xahrx:Many people in the Middle East are emotional, they are pissed. At the US.
Everyone is emotional. The US has no shortage of enemies.
xahrx: liberty student:You mean the only group of mass murderers and nut jobs to ever deploy a nuke against a city, not once, but twice? Relevance?
liberty student:You mean the only group of mass murderers and nut jobs to ever deploy a nuke against a city, not once, but twice?
Relevance?
The relevance is that people keep invoking this fear of a nuclear Iran, when they already live in a state which deploys weapons of mass destruction against civilians. If I am going to be afraid of anyone, it is the known killer, not the 8 year old boy who might grow up to be one.
xahrx:The question of whether or not Iran has a 'right' to nuclear weapons is not satisfied with a one word answer. There is too much implied and left unsaid no matter which word is given.
Equivocating.
xahrx:ImADinnerJacket is a poweful man near the top of another state
He's just another elected puppet like Obama. That you keep invoking him, when he doesn't control the military, and can barely win an election, indicates to me how much the threat is distorted.
xahrx:And however bad our state is, and however poorly used our military is, they are also the ones in the current reality who are capable and likely to defend us should another state get upiddy
So the Iranians are uppidy if they want the same security you are using to rationalize possibly killing them?
Do you support an attack on a nuclear or pre-nuclear Iran?
xahrx:But as any firefighter will tell you, you can use fire to fight fire sometimes, and when using water or foam you should prioritize where you aim the hose.
When you use fire to fight fire, you burn up all the fuel and end up only with ashes. You really need to rethink the eye for an eye rationale.
Spideynw:I think it is laughable that people think that 1) the U.S. could be threatened by any other government in the world and 2) that bringing the troops home is the same as decimating the U.S. government's defensive capabilities. The only defensive capabilities the U.S. government needs is nuclear weapons. And since they have them, no one is going to invade the U.S.
What's laughable is thinking you can know the motives and predict the actions of other people, whether economically or politically. The only reason no one would attack/invade the US is if they considered the US nukes a threat, or seeing them as a threat, actually gave a damn. If anything can be learned from fanatics here and abroad, it is that their cost benefit analysis of situations don't match those of the majority of the population. If they did, large scale wars would not be an issue, people would not fly planes into buildings, or run into crowded places full of innocents with ten pounds of dynamite strapped to their ass.
Just because your neighbor has no right to you television doesn't mean leaving your door unlocked is a good idea. He may disagree with you. Good fences make good neighbors. The only problem on the foreign policy front is what constitutes a good fence and what constitutes a clear and present danger. When it comes to nukes, ethical qualms about the state not withstanding, I'd rather not wait until the threat were imminent and my neutron detector starts going off.
No, my reply was an appeal to reality,
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
When it comes to nukes, ethical qualms about the state not withstanding, I'd rather not wait until the threat were imminent and my neutron detector starts going off.
Juan:who is 'us' ?
The US. That nation which exists outside of a theoretical anarcho capitalist society in this thing called reality.
You're preaching to/asking probing questions of the choir. I've already accepted that the ideal society is purely voluntary, anarcho capitalist in nature. Now just make an ideal world for us to live in and you can lob such questions as the above over the fence into this world where they might make some people reconsider their approach to life and come to the ideal world. But, since we all live in this world and are likely to for some time, maybe in between the theorizing and dorm room bull session antics we can take some time to come to a solution to the real and practical problem that some men who have proven themselves time and again to be on the wrong side of sanity and basic decency want weapons that can melt cities, even though the tools available to us for dealing with the issue are admittedly less than ideal?
It's just a thought.
The U.S. Military is not really used for defense. It is used to project power. It is used to keep other governments in line. It is used to protect the national interests of the U.S. as defined by the politicians and special interest groups. It is used in expeditions into other lands in order squash dissent or to gain votes for those in power. The U.S. Military is used to entertain the masses, who can watch a war while sitting comfortably in their living rooms.
While the U.S. has a considerable military capability, this was provided via an economic system that outpaced the rest of the world. The U.S. is losing and probably will lose this advantage. In fact it could get real ugly. A nuclear arsenal isn't some static entity, and requires significant resources to replenish and maintain. With a sufficient economic hit, the U.S. could very easily lose it's nuclear capabilities. As for conventional forces, the U.S. doesn't have the largest military (China, India, North Korea, Russia, South Korean and Vietnam have larger militaries than the U.S.). The U.S. relies a lot upon it's technological advantage, which has been significantly shrinking for some time now. An economic crisis, along with some strategic actions (such as killing U.S. satellites) could all but cripple the U.S. Military. The fact that the U.S. has had a very heavy hand over the past 60 years or so hasn't won vary many real allies. In fact, if conditions are bad enough, the U.S. could be carved up by a number of foreign adversaries or hopefully broken out into independent states that operate on libertarian principles (although it's probably more likely that we get more of the same).
who is 'us' ?
The US.
Politics coming from the phrase "pertaining to the State". For there to be peace, States must end.
liberty student:Everyone is emotional. The US has no shortage of enemies.
Irrelevant. The point is how to deal with them, my suggestion is move gradually toward a full non intervention policy. What's wrong with that approach which makes a full pull out better, more practical, more achievable?
liberty student:The relevance is that people keep invoking this fear of a nuclear Iran, when they already live in a state which deploys weapons of mass destruction against civilians. If I am going to be afraid of anyone, it is the known killer, not the 8 year old boy who might grow up to be one.
That would only be relevant if someone was arguing the state is good as opposed to an evil which for practical purposes will probably have to be tolerated to some degree. Since no one has offerred that argument, you're shooting at a strawman. Arguing over the methods and speed of a withdrawal is not the same as saying stay involved in a neve ending fight. Learn the difference.
liberty student:He's just another elected puppet like Obama. That you keep invoking him, when he doesn't control the military, and can barely win an election, indicates to me how much the threat is distorted.
If you've read my posts I have repeatedly referred to multiple men, not just DinnerJacket. He's the visible figure head, deal with it.
liberty student:So the Iranians are uppidy if they want the same security you are using to rationalize possibly killing them?
I said the state, not the Iranians. I differentiate between the two. Nor have I said anywhere the Iranians need to be killed. However our military, with a change in tactics and priorities, can certainly deal with DinnerJacket and his superiors if they are a threat. And since we would not be slaughtering civilians wholesale nor targetting the infrastructure they need, we can draw down our military and still move toward nonintervention.
Holy cow, that's... that's... that's a practical way to achieve a more free society without bending over pantless in front of the people who may want to rape us and giving them a tube of lube.
liberty student:When you use fire to fight fire, you burn up all the fuel and end up only with ashes. You really need to rethink the eye for an eye rationale.
You also stop a larger conflaguration from destroying more fuel and resources.
Why is this an either-or situation? I'm concerned about both, frankly.
Juan:Why are you wasting your time in this forum where people advocate lots of 'impractical' things? it's a mystery....
No, it's because at base I agree with them, and hate to see the ideology I myself hold spurnned by others because it offers them nothing of value, and because the people who espouse it are arrogant dip sticks who have beguiled themselves so much with their own ideological purity that they seem to have forgotten or overlooked the fact that you win points and make progress in this world by engaging it, not by constructing an uncompromised ideological bubble that allows you to sit outside of it and snipe from a distance.
Juan: the most deranged and criminal government on earth has the biggest collection of nukes ?
If you think the US government is the most criminal and deranged, you have seriously different priorities than most.
Juan:I see. You are just another clueless nationalist.As to your rants about 'reality' I already addressed them.
Which only proves you either: have not read my posts; are illiterate. Either way, you're not worth addressing further, except to say it's people like you that make it hard for people who have some practical chance of increasing our freedoms to actually get anything done in this world.
K.C. Farmer:Politics coming from the phrase "pertaining to the State". For there to be peace, States must end.
States will never end, therefore there will never be peace. So, how do we at least minimize this problem? Getting rid of the state is like getting rid of rats or flies; it's not practically possible, but you can make them much less of a nuisance.
xahrx: States will never end,
States will never end,
you don't know that.
Juan:Are you playing dumb or...? You whine about X being impractical. In this case, not toeing to your fascist line means being impractical. The 'practical' thing is to spout amerikkkan war propaganda like you do. Now, why is it that sometimes you don't spout propaganda and subscribe to 'ivory tower' theories like laissez-faire ? What's the guiding NON-PRINCIPLE that guides your enlightened actions ?
Xahrx:Which only proves you either: have not read my posts; are illiterate. Either way, you're not worth addressing further, except to say it's people like you that make it hard for people who have some practical chance of increasing our freedoms to actually get anything done in this world.
xahrx:No, it's because at base I agree with them, and hate to see the ideology I myself hold spurnned by others because it offers them nothing of value, and because the people who espouse it are arrogant dip sticks who have beguiled themselves so much with their own ideological purity that they seem to have forgotten or overlooked the fact that you win points and make progress in this world by engaging it, not by constructing an uncompromised ideological bubble that allows you to sit outside of it and snipe from a distance.
Wow, long sentence.
I can see where you're frustrated. An ideology that is maleable doesn't lead to popularity, it leads to destruction. If we could bring about change in incremental steps without changing the principles, believe me this would have been done by now. The problem is that you cannot be one thing while advocating another. Our greatest purpose is to either advance or maintain the work of those who came before us. The people aren't ready for truth now, no matter how we package it. They have been deceived by promises of social justice and equality, and have enslaved themselves. We don't help the cause of freedom by enslaving ourselves, and we don't serve any purpose in becoming martyrs for a cause that the people aren't ready for.
xahrx: Getting rid of the state is like getting rid of rats or flies; it's not practically possible, but you can make them much less of a nuisance.
Getting rid of the state is like getting rid of rats or flies; it's not practically possible, but you can make them much less of a nuisance.
Learn some history before stating what is possible.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
xahrx:What's laughable is thinking you can know the motives and predict the actions of other people, whether economically or politically.
What's laughable is not looking at the facts. Fact: no government with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked by another government. Fact: governments without nuclear weapons get attacked by other government with nuclear weapons all the time. Fact: the attack on the twin towers was not an attack by another government. Fact: Afghanistan asked for evidence before dealing with the Taliban, and the U.S. government refused to provide it. Fact: the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran in the 1950's resulting in a dictator taking over. Fact: the U.S. government supplied weapons to the government of Iraq. Fact: the government of Iraq did not think anyone would care if they attacked Kuwait. Fact: U.S. sanctions on Iraq in the 90's resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. Fact: U.S. backing of Israel has resulted in the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people. Fact: the reason bin Laden claimed to make the attacks on the twin towers was because of U.S. troops in the Middle East. Fact: the terrorists mostly came from Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. government continues to support the government of Saudi Arabia. Fact: Iraq had nothing to do with the twin towers attack and did not have WMDs, yet the U.S. government invaded anyways.
But go ahead, keep ignoring the facts.
xahrx:Just because your neighbor has no right to you television doesn't mean leaving your door unlocked is a good idea.
And your example is nothing like the real world. I am not leaving my door unlocked. It is more like I am over in my neighbor's house, telling him what he can and cannot do. Sometimes I take his stuff, rape his wife, and beat his children too.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
K.C. Farmer: While the U.S. has a considerable military capability, this was provided via an economic system that outpaced the rest of the world. The U.S. is losing and probably will lose this advantage. In fact it could get real ugly. A nuclear arsenal isn't some static entity, and requires significant resources to replenish and maintain. With a sufficient economic hit, the U.S. could very easily lose it's nuclear capabilities. As for conventional forces, the U.S. doesn't have the largest military (China, India, North Korea, Russia, South Korean and Vietnam have larger militaries than the U.S.). The U.S. relies a lot upon it's technological advantage, which has been significantly shrinking for some time now. An economic crisis, along with some strategic actions (such as killing U.S. satellites) could all but cripple the U.S. Military. The fact that the U.S. has had a very heavy hand over the past 60 years or so hasn't won vary many real allies. In fact, if conditions are bad enough, the U.S. could be carved up by a number of foreign adversaries or hopefully broken out into independent states that operate on libertarian principles (although it's probably more likely that we get more of the same).
K.C. Farmer:An ideology that is maleable doesn't lead to popularity, it leads to destruction. If we could bring about change in incremental steps without changing the principles, believe me this would have been done by now.
It has been done, in the wrong direction. If they can do it, why can't we? It is the concentration on mass change that is the issue. For a group of people whose world view is heavily influenced by economics, I find it hard to fathom that Austrian/Anarcho Capitalists would insist on the rest of the world's people making categorical ideological changes rather than marginal ones.
K.C. Farmer:We don't help the cause of freedom by enslaving ourselves, and we don't serve any purpose in becoming martyrs for a cause that the people aren't ready for.
I'm not suggesting either. I'm saying that, as when you make buying decisions, you take each issue as it comes and make the trade offs necessary without sacrificing the overall direction you're pushing in. I think we can make gains toward freedom and a minimal state, and need to evaluate the practical implications of each decision as it comes to us. Ideologically pure nonsense seems to me as ridiculous as Climate 'Scientists' claiming CO2 causes warming in the Earth's complex open ended climate system just because it does so in a controlled lab. Real life is more complex than that, their refusal to acknowledge that is very much like the refusal of people here to acknowledge that the real world deviates from their ideal, and should be perhaps dealt with on its own terms from time to time if you really want to make a difference.
E. R. Olovetto:Learn some history before stating what is possible.
Show me a historical record of a truly stateless society that has lasted. Furthermore, show me a historical record of a society with a state that successfully removed that state. Somalia doesn't count, their future is still heavily in question.
Spideynw:What's laughable is not looking at the facts. Fact: no government with nuclear weapons has ever been attacked by another government.
And? If you do not see the logical fallacy here, you are truly blind. What can happen is not limited by what has happened.
Spideynw:Fact: the attack on the twin towers was not an attack by another government.
I never said it was, so your point is...?
Fact: some governments sponsor and support terrorist activites. I do not want a government giving a terrorist organization a nuke. I do not want a government without the somewhat ponderous predictability of the US or other pseudo socialized and socialized governments to have to keep track of weapons of mass destruction, especially when their sky fairy of choice happens to be a homocidal maniac and not the middle aged, had a son and mellowed out father/god that most of the Judeo Christians tend to worship.
Spideynw:Fact: the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected government in Iran in the 1950's resulting in a dictator taking over.
And? Where did I say I agreed with this action? Please explain the relevance of your other facts as well, since I fail to see how they argue against a measured, phased draw down of US troops from the Middle East and the world in general with the overall goal of not pissing any more people off and maybe appeasing some as our troops leave so we are less likely to deal with mass hatred of our country eminating from a nuclear armed cluster &$?# of a region. You want a full and immediate pull out, I want a slowed pull out. Draw whatever analogy you want, none of your facts and none of your arguments specifically address the apparent massive difference you see between the two and the exception you take with the slower approach.
Whether or not the US has engaged in moronic, harmful policies in the past is not at issue: the answer is yes. What's at issue is how to end such policies in a way that has a practical chance of actually happening in this, the real world, where most of us live.
xahrx:Whether or not the US has engaged in moronic, harmful policies in the past is not at issue: the answer is yes. What's at issue is how to end such policies in a way that has a practical chance of actually happening in this, the real world, where most of us live.
And the problem with immediately withdrawing all the troops is? Fear? Does the Boogeyman still scare you too? It definitely cannot be because of anything that happened in the past. We both know that's a fallacy.
Whether or not the US has engaged in moronic, harmful policies in the past is not at issue: the answer is yes.
xahrx:Irrelevant.
Why do you keep claiming irrelevance when I am only repeating your argument back to you? If the point is irrelevant in the first place, don't assert it.
xahrx: The point is how to deal with them
Who is them?
xahrx:If you've read my posts I have repeatedly referred to multiple men, not just DinnerJacket. He's the visible figure head, deal with it.
But it is inaccurate. Why would I have to deal with you making inaccurate statements (and the petty act of not referring to him by his proper name)?
xahrx:However our military, with a change in tactics and priorities, can certainly deal with DinnerJacket and his superiors if they are a threat.
How? And by what moral authority?
xahrx:And since we would not be slaughtering civilians wholesale
Is it ok to kill civilians piecemeal?
I'll repeat the question you avoided. Do you believe the US/Obama/Americans should attack Iran to prevent them from getting nukes?
xahrx:Holy cow, that's... that's... that's a practical way to achieve a more free society without bending over pantless in front of the people who may want to rape us and giving them a tube of lube.
This premise is tested by the answer you will give to my question bolded above.
xahrx:You also stop a larger conflaguration from destroying more fuel and resources.
There is no fuel left because that is the nature of war. It consumes and consumes until there is nothing left. Whether you declare peace today, or when there are only two people left standing, peace is the only solution to violence short of complete destruction.
xahrx:Fact: some governments sponsor and support terrorist activites.
Yes, the US government is one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism world-wide and has been for decades.
xahrx:I do not want a government giving a terrorist organization a nuke.
But if the US does it, you will be ok with it right?
xahrx:I do not want a government without the somewhat ponderous predictability of the US or other pseudo socialized and socialized governments to have to keep track of weapons of mass destruction, especially when their sky fairy of choice happens to be a homocidal maniac and not the middle aged, had a son and mellowed out father/god that most of the Judeo Christians tend to worship.
So the US, who has wantonly killed people with nukes, and has probably killed more non-combatants than any other nation in the last 2 decades, is the safe choice?
xahrx:Whether or not the US has engaged in moronic, harmful policies in the past is not at issue
Sure it is, because that is the standard you judge your enemies by.
xahrx:Getting rid of the state is like getting rid of rats or flies; it's not practically possible, but you can make them much less of a nuisance.
xahrx: E. R. Olovetto:Learn some history before stating what is possible. Show me a historical record of a truly stateless society that has lasted. Furthermore, show me a historical record of a society with a state that successfully removed that state. Somalia doesn't count, their future is still heavily in question.
xahrx:What can happen is not limited by what has happened.
I believe you've contradicted yourself here.
Correct me if you are wrong but your position seems to be that: people cannot ever again organize themselves and maintain order without the concept of "state" or divine ruler, even though it has happened before.
We'll ignore that private law is functioning today in places such as Guatemala, Somalia, and Iraq, because these places must not be up to your imperialist standards.
Nevermind that Iceland lasted longer than the US has existed, and its downfall (religion) is much less of a threat today.
Ignore that technology is better suited today for the spread of information and ideas, defining borders, as well as allowing people to group in spite of borders.
You're saying that its a literal impossibility or just "impractical"? Either way, I disagree.
xahrx: I said the state, not the Iranians. I differentiate between the two. Nor have I said anywhere the Iranians need to be killed. However our military, with a change in tactics and priorities, can certainly deal with DinnerJacket and his superiors if they are a threat. And since we would not be slaughtering civilians wholesale nor targetting the infrastructure they need, we can draw down our military and still move toward nonintervention.
Just how would the military go about doing this? What makes you think civilians won't die in ANY of the attacks we make on their infrastructure? Please look at all the "Precision" strikes that the US makes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq in the recent years- they kill civilians all the time.
Even if you think its possible to make an accurate precision strike that will only take out a nuclear bomb making facility, you will be killing people who are in it- thus destroying families and creating a new group of people ready to throw everything away just to get a shot at the United States. Death and destruction is never the path for justice, peace, or security- please stop advocating it.
Spideynw:And the problem with immediately withdrawing all the troops is?
Immediate forgivness is not in the offerring from those we've pissed off, and pulling out and leaving Europe to deal with a problem that the US by and large created isn't going to make them all too friendly toward us either. Pulling the military presence out slowly, if nothing else, allows the people there time to adjust gradually.
Fear? Does the Boogeyman still scare you too?
No, but the fact that people as arrogant, naive, belligerent, and juvenile as you seem to be are technically considered on my side in broader debates does. Once you learn that not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, you might actually be worth talking to. Until then, I'm actually rather glad your influence is likely limited to talking and writing with other people as beguiled with their own brilliance as you seem to be.
Juan:I recall mr pragmatist xahrx whining a lot about how bad so called 'illegal' immigration was for amerikkka....
Ah, I see. You're just a lying troll. My bad. I thought you were actually trying to say something of worth and your lack of intellect was just getting in the way.
No, but the fact that people as arrogant, naive, belligerent, and juvenile as you seem to be are technically considered on my side in broader debates does.
liberty student:Why do you keep claiming irrelevance when I am only repeating your argument back to you? If the point is irrelevant in the first place, don't assert it.
I claim irrelevance when something is irrelevant. If you have a point state it or don't. Or do you debate fortune cookie fashion?
liberty student:Who is them?
Oh for Christ's sake, give it up. You know damn well who I am writing of. There are people out there who do not share your ideals and who would happily kill Americans simply because they are Americans. Just because you are an individualist doesn't change the reality that a lot of people in the world are not and don't make such fine distinctions when taking revenge for real and/or perceived wrongs done to them or people they identify with.
liberty student:But it is inaccurate. Why would I have to deal with you making inaccurate statements (and the petty act of not referring to him by his proper name)?
His proper name, nor respecting his half witted ass enough to say it, don't concern me. And please, do explain, what about sayin DinnerJacket is a powerful man among many, though not the superior one in Iran, is inaccurate? You are aware that he is part of their government, are you not? Does he come to UN and speak because he's a lowly functionary? Please, do tell...
liberty student:How? And by what moral authority?
By scaring him if possible, and killing him if necessary, and I don't give a shit by what moral authority. Neither will he or any other fanatic. Once more, if you want to have debates about how things work in a perfect world where everyone respects one another's property rights, have at it. In the real world there are people who would gladly gut you, often with no perceivable reason, while you pontificate on moral authority.
liberty student:Is it ok to kill civilians piecemeal? I'll repeat the question you avoided. Do you believe the US/Obama/Americans should attack Iran to prevent them from getting nukes?
No, it is not. And no, I do not advocate attacking Iran nor Iranian citizens. If I did, I wouldn't be saying lets drawn down our troop presence. The two goals are mutually exclusive as far as I can see.
liberty student:There is no fuel left because that is the nature of war. It consumes and consumes until there is nothing left. Whether you declare peace today, or when there are only two people left standing, peace is the only solution to violence short of complete destruction.
That's nice. And technically right. However, I believe I have a limited time on this Earth and I'm not sure of any after life, and am not inclined to offer myself as a sacrifice to madmen from my home or abroad just to make a moral/ethical point. Ghandi had a good point, he also got shot and killed before his time, and eventually lost. I see nothing wrong with, as opposed to an immediate pull out of troops, to pulling out gradually, training and helping people over there to defend themselves by giving them some food and weapons before we leave, perhaps repairing some of the infrastructure we bombed out of existence and building a school or two so their kids have a better chance of learning and reading something besides See Spot Explode in an Israeli Disco, and then finally leaving a few fanatics with a much smaller population of potential recruits. And as a policy it's a hell of a lot more likely and possible to get in place than an immediate pull out of all troops everywhere. So hang on to your dream of total peace while people like me actually try to achieve something close to it, however imperfect, sometime this millenium and this side of heaven.
liberty student:Yes, the US government is one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism world-wide and has been for decades.
Once more, since I'm not advocating we support anyone in perpetuity, what's the relevance?
liberty student:But if the US does it, you will be ok with it right?
No, but if that's caricature/strawman you must set up to dismiss my arguments, be my guest.
liberty student:So the US, who has wantonly killed people with nukes, and has probably killed more non-combatants than any other nation in the last 2 decades, is the safe choice?
There is no safe choice. There is a least shitty choice.
liberty student:Sure it is, because that is the standard you judge your enemies by.
Not quite, but once more if it bloats your goat, go with it.
I notice you have failed to provide the example I asked for.
E. R. Olovetto: I believe you've contradicted yourself here. Correct me if you are wrong but your position seems to be that: people cannot ever again organize themselves and maintain order without the concept of "state" or divine ruler, even though it has happened before. We'll ignore that private law is functioning today in places such as Guatemala, Somalia, and Iraq, because these places must not be up to your imperialist standards.
This is a perfect example of the type of debate that will get you no where in the real world, and why most people dismiss anarchists as morons. When you grow up and realize that intelligent people disagree with you, and that not everyone who disagrees with you is an "imperialist," shoot me a message.
Nevermind that Iceland lasted longer than the US has existed, and its downfall (religion) is much less of a threat today. Ignore that technology is better suited today for the spread of information and ideas, defining borders, as well as allowing people to group in spite of borders. You're saying that its a literal impossibility or just "impractical"? Either way, I disagree.
Then provide the example I have asked for. I didn't ask for fleeting examples of private law here or there in the larger context of a massive state, or about Iceland which to my knowledge has a government, a parliment, and many political parties. I want an example of a stateless society that has existed for some time, demonstrated stability and the ability to defend itself from attempts to impose a state from without and from within. Is anarchism impossible? I don't think so. Is it impractical? Now most likely, maybe not in the future. I do know however that if the sum total of anarchism is a bunch of nits congratulating themselves on their intellectual purity and beguiling themselves with their own trivia, with their only act of socializing and political activity consisting of sniping at the great unwashed, anarchism will remain impractical and likely become impossible.
auctionguy10:Just how would the military go about doing this? What makes you think civilians won't die in ANY of the attacks we make on their infrastructure? Please look at all the "Precision" strikes that the US makes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq in the recent years- they kill civilians all the time.
I have not advocated using the military to strike at 'their' infrastructure.