But you can still clutter OT by, I don't know, making a dozen threads on the same topic.

* Yawns *

Well I suppose you have a point there. Well, this will probably be the last "government is bad(hey the conspiracy guy found a Friedman book)" thread for a while.

You cannon just say that because states fought world wars, therefore statism is bad. You have to provide a better alternative. If you cannot provide a model that works even in theory, then discussion is pointless.

the alternative is abolish it all and live in anarchy and since ppl r good everything work together

sounds gud

MGSB agree with ppl r good solution?

Edited 5/23/2016 19:53:53

anarchists should go to somalia and live out their fantasy

then report back on how it went out

anarchists should go to somalia and live out their fantasy

then report back on how it went out

You are confusing Anarchy with Civil War.
Anrchy doesnt essentially have to lead to Civil War, but unfortunately it often does.
Anarchy (Like Communism) only works in smaller populations like tribes, villages or families. While in structures with millions of people it (almost) always causes disorder.

Edited 5/23/2016 20:17:10

Government hasn't wiped out 2/3 of the population of earth, government hasn't wiped out the universe, government hasn't purged the earth of almost half of its life.

There's a lot of things government hasn't done that is bad, we can play the same game.

The fact is, for every point you bring up that anarchism hasn't done, there's 3 things that government hasn't done. In fact, there's an infinite number of points to bring up about each pro-anarchism point if we used "haven't" arguments, due to the nature of infinity and "haven't".

Proof that government can be moral, peaceful, efficient and just, since it has seemed to be the opposite throughout history.

This is completely wrong. 14,000 years ago, as the first civilizations began to coalesce, the likelihood a male would die a violent death was near 30% The chance of living past 40 years was very low. Now consider the 20th century, during which two world wars were fought, several genocides perpetrated, etc., as you wrote. Males died violent deaths, including all crime along with the wars, at around 2% If you lived in a more civilized part of the planet last century, you stood a fine chance of living to 70. The downward trend from 30 to 2% over the last fourteen millenia is very consistent, and highly correlated with civilization and organized states.

Good luck to you if you find yourself living in a state of anarchy (Venezuela, Syria anyone?). You better be prepared to be very lonely, or you need to be a seriously bad-assed, well-armed motherfucker.

Don't take my word for it, though. Here's a scholarly, but easy and quick read on precisely this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Measure_of_Civilization

The chance of living past 40 years was very low

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's kind of hard to live past 40 if many can't make it past infancy. I believe that if you did survive infancy, it was very likely and easy to make it to 60-70.

its pretty much confirmation bias as hes looking for things that confirm his worldview

and hes pretty much pretty similar to christian/muslim radicals cus he'll never ever change his beliefs

I suggest we put MSGB in forest with a few hundred people, take away all their stuff and tell them they can do whatever they want.
Lets see how long it will take until they come back to the goverment again.

+1 Onoma and Conservative.

this is why I stopped shitposting on my nationalism since the election. nothing interesting will happen here for a while and people were getting tired of me milking the same cow. It gets boring.

Pros of statism:
-Collectivzation of best of humanity, resulting in best of humanity pushing it forwards scientifically

Cons of statism:
-Collectivization of worst ofhumanity, resulting in worst of humanity sparking violence and destabilizing humanity as a whole

Also, how do we know that anarchy would not reach the amounts of bloodshed of statism? Bloodshed levels could be reached as many fights across the globe could result in same bloodshed. Not much of an improvement, if any.

I have never gotten the gall of folk who ask for how anarchism will work. Anarchism wasn't responsible for WW1, WW2, the cold war, the war on terror. Anarchism wasn't responsible for slavery, serfdom, indentured servitude or other forms of forced labor. Anarchism wasn't responsible for the Armenian Genocide, Holocaust, or Holodimir. So the burden of providing proof, rests with statists, and they must provide proof for the value of organizing society through violence (government). Proof that government can be moral, peaceful, efficient and just, since it has seemed to be the opposite throughout history.

Problem with this argument- not all statist governments didn't participate in acts like this. Example being Switzerland. I've yet to hear of acts of violence on those scales (have not been at war since 1815). They're pretty moral (whose morals are we going by? Republican? Stalinist? Democrats?) and just.

On the flipside, could anarchy be moral, efficient and just?

You are confusing Anarchy with Civil War.

It's peculiar how people so easily confuse anarchy and civil war... just like people confuse feminism and man-hating... hmm....

i hayt da gov

dey S P Y on me !!

satelites in da sky ! murco ship ! chem twail! mk U L T R A H! iloominazi ! it

R E E L

Venezuela is awful now because of rampant socialism and big government. Syria is awful because everyone wants to rule there.

I suggest we put the statists in a woodland, and give them guns. In no time, you will see them at each other's throats vying for power over one another.

To Genghis: Yeah and neither government or anarchy has brought dragons to earth to lay waste to farmlands and sheep. It's not like anarchy was responsible for any of those things either.