Near Dylan said:

In what way do you see the state as an arbitrary designation? You really think there is no meaning or direction involved in the existence of power structures? Defined borders? Administrative responsibility?

---

Near Dylan said:

My source of the claim that a nation with no federal power, consisting only of autonomous segments of itself, doesn't work, is every example of it being tried in history, from native confederations, to steppe tribes, to pre-communist china, to the HRE, to the original  'version' of the United States. The shit doesn't work. It isn't a nation at all. It isn't anything. It does not promote "individual autonomy" at all. I don't know how you could even argue that.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Why stop at the state level, instead of pushing for autonomy at the municipal level?

Many states are essentially the size of countries; even if the problem may be less than what exists at the federal level, shouldn't we expect a similar lack of representation from central state governments as we currently experience from the central federal government?

---

krypto2000 said:

Ep1429 said:

There are only two forms of government possible: Rule by law, or rule by an oligarchy.  Every other system is one of those (monarchy, republics, dictatorships), or is not actually a workable system but a temporary period of transition from the rule of law to an oligarchy (democracy, anarchy).

And history has shown us that states ruled by law always devolve into oligarchies over time, but that most oligarchies do not morph into a system ruled by the law.  It's a one way street.  That's why the quote is that the tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time.

---

The world is not so black and white and there are some major holes in your logic here.

1.) How does an oligarchy or dictatorship rule without law? Law is the basis of either model.

2.) I agree with your notion that free governments (say a democracy) tends to give rise to an oligarchy/dictatorship. However it seems short sighted in that you think that is somehow the end. The ensuing civil unrest arising from such governments naturally leads the populace to overthrow them and reinstate a government for the people with further safe guards and protections to prevent such oligarchies/dictstorships to arise again; the entire thing is a process, it doesn't end in dictatorship/oligarchy anymore thsn it begins as one.

---

Enlil said:

Ep1429 said:

Not entirely true.  For a law to be a law, it must remain unchanging.  Socialist banana republics are the ones where the government can change the law at whim to make your legal behavior into something criminal and then prosecute you for it.

No game can be played when the rules as written don't matter and can be changed.

---

Laws change in the U.S. every day, bro.  The government can change the laws at any time.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Not under an absolute divine monarchy. Gods law has always been with us. That's why this is the form of government that works best.

---

Seriously_trippin said:

The one with the least federal overreach in overruling states rights. Most people's ares are like their own country. California is the polar opposite of Alabama and we have to recognize that.

---

koods said:

I don’t get this obsession with state governments.

---

Ep1429 said:

1) An oligarchy rules by force. The law is replaced by the whim of the oligarchs. The perfect example of this is a monarchy. The king is merely the figurehead of a group of barons and earls who rule, and the law is whatever the king wills at the moment.

2) A Democracy is not a system of government. It is a temporary period of mob rule that always ends with the People being ruled by oligarchs who promise to stop the suffering. No different than anarchy.

The only two forms of government are rule by law and rule by oligarchs. And the rule of law systems always tend back towards oligarchy as time moves forward, requiring a reset from time to time. This has been noted by Machiavelli AND Jefferson, hundreds of years apart.

Can you name a single republic that lapsed into civil unrest and returned to a republican form of government afterwards?  No. That civil unrest always gives rise to rule by oligarchs.

This is why you see “Progresives” calling for revolution and anarchy here in the US. They are, by and large, uneducated morons who want communism or socialism instead of capitalism, and they know that devolving the Republic into civil war will lead to their communist utopian dreams being given another chance to fail and kill millions of people.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Why stop at the state level, instead of pushing for autonomy at the municipal level?

Many states are essentially the size of countries; even if the problem may be less than what exists at the federal level, shouldn't we expect a similar lack of representation from central state governments as we currently experience from the central federal government?

---

Bigbadwooof said:

Ep1429 said:

1) An oligarchy rules by force. The law is replaced by the whim of the oligarchs. The perfect example of this is a monarchy. The king is merely the figurehead of a group of barons and earls who rule, and the law is whatever the king wills at the moment.

2) A Democracy is not a system of government. It is a temporary period of mob rule that always ends with the People being ruled by oligarchs who promise to stop the suffering. No different than anarchy.

The only two forms of government are rule by law and rule by oligarchs. And the rule of law systems always tend back towards oligarchy as time moves forward, requiring a reset from time to time. This has been noted by Machiavelli AND Jefferson, hundreds of years apart.

Can you name a single republic that lapsed into civil unrest and returned to a republican form of government afterwards?  No. That civil unrest always gives rise to rule by oligarchs.

This is why you see “Progresives” calling for revolution and anarchy here in the US. They are, by and large, uneducated morons who want communism or socialism instead of capitalism, and they know that devolving the Republic into civil war will lead to their communist utopian dreams being given another chance to fail and kill millions of people.

---

1) A Monarchy is not an Oligarchy. It is a Monarchy. Monarchies are led by a Monarch. Oligarchies are led by Oligarchs. Some would argue that America is currently an oligarchy, and that those leading the country are the unelected corporate elite, due to their vast wealth, and influence on our political process.

2) A Democracy is a form of government. Here in America, we have a 'representative democracy' or a Republic.

France has 'lapsed into civil unrest' many times. They did just recently, with the yellow vest protesters. They still have a representative government, and their government responded to the will of the people.

Progressives are 'by-and-large' more educated than conservatives. It's actually a classic theme in American politics, that college students tend to be much more progressive, even kicking conservative speakers off of their campuses, and conservatives tend to be manual laborer. I am a laborer, and have been a college student, and it is quite plain to me that this is the case.

America is not a Capitalist society. We have a mixed economy, which has elements of Socialism built into it. We have had a mixed economy for 100 fucking years. Progressives in this country are not making any attempt at a violent revolution. Progressives want a voluntary revolution, implemented by the will of the people, through the voting process. They don't actually want 'Socialism', as defined by Marx. What progressives in America want is to expand the scope of the Kainsian principles that America first implemented with the New Deal.

---

Ep1429 said:

I didn’t get any further than “A monarchy is not an oligarchy”.  You are not educated enough to have this conversation with me. I spelled out clearly that a monarch is the figurehead of a group of barons and earls who rule as oligarchs.

Go back to the books and learn what you’re discussing, then come back and try it again. I’ve got a Master’s degree in PolySci, spent two and a half years of daily study on this. You’re going to have to do a lot of reading to converse intelligently with me.

---

Quote:

ol·i·gar·chy
/ˈäləˌɡärkē/Submit
noun
a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.
"the ruling oligarchy of military men around the president"
a country governed by an oligarchy.
"the English aristocratic oligarchy of the 19th century"
government by oligarchy.

---

Quote:

mon·ar·chy
/ˈmänərkē,ˈmänˌärkē/Submit
noun
a form of government with a monarch at the head.
a state that has a monarch.
plural noun: monarchies
the monarch and royal family of a country.
noun: the monarchy
"the monarchy is the focus of loyalty and service"

---

Near Dylan said:

As Enlil said. "Ideal"? As in perfect? Of course not. But what do you want to do, have state governments be replaced with county governments? County with city? City with neighborhood? There has to be some cut-off. States is a fair one.

---

krypto2000 said:

You could argue that the current system is bottom up. States, like citizens, have to defend their rights. When the war on drugs was called for overstepping states rights the states could have spoke up and done something about it, they could have rejected it, they could have fought it in coirt, but they didn't. If you don't protect a right then don't be surprised when you lose it. The problems your complaining about on the federal level are also on the state and local levels, the problems started on the local level. It's not like your elected representatives that comprise the federal government come from DC, you voted for them in your locale.

---

Bigbadwooof said:

Ep1429 said:

I didn’t get any further than “A monarchy is not an oligarchy”.  You are not educated enough to have this conversation with me. I spelled out clearly that a monarch is the figurehead of a group of barons and earls who rule as oligarchs.

Go back to the books and learn what you’re discussing, then come back and try it again. I’ve got a Master’s degree in PolySci, spent two and a half years of daily study on this. You’re going to have to do a lot of reading to converse intelligently with me.

---

No need to get nasty. Now, here is some educational reading for you to peruse:

Quote:

ol·i·gar·chy
/ˈäləˌɡärkē/Submit
noun
a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.
"the ruling oligarchy of military men around the president"
a country governed by an oligarchy.
"the English aristocratic oligarchy of the 19th century"
government by oligarchy.

---

Quote:

mon·ar·chy
/ˈmänərkē,ˈmänˌärkē/Submit
noun
a form of government with a monarch at the head.
a state that has a monarch.
plural noun: monarchies
the monarch and royal family of a country.
noun: the monarchy
"the monarchy is the focus of loyalty and service"

---

---

Near Dylan said:

Are you really arguing that the acceptance of authority and accepting that, while you are an individual, you are part of something greater than just yourself, and agree to keep in line in exchange for protection, is equal to 'not being ready for individual freedom'?

---

Near Dylan said:

So either everyone is free to do whatever the fuck we want whenever the fuck we want it, or we have no individual freedom or autonomy?

---

Near Dylan said:

You wont last in a stateless anarchic community, where it wont be the government oppressing you, but whoever you're the closest to with the biggest gun.

---