A little thinking outside of the box. -- The Blue Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:15:46 02/01/00 Tue
Author: bnimble
Subject: A little thinking outside of the box.
In reply to: jack 's message, "Re: Free-Market Anarchism" on 15:52:27 01/31/00 Mon

...

> Thanks for the welcome GF! I love being part of a
> secret society, when do we start plotting against
> someone? ;)

There are no secrets anymore. The NSA and Echelon
knows who you are and where you live.

The best plotting is done against oneself.

> As far as national defense, I'll be the first to admit
> that as soon as you've got a "national" anything,
> you're bound to wind up, in rather short order, with a
> huge federal gov't like we've got now. If we've got
> an armed forces of the United States, they'll want
> health insurance, retirement benefits, etc. So right
> away you'll have liberals making the case that since
> the federal gov't is providing these things for some
> people, why not for more people?
>
> On the other hand though, if an invading nation comes
> at us with tanks, jet fighters, and maybe even poison
> gas, I'd much rather send the Pacific fleet after them
> than try to hold them off with my deer rifle. And, a
> lot of citizens wouldn't be interested in fighting for
> their country, but would quickly knuckle-under to
> whoever invaded us; a lot of those who did fight
> would turn out to be lousy soldiers, poor shots, quick
> to run from the action. They (we) need some sort of
> training.

You've already been invaded. The main office is
in Washington, D.C.

As for someone coming across the borders drawn
by the invaders, er, well....

> As far as occupying the US, would they need to take
> over each and every household? Or just make an
> example of a few, after which the rest would fall in
> line? Certainly we'd offer sustained resistance (even
> as things stand now), guirella raids that would annoy
> the hell out of the occupying force, maybe we'd even
> manage to score an ocassional victory, but would we be
> able to overwhelm their bases with rifles, when
> they're guarded with minefields, artillery, etc?
> Seems we need weapons at least as good as theirs, but
> how does a community government purchase an incredibly
> expensive piece of military hardware? If we had
> rocket launchers and some surface-to-air guided
> missiles, we could probably put up a good fight, but
> how many people would turn into Rambo and how many
> would just say "well, the new communist regime is at
> least paying us enough to buy food...sort of"?

A free economy can always outcompete an invading
force. Just offer the invaders better working
conditions and wages. I doubt too many folks
like to get shot at for poor wages any longer.

[snip]

> And as far as international relations; we've got to
> look at the world we're living in. Could millions of
> town governments carry on trade negotiations with the
> European Union?

Business carrys on trade negotiations with other
business all the time. Why is an unwanted third
party needed?

>If Canada were attacked by China,
> would we be comfortable with a communist regime on our
> border, or would we want to help them defend
> themselves (to preserve our own interests)? If Mexico
> decided to move the Texas border a few hundred miles
> north and annex the property of the American citizens
> in the effected area, would the rest of us mind?

We're all on our own. If ya can't defend what
you got, ya ain't gonna keep it.

Think individually.

Act universally.

> Would we send thousands of teams to the Olympics?

Who's this "we", white man?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

"outside of the box"? You've got to be kidding -- jack, 21:40:56 02/03/00 Thu
- Re: "outside of the box"? You've got to be kidding -- Tworock, 09:03:15 02/04/00 Fri
  - Re: "outside of the box"? You've got to be kidding -- jack, 18:44:15 02/04/00 Fri
    - We of the Blue, Welcome You Jack... -- AM, 20:00:30 02/04/00 Fri
- Alienation -- bnimble, 04:19:13 02/09/00 Wed
  - Re: Alienation -- jack, 19:54:27 02/09/00 Wed
    - Re: Alienation -- bnimble, 14:49:08 02/10/00 Thu
      - Re: Alienation -- jack, 22:20:44 02/10/00 Thu
        Make a 'stab' at a few things. -- bnimble, 06:05:30 02/11/00 Fri
        Re: How enlightening... -- jack, 19:47:34 03/25/00 Sat
        Why I'm not at all surprised. -- bnimble, 08:39:56 03/26/00 Sun
        It's not stars you wankers... -- Katey, 12:24:48 05/16/01 Wed