism, I view the concept of anarchy with great skepticism, and not because the government told me to, as you continually claim. You don't think government works, and I don't think anarchy would work. That's the only reason I entered into this discussion.

Toll roads are fine for highways, but are you proposing that companies put a toll booth on every X-th residential street corner in existance and staff an equal number of people to man them? That would be so economically unfeasible that no profit-seeking business in its right mind would do it. You also didn't touch upon the issue of enforcing penalties or settling disputes. What does a company do if someone refuses to pay a fine for speeding, or even pay their bill outright? Use physical force on them? I don't see that working very well.

See, there you go again. Rather than simply respond, you feel the need to insult me, and without even attempting to offer any proof to back up your claims. That's not how you hold a civilized debate. As far as I can tell, you think I'm brainwashed because I support the idea of having government. That appears to be the entirety of your proof. That fails the most simple logic test of all: "A, therefore B" does not necessarily also mean "B, therefore A". I propose to drop the point about welfare, anyway, since it doesn't seem to me like there's anything left to discuss. Having a church or a government provide welfare for the people probably produces similar, inefficient results, so which one you have is not of huge consequence.

Yes, I suppose having non-religious private schools would alleviate my primary concern from my previous post. I do still wonder about the affordability of them, though. Look at how expensive private colleges today are to attend. Unless you get considerable amounts of scholarship money, most people simply can't afford them without going into major debt. How would a cheaper private school make a profit and still manage to provide an acceptable level of eduation?

No, the war in Iraq is irrelevant to MY point, which again, is the role of government in domestic order. If you want to argue that if no government existed, the current war would never have happened, very well. That is technically correct, in that armed individuals from what is presently the US would have not invaded the area which is presently Iraq. Do consider, though, that the sectarian, tribal violence you see in Iraq and elsewhere in the world does not require the presence of government to take place, because their causes for fighting do not necessarily relate to who's in power. Such conflicts have been occurring for centures, even in the most rural areas, where no form of government higher than simple tribes existed. It's in the prevention of such feuds, both small- and large-scale, which government can prove itself useful.

Whether or not the Irish have been ignored has absolutely nothing to do with the Jews being ignored. Your righteous indignation at the plight of the Irish may very well be justified, but it does nothing to support or refute my claim. It is a fact that the Jews are always the last ones to receive justice, if it is ever received at all. My reasoning? The only time you hear about the Jews in history is when someone is blaming something on them. Case in point: look at the coverage of the recent fighting in Lebanon. All the focus was on how the poor, innocent Lebanese were suffering so much because of the actions of the Israeli army. Sure, they were suffering, but you barely heard a word about the Israeli citizens killed by the deluge of rockets coming from across the border. Where was the international outcry over the atrocity of Hezbollah's actions, over them firing thousands of rockets at civilians, over them using UN observers and even their own people as human shields? There was none, because everyone was too busy blaming Israel to notice. There's your anti-Semitic double standard at its finest. Want another example? The Holocaust. Nobody complained until six million Jews were already dead, and even now you still have scumbags like the crackpot leader of Iran spitting on their graves and claiming it never happened. It's a good thing the US does give Israel so much aid, because we're the ONLY ones who still support them, the only truly civilized, modern country in that part of the world.

You've gone completely off base on the subject of New Orleans. The whole point is that the system of government which was in place beforehand broke down in the wake of Katrina, creating a temporary state of anarchy. The reasons why are a different matter - it fell apart regardless. The actions of the looters or the highway walkers amidst the wreckage were people acting for their own purposes, not according to what some law or ruler said. Isn't that anarchy, when everyone's looking out for #1? On top of that, you said "in no way did they act as if anarchy was the rule of law". That statement makes no sense. "Anarchy as the rule of law" is an oxymoron, because its very definition prohibits the presence of any lawmaking bodies.

Indeed, I'm not much of a risk-taker. "Very sad," though? Hardly. Not all risks are worth taking. I prefer lesser but guaranteed gains to potentially larger but uncertain ones. That's just my personal philosophy. There's nothing sad or not sad about it.

You offered a nice non-sequitur again and didn't answer my question. Where's the fire? I don't see it. Also, being satisfied with the status quo is not, by nature, a sin. If the status quo is good for you, why change it?

I wasn't mentioning Venezuela rhetorically, you know. I was actually asking for a description of some sort of what happened to you there. Let me reiterate that I don't fear your perspective in the least, nor do I trust the government as much as you think I do (and I certainly don't trust them to spend my money for me any more than necessary). Rather, I find your DEGREE of acerbity towards government and anyone who supports it to be, ironically enough, irrational. You could remedy that by offering an explanation of some sort, of course, but I'm not a psychic. I can't just magically know what your reasons are.

[Brojees]

All right, let's get something straight here. You still seem to be under the impression for some reason that I fear the concept of anarchy, or perhaps even fear you. You are as mistaken as you could possibly be on this point.

[font=comic sans ms]Really? "Mistaken"? I doubt that, I doubt that very seriously. Each and every example I present of a function without government involvement, you immediately declare it to be unworkable and fall back on your almost fanatical dependence on government. Sure it is how you were conditioned to think, it is how you were trained. But you are wrong, totally wrong. And yes you do fear me and others like me. You fear anyone who dares question the validity of your symbiotic relationship with government. We challenge the very foundations of your being when we simply say, GOVERNMENT IS NOT ANSWER

A classic example of your conditioning is the Rovian games played by Bush to remain in favour. Bush holds up the Boogey Man, TERRORIST, and shakes it at you. Then he goes on to say how he and only he knows how to protect you from the Boogey Man. Because he represents your beloved government, you accept his lies and re elect him, EVEN THOUGH HE IS THE CAUSE OF THE LATEST CROP OF BOOGEY MEN TO BEGIN WITH! Now that may make sense to you, but to me the reelection, (Can it be a re election when the first was a Selection?), of George Bush showed me how far from the pioneer spirit Americans have fallen. Truly day by day ever more a nation of sheep and scared rabbits.[/font]