Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: dough560 on February 13, 2010, 01:15:44 pm

Title: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on February 13, 2010, 01:15:44 pm
Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, etc.  evoke different things to each of us.  Trans National Progressives seem to hide in the Democrat and Republican Parties.  They call themselves Progressives and Liberal.  Names with pleasant meanings and identities.  They control the language we use in our discussion and use this language to shape perceptions.   >:(

I submit we need to take charge of the language.  Trans National Progressives is a mouth full.  Progressive sounds nice, but it is a lie.  I submit we refer to the  Trans National Progressives as TRANSPROGS  or TRANSY.  Doesn't sound so nice, does it.   :)

These people keep pushing the idea of big government, the nanny state and eventually a one world government.  One noticeably with out a bill of rights.    :(

Identify your target, and fire for effect.   :)
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: wdg3rd on February 13, 2010, 09:38:59 pm
Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, etc.  evoke different things to each of us.  Trans National Progressives seem to hide in the Democrat and Republican Parties.  They call themselves Progressives and Liberal.  Names with pleasant meanings and identities.  They control the language we use in our discussion and use this language to shape perceptions.   >:(

I submit we need to take charge of the language.  Trans National Progressives is a mouth full.  Progressive sounds nice, but it is a lie.  I submit we refer to the  Trans National Progressives as TRANSPROGS  or TRANSY.  Doesn't sound so nice, does it.   :)

These people keep pushing the idea of big government, the nanny state and eventually a one world government.  One noticeably with out a bill of rights.    :(
]/quote]

Identify your target, and fire for effect.   :)

Logged and loaded.  8)
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Zilabus on February 14, 2010, 08:31:34 pm
I wouldn't like to go that far. Changing language based on political agenda is the realm of dictators, in my own opinion. If it's negative for a name to purposefully have a 'false pleasentness', it should be just as bad for a name to have a purposeful 'unpleasentness' in it as well.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on February 15, 2010, 03:08:39 am
Trans National Progressives (TransProgs) currently DICTATE how people are perceived.   You allow them to do so with impunity?  It's not nice or polite to use an identification not selected by the TransProgs?  I submit their choice of identification, used to elicit favorable public response, is a deliberate lie.

We are involved in a war of ideas.  You allow your enemies to control how you shape and present yourself and your arguments?  How you attack and defend?  Make no mistake, they do anything to destroy you and your credibility.

A time to be nice.  A time to be polite.  There's also a time to call them as you see them.

The questions becomes;  What will you do?
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: terry_freeman on February 15, 2010, 11:06:37 pm
I think the neocon label has become popular and sticky enough that folks try to avoid that tag.

As for "Transprog", it's meaningless to me. If nobody knows what it means, it's of no use.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on February 16, 2010, 03:21:14 am
Everything starts somewhere.  Use or don't use, its up to you.  But ask yourself:  WHAT IF?

Neocon?  Neoconservative?  A new conservative?  Is that the same thing as a moderate?
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: wdg3rd on February 16, 2010, 11:03:08 pm
Everything starts somewhere.  Use or don't use, its up to you.  But ask yourself:  WHAT IF?

Neocon?  Neoconservative?  A new conservative?  Is that the same thing as a moderate?

Generally, it's the same as a dickhead.  Fits most of your translations.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on February 17, 2010, 02:50:25 am
Different Day, Same old stuff (being nice).  We recognize the problem, now we deal with it.  Just another day at the office, don't you know.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: terry_freeman on February 17, 2010, 12:35:37 pm
A neocon believes that America has a divine mission to reshape the world into democratic polities, using as many bombs as needed, rinse and repeat.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Zilabus on February 17, 2010, 03:32:42 pm
Trans National Progressives (TransProgs) currently DICTATE how people are perceived.   You allow them to do so with impunity?  It's not nice or polite to use an identification not selected by the TransProgs?  I submit their choice of identification, used to elicit favorable public response, is a deliberate lie.

We are involved in a war of ideas.  You allow your enemies to control how you shape and present yourself and your arguments?  How you attack and defend?  Make no mistake, they do anything to destroy you and your credibility.

A time to be nice.  A time to be polite.  There's also a time to call them as you see them.

The questions becomes;  What will you do?

If you are aware of the fact they are 'controling' language so they benifit, then it ruins the whole point. You are aware of their scheme, and therefore it becomes obsolete. If disneyland started calling six-flags crapville, we'd be aware of what they where attempting, and therefore there would be no point. Because you are aware of the supposed language control (Which I highly doubt is happening anyways. When you come up with a name for something you support, you want it to be pleasent, there's not really a deeper underlying factor in my opinion. ) you are taking up, you're already winning. There's no reason to take another step, because it hasn't worked on you. Byt the same merit, trying to give someone a negative label is foolish and petty.

By your merit, supporters calling the movement for gay marrige "Support of gay rights" are diabolical spindoctors, and to set things straight someone who doesn't believe in gay rights should label it something offensive like "Fags try to get hitched". I'm taking it to an extreme here, but hopefully you see my point.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Sean Roach on February 17, 2010, 03:53:49 pm
Just a few quotes here.
"It's a jungle in there"
"Save the rainforests"
"That place is a swamp"
"Protect the wetlands"

It really is about shaping language, because language shapes thought.  It's also about derailing negative connotations by throwing off old labels that the connotations are attached to and donning new labels without all that baggage.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on February 18, 2010, 10:20:18 am
Thank you Sean Roach.  You obviously get it. 

Zilabus.  Yes I know their identification and ideas are a lie.  But many of the public do not.  By using their chosen identification, you place them on a moral high ground and limit your arguments.  For how may you disagree with someone who is "Progressive"?  Especially when you are a Right-Wing Extremest?

A case in point.  TransProgs say Gun Control when they mean Prohibition.  No guns for anyone not approved by them.  The only people they approve of is the Military, Police and their private security.  They Military and Police may only carry while on duty and the goal is to disarm the police.

TransProg ideas are dangerous and terms pejorative.  Examples:  Saturday Night Special, Cop Killer Bullets, Assault Weapons, Plastic Guns, to name a few.

TransProgs promote several myths.  1.  A person having a gun is in more danger than the person without one.  2.  Guns are worthless for defense.  3.  A person with a gun is fourteen times more likely to kill another or commit suicide.

The number of cases I investigated where a person having a gun for personal protection who probably would not have been injured, were too many to count.

The few studies on the issue, demonstrate a person armed with a gun is less likely to be injured when attacked, than those who immediately surrender to their attacker(s).  And yes the attackers tend to travel in packs.  One reason I carry a high capacity .45 and various backups.  I've seen the results and not me or mine if I can help it.  As for myth number three;  if a gun makes a person fourteen times more likely to be violent or suicide, then by that logic each gun you own increases that likelihood by fourteen percent.  I passed the 100 percent point twenty-five years ago.  As did a lot of my acquaintances.  None of us committed violent crimes or suicided.  Nationally, less than one tenth of one percent of the private guns in this country, are used in the commission of a crime each year.  The majority of these crimes were committed by a professional criminal class.  A subculture of our society.

TransProgs intend to make you the eternal victim.  Dependent on a government for everything.  Including being told what to think.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on February 18, 2010, 10:37:02 am
In other words turning people into sheeple.  Which IMHO is why Joe Sixpack up till just recently didn't give a rat's butt that the government was racking up multi-trillion dollar debts that will never be paid back (sorry about that China) stripping the citizen of his or her constitutional rights or getting us involved with wars all over the world that we had no business being in.  Some of us who weren't totally brain dead saw this coming a long long time ago and tried to warn people but did they figure it out......NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOO.   >:(
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on February 19, 2010, 04:33:08 pm
Zilabus.  Yes I know their identification and ideas are a lie.  But many of the public do not.  By using their chosen identification, you place them on a moral high ground and limit your arguments.  For how may you disagree with someone who is "Progressive"?  Especially when you are a Right-Wing Extremest?

I disagree.  Using their "chosen identification" is to retain the high ground, rather than give it up .  It is using rhetoric rather than logic; a tactic that both those who are correct and those in error can use with equal facility.

I would no more adopt "TransProg" than I would sanction the appellation "teabagger".  The use of either demeans the speaker/writer.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: wdg3rd on February 20, 2010, 07:22:53 am
Zilabus.  Yes I know their identification and ideas are a lie.  But many of the public do not.  By using their chosen identification, you place them on a moral high ground and limit your arguments.  For how may you disagree with someone who is "Progressive"?  Especially when you are a Right-Wing Extremest?

I disagree.  Using their "chosen identification" is to retain the high ground, rather than give it up .  It is using rhetoric rather than logic; a tactic that both those who are correct and those in error can use with equal facility.

I would no more adopt "TransProg" than I would sanction the appellation "teabagger".  The use of either demeans the speaker/writer.

Two of my nephews are still in southwest Asia (and still alive after three or four tours each [they're in the Army and USAF "reserves"]).  What is the difference between "left" and "right" leadership?  I see none.  The TSA would still shove its fist up my ass if I was desperate enough to attempt to fly anywhere.

I have the moral high ground (I'm an individual, not a member of a group).  So any group with a "leader" sees me as unclaimed livestock,  And of course if I defend myself against the bunch who tries to rustle me, I must be a rogue member of the other herd.

I was born with the high ground, so to hell with weird neologisms.  I call all of the bastards "statists", whether on the left or the right (and looking at them in a mirror, there's not enough difference to matter).  Somebody tell me what a TransProg or a Teabagger is in some dialect of american english.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on February 21, 2010, 04:24:37 am
Perceptions Matter, is a trite expression.  But perceptions do matter when they effect personal interactions.  Most members of a government are "statists".  There are exceptions who work from the inside, to roll back the interference and regulations.  We're rare, but we do exist.

Teabaggers are members of  a movement to limit or repeal taxes and limit government spending.  Their stated goal is to limit the power and size of government.  This movement proudly identifies with the Boston Tea Party.  These people believe in a strong central government.  They are "statists".  While TransProgs use the term "Teabaggers" with derision.  Teabaggers carry their name with pride.

TransProgs (or Tranzies) (shorthand for: Trans-National Progressives. Also known here in the the states as "Progressives") believe in government.  They believe government control is the be all and end all of human existence and interaction.  The goal of the movement, is total governmental control of the individual and thought.   As a result, Civil Liberties and Property rights would not  exist.  Persons espousing this philosophy are in control of both major political parties.

The primary goal of the recent climate change summit in Europe, was to establish a defacto  and punitive world government with police powers.  The current U.N. Small Arms Conference is another attempt at world government.  Much of their funding comes from people like George Soros and Michael Bloomburg.  The Capping Trade and Health Care Reform Bills currently before Congress are other attempts to establish total governmental individual control.

Rhetoric and Logic.  Please  explain a TransProg's ethics, logic and rhetoric with the use of terms:  Assault Weapons, Plastic Guns, Cop Killer Bullets, One Gun a Month Laws, Registration, Special Taxes, Saturday Night Special, and Gun Free Zones.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: MacFall on March 17, 2010, 01:52:35 pm
I propose that we don't use any collective labels at all in discussions, and instead describe the specific principles we hold or oppose. It's okay to use labels when you and those with whom you are speaking know exactly what you mean; otherwise they are worthless. And when you are having a discussion with someone who is not of like mind with yourself, that person will almost certainly misunderstand the labels you use, and vice-versa.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on March 18, 2010, 12:38:59 pm
MacFall,  In a perfect world your idea would not even have to be brought up. 

Ask yourself.  How did the term "Progressive" came into common usage?  Additionally, TransProgs "identify" opposition in negative terms they initiated. 

Please reread my earlier post concerning perceptions and how people opposing a TransProg's views are at a disadvantage. 

It's past time to change this.  Yes I have to explain the definition of "TransProg" and my reason for using the term.  Yes, I hear the same doubts expressed here.  Used consistently and politely, it will spread.  As it spreads, we will remove the elite perception, "Progressive" spreads.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Scalping_Elmo on March 18, 2010, 12:48:26 pm
We already have a word for these folks, and it covers every single flavor of political ideology that stands in opposition to freedom. Heinlein succinctly elucidated that there are only two types, essentially those who wish to control others and those who do not.

So, if we accept that there are only two types, they divide into statists and individualists.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: AnonymousOne on March 20, 2010, 01:19:57 am
So, if we accept that there are only two types, they divide into statists and individualists.

Yes but getting that premise to fly with "normal" people in a discussion of political and economic philosophy is a mighty big task.

I'm just tired of the same things being thrown at me in discussions:  corporatism, monopoly this/monopoly that, anarchy/minarchy = chaos, murder in the streets, etc.

Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: wdg3rd on March 20, 2010, 02:56:29 am
So, if we accept that there are only two types, they divide into statists and individualists.

Yes but getting that premise to fly with "normal" people in a discussion of political and economic philosophy is a mighty big task.

I'm just tired of the same things being thrown at me in discussions:  corporatism, monopoly this/monopoly that, anarchy/minarchy = chaos, murder in the streets, etc.

Learn to ignore the idiots.  Works for me.  Who gives a fuck about "normal" people?  They'll still vote the straight party ticket, whichever half of the Boot-on-your-Neck Party their parents brought them up in or the other half they chose when they "revolted" against their parents.  "Normal" people resist any chance at freedom for themselves or anyone else.  I've given up on conversion.  It took me most of a decade to convince one person (that I was living with and have now been married to for over a decade) that freedom was the best choice.  She's now willing to move to New Hampshire once I can convince her we can live better up there than here in New Jersey where I'm stuck in a dead-end job because I have a medical plan that almost keeps her healthy, where we "own" a house that we can only afford to pay the property taxes on when we rent out the first floor and our current tenant is two months behind in the rent (and it will cost us many hundreds of dollars to get rid of the asshole, because if we fail to pay the property tax, the town can evict us in a week, but to get rid of this guy who doesn't pay rent so we can pay those taxes will take months, despite the numerous police complaints from the neighbors about the noise the asshole makes).

I did another paragraph.  Way off-topic.  I'll post it later, somewhere.  I guess I should go to sleep.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: MacFall on March 23, 2010, 01:21:30 am
MacFall,  In a perfect world your idea would not even have to be brought up. 

Ask yourself.  How did the term "Progressive" came into common usage?  Additionally, TransProgs "identify" opposition in negative terms they initiated. 

Please reread my earlier post concerning perceptions and how people opposing a TransProg's views are at a disadvantage. 

It's past time to change this.  Yes I have to explain the definition of "TransProg" and my reason for using the term.  Yes, I hear the same doubts expressed here.  Used consistently and politely, it will spread.  As it spreads, we will remove the elite perception, "Progressive" spreads.

Any time somebody uses a political label in my presence, I have to ask them what they mean to avoid confusion. Thus political labels serve no constructive linguistic function; rather, they get in the way of productive discussion. The best thing you can do to achieve your apparent goal of undermining the propaganistic functions of labels such as "Progressive" is to ignore them entirely. Coming up with your own only prolongs the process.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on March 23, 2010, 06:24:34 am
Yes, it is a process.  One where the TransProgs set the rules.  We can refuse to play, take our ball and go home.  The TransProgs win by default.

We live and work with "labels" every day.  A form of shorthand for the parties of the discussion.  I'm simply using a term intended to level the field.  Not one initiated  by someone seeking to place me at a disadvantage.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: MacFall on March 23, 2010, 12:17:27 pm
If you use collective labels, you are placing YOURSELF at a disadvantage by obfuscating your meaning. Collective labels are a tool of the people you oppose. You cannot turn them to your own advantage. Skip the name-calling and go straight to your point, because if you don't you'll end up having to explain yourself anyway, but also having lowered your position by calling your opponent names. Intelligent people ought to be above inventing new words to name old concepts, which I repeat, they must then go back and explain anyway.

And besides, as someone else said earlier quoting Heinlein, all this is just a roundabout way of saying (or possibly a way of trying to avoid saying) that there are two types of people: those who want to control others, and those who have no such desire. Anything else is useless, obfuscatory, ambiguous, and basically just name-calling.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on March 24, 2010, 08:27:11 am
We'll have to agree to disagree.  Labels and perceptions do matter to the uninformed.  I didn't start this game, but I intend to win it.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: MacFall on March 24, 2010, 10:44:41 am
Well, it seems to me like trying to beat an arsonist by burning your house down first, but good luck.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: terry_freeman on March 24, 2010, 11:40:43 am
Why not put the "progressives" and "moderates" and "socialists" and ask them to explain what they mean? Ask them to justify the use of coercion to deprive people of freedom of choice. Let them explain the consequences of their actions - being unable to defend oneself, unable to teach one's children, being deprived of funds to support one's chosen activities, in order to support wealthy insurance companies and teachers' unions, etc.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: BMeph on March 25, 2010, 03:15:40 am
Perceptions Matter, is a trite expression.  But perceptions do matter when they effect personal interactions.  Most members of a government are "statists".  There are exceptions who work from the inside, to roll back the interference and regulations.  We're rare, but we do exist.

Teabaggers are members of  a movement to limit or repeal taxes and limit government spending.  Their stated goal is to limit the power and size of government.  This movement proudly identifies with the Boston Tea Party.  These people believe in a strong central government.  They are "statists".  While TransProgs use the term "Teabaggers" with derision.  Teabaggers carry their name with pride.

TransProgs (or Tranzies) (shorthand for: Trans-National Progressives. Also known here in the the states as "Progressives") believe in government.  They believe government control is the be all and end all of human existence and interaction.  The goal of the movement, is total governmental control of the individual and thought.   As a result, Civil Liberties and Property rights would not  exist.  Persons espousing this philosophy are in control of both major political parties.

The primary goal of the recent climate change summit in Europe, was to establish a defacto  and punitive world government with police powers.  The current U.N. Small Arms Conference is another attempt at world government.  Much of their funding comes from people like George Soros and Michael Bloomburg.  The Capping Trade and Health Care Reform Bills currently before Congress are other attempts to establish total governmental individual control.

Rhetoric and Logic.  Please  explain a TransProg's ethics, logic and rhetoric with the use of terms:  Assault Weapons, Plastic Guns, Cop Killer Bullets, One Gun a Month Laws, Registration, Special Taxes, Saturday Night Special, and Gun Free Zones.


...and by "government," we all agree that it's political government, right? Because, we all know that if you can't order someone in a uniform to shoot or arrest someone, then you're not a government, you're just a "club" - er, club as in "country", not as in "obsidian," heh-heh.  :P
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on March 25, 2010, 04:33:00 am
I prefer "Tranzis." I like the double impact you get from a word that sounds like both "Nazi" and "crazy."

(Credit to John Ringo and Tom Kratman, or to whomever they heard it from.)

On the general topic: Words have power. Would you rather eat feces-farmed fungus or mushrooms?  I love mushrooms, but I get queasy when I think about what they are grown in. It's tough to think about anything else when i hear "feces-farmed fungus." Would you rather be an "illegal alien" or an "undocumented immigrant?" One is probably from Mars and about to experiment on your children, while the other person just for their wallet in the car. Anyway, who cares about the paperwork? This is America! Even if you know what people are doing, as in advertising, the words used to describe something can change the way you think about by focusing on a different aspect of the thing or by conditioning you to feel something when you see it.

For a recent practical example look at Joe the Plumber. By forcing Obama to explain just what he wanted to do to America, and using a different and unfavorable term for it, he managed to grab the attention of a lot of Americans. That re-framed the debate, and made people think about what Obama was actually proposing. All it took was somebody saying the magic word to start a trend. Plenty of Republicans quickly pointed out that if you omitted questions of race/religion, there was no difference between the Nazi Party platform and the Democrat platform.

It works in advertising, too. People who bought Marlboros knew that the Marlboro Man was an attempt to get them to feel manly and rugged when they smoked them, but they kept on buying them because Marlboro had successfully created an image. Of course, "Cowboy Killers" was an effective image, too. In advertising, we know that people are trying to create images and perpetuate self-serving myths and ideas. It doesn't mean we don't have a gut/emotion/subliminal reaction to what they say, and that we don't learn to associate the two things (product and emotional reaction,) over time.

Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on March 25, 2010, 06:16:30 am
Tranzis.  Short, simple and to the point. Do you remember what context Ringo and Kratman used it and where?
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on April 11, 2010, 07:28:57 pm
Got a brief story that I would like to share.  Watching Glen Beck last Friday night and he had on a group of college students from the Northeast USA mostly from in or around New York City.  One of the male conservative students spoke about an incident that happened to him when Obama and Clinton were both trying to secure the Democrat nomination.  Obama was coming to the school and another student came up to him all excited and said to him.  "So are you excited to have Obama coming here to the school?"  "Are you going to go to the rally and see him?"   "Not really."  He replies "I'm not going to the rally."  The liberal student says to him "Really, I never knew you were that big of a Hillary Clinton supporter."  Reminds me of the old joke from the original Blues Brothers movie where the woman says "We got both kinds of music here."  "We got country AND we got western."  You just can't make this stuff up.
Title: The term: "Tranzi"
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on April 12, 2010, 10:39:31 am
Tranzis.  Short, simple and to the point. Do you remember what context Ringo and Kratman used it and where?

The essay in the back of Watch on the Rhine is the first time I remember hearing the specific term "Tranzi" used.

For anybody not familiar with Ringo and Kratman, I'll just say this: Were I a woman, I would want to have their children. Since I am not, I will read their books and laugh as Tranzis are eaten by giant yellow aliens.

The Posleen series is full of humor, seemingly unstoppable marauding alien hordes, questionable and even outright hostile allies, blood by the swimming pool, women with guns and rednecks playing with antimatter. It starts with A Hymn Before Battle, and really gets going with Gust Front. I'd recommend it for any male above the age of 12. Seriously, this is a great series, and one of the few alien invasion stories that actually makes sense.

Kratman, by the way, really goes to town on the Tranzis in his new series about a theoretical Space Panamanian (Balboan) mercenary company on a planet called Nova Terra. The A Desert Called Peace/Carnifex series takes place on a planet populated with deadly flora and fauna that are hostile to intelligent life, like progressivines, tranzitrees, etc. Earth is basically a Tranzi playground, where Amnesty International trades slaves and troublesome populations have all been shipped to Nova Terra. Nova Terra is basically Earth in the late 90's/early noughts. The Salafis are going to war against the USA equivalent, and the Balboans are hired to fight them. Good fun, particularly the wood chipper.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: terry_freeman on April 13, 2010, 12:19:21 am
QUOTE: One of the male conservative students spoke about an incident that happened to him when Obama and Clinton were both trying to secure the Democrat nomination.  Obama was coming to the school and another student came up to him all excited and said to him.  "So are you excited to have Obama coming here to the school?"  "Are you going to go to the rally and see him?"   "Not really."  He replies "I'm not going to the rally."  The liberal student says to him "Really, I never knew you were that big of a Hillary Clinton supporter."

Love the story. Now you know how I feel about folks who assume that I must be enthusiastic about voting for Evil Candidate D or Evil Candidate R.

It's like a rape victim: you must choose orifice A or B.

My answer: Mu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative%29
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: wdg3rd on April 13, 2010, 07:55:04 am

It's like a rape victim: you must choose orifice A or B.


Rape victims (along with taxpayers) are rarely given a choice.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on April 13, 2010, 10:12:24 am
I've said this before, in that case my choice is C.  If only a Republican or Democract is running my choice which I write underneath is "none of the above".  If a Libertarian or Constitution party candidate is on the ballot I vote for them.  (Libertarian has preference) and I will usually at least give an independant candidate the benefit ot the doubt if I don't know anything about him or her.
  Some people think I'm wasting my vote, well it MY VOTE to waste and at least I can look in the mirror the next morning and know that my vote won't be sending America down to it's doom.   :'(
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: sams on April 13, 2010, 10:28:53 am
I've said this before, in that case my choice is C.  If only a Republican or Democract is running my choice which I write underneath is "none of the above".  If a Libertarian or Constitution party candidate is on the ballot I vote for them.  (Libertarian has preference) and I will usually at least give an independant candidate the benefit ot the doubt if I don't know anything about him or her.
  Some people think I'm wasting my vote, well it MY VOTE to waste and at least I can look in the mirror the next morning and know that my vote won't be sending America down to it's doom.   :'(

But you are then splinting the Conservative Vote !  :-[ and helping tha filthy democrat get elected  >:(

The only effective way of being an impact is not to vote or court the morons in office to do the right thing .... but to change the opinion of the public .... in this EFT, Reason magazine, Cato or who ever who carry any libertarian message is doing his part !

Sure the gang D-R rape won't end in the US so sooonn .... Sorry but I just remenbered that my local dictator decide to confiscate 10% of my income through inflation .... gotta go hide that wealth somewhere I will never afford the ticket to the US were .... I can then be gang rapped by R-D's .... who is the moron who said that life was fair  :'(
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on April 13, 2010, 02:29:19 pm
But you are then splinting the Conservative Vote !  :-[ and helping tha filthy democrat get elected  >:(
 Are you actually serious??!!  >:(  
Don't you realize that if I do what your suggesting that I'm helping a filthy republican get in instead?

The only effective way of being an impact is not to vote or court the morons in office to do the right thing .... but to change the opinion of the public .... in this EFT, Reason magazine, Cato or who ever who carry any libertarian message is doing his part !  
 Sams, appearently you don't know me but I've been a Libertarian Party county chairman and a vice-presidential speechwriter for the 1992 presidential election.  I spent 13 years in the LP trenches fighting to "change the opinion of the public".    Can you honestly say that your not going to vote for a filthy democrat but for a republican that is going to fund bigger more intrustive government, strip Americans of their GOD given rights and get us into more undeclared wars and feel good about yourself the next morning?

Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: sams on April 14, 2010, 02:10:01 am
But you are then splinting the Conservative Vote !  :-[ and helping tha filthy democrat get elected  >:(
 Are you actually serious??!!  >:(  
Don't you realize that if I do what your suggesting that I'm helping a filthy republican get in instead?

The only effective way of being an impact is not to vote or court the morons in office to do the right thing .... but to change the opinion of the public .... in this EFT, Reason magazine, Cato or who ever who carry any libertarian message is doing his part !  
 Sams, appearently you don't know me but I've been a Libertarian Party county chairman and a vice-presidential speechwriter for the 1992 presidential election.  I spent 13 years in the LP trenches fighting to "change the opinion of the public".    Can you honestly say that your not going to vote for a filthy democrat but for a republican that is going to fund bigger more intrustive government, strip Americans of their GOD given rights and get us into more undeclared wars and feel good about yourself the next morning?

Sorry for not having failed in the tone of my joke ;D

I appreciate your work and it is exactly the kind of stuff that matter really :) Sorry
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Azure Priest on April 14, 2010, 08:08:09 am
Teabaggers are members of  a movement to limit or repeal taxes and limit government spending.  Their stated goal is to limit the power and size of government.  This movement proudly identifies with the Boston Tea Party.  These people believe in a strong central government.  They are "statists".  While TransProgs use the term "Teabaggers" with derision.  Teabaggers carry their name with pride.

Correction: The name of the movement is "TEA PARTYERS" as referenced in the US history, where a group of colonists, disguised as "Indians" poured all the tea in Boston into the harbor to protests King George's iron fisted tax policy on the colonies. AKA "taxation without representation." While the tax itself was small, the idea that King George or some "nobles" in Brittain could pass the tax without the colonists' concerns being given any voice or creed (look at how "health care" was "passed") really stuck in the craw of the founders. The incident became known as the "BOSTON TEA PARTY."

The term "Tea Baggers," which the Obama cronies like to use, is a vulgar term for a (perverse) sexual act. It's a high handed, undisguised attempt to marginalize the 60-80% of the American people (depending on which poll you visit) who oppose OBAMACARE both in the content of the legislation and the methods used to pass it against the will of the people.

Previous to this thread, I have not heard the name "TRANSPROG," but considering which sexual lifestyles these people are on record as actively supporting (anything less in their eyes is "judgemental" and "intollerant/ bigoted," if not "homophobic.") the term seems to fit.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on April 14, 2010, 09:25:30 am


Sorry for not having failed in the tone of my joke ;D

I appreciate your work and it is exactly the kind of stuff that matter really :) Sorry
  Apology accepted Sams.  I think I too probably made too much out of the comment and for that I apologize to you as well.   :-[
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: pendothrax on April 14, 2010, 05:30:23 pm
Not to be critical, but the last Libertarian Party candidate i saw was a failed republican with support for the war on common sense(drugs), severe anti gay tendencies, and just alot of more standard republican baggage than libertarian principles.  What i have seen tends to have the political party moving well away from the philosophy involved.  Perhaps we should start over with the KYFHO party?    see the following link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Paul_Wilson
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Frank B. on April 14, 2010, 08:35:20 pm
Not to be critical, but the last Libertarian Party candidate i saw was a failed republican with support for the war on common sense(drugs), severe anti gay tendencies, and just alot of more standard republican baggage than libertarian principles.  What i have seen tends to have the political party moving well away from the philosophy involved.  Perhaps we should start over with the KYFHO party?    see the following link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Paul_Wilson

This is the problem with political parties, their prime function is to win elections.  What the LP has gone through is neither surprising, nor appears to be avoidable.   As the Whig party evolved into the Republican party, so could the LP evolve into a new "conservative" party.  Oy.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: terry_freeman on April 15, 2010, 12:28:22 am
I also have spent a lot of years in the trenches, trying to "win" by political means. Ask the Pittsburgh and Orange County Libertarian Party organizations, which I chaired at different times.

Eventually, I realized that I was fighting the wrong battle. The way to downsize government is unlikely to be the election of "good" candidates - even if we could find a few hundred solid libertarian candidates.

The real power of the government is not in the White House, it is not in the halls of Congress; it is not the police, nor the military.

The power of the government is in the consent given by the people who outnumber the government 100 to 1. Without that consent, that willingness to "move along, there's nothing to see here", the government would be powerless.

To that end, I have been promoting self-empowerment. Teach your own children. Do not send them to government schools. Defend yourself. Do not call 9-1-1 for help. Get to know your neighbors, and rely upon them instead. Provide for your financial security with your own efforts and your own voluntary associations.

When enough of us do that, it will become obvious that we have no need for the government. We will withdraw consent en masse.

Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: sams on April 15, 2010, 04:43:14 am
elections are not the PRIME METHOD of changing society .... they just happen to confirm changes

The only effective way is to triumph Libertarian ideals in culture and academic .... then one day ... this will reflect in a weird election when 25% of congress are fierce anarchist and POTUS is Libertarian

But lets not forget that elections are a great way of exposing libertarian ideals, while Ron Paul knows that He will never be elected POTUS, he run to take advantage of all the free publicity and give the US a raw dose of Libertarianism
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on April 15, 2010, 06:28:38 pm
In the 2008 election I didn't vote for Bob Barr, the LP candidate.  I held my nose and voted for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.  I still suspect that Barr obtained the nomination just so he could do some payback to the political party that helped kick him out of congress in the first place and his having seen the "light of liberty" so to speak was just an act.  He sure didn't do much campaigning after his LP nomination win.  His statist roots (drug "warrior" and so on)  as far as I'm concerned just simply go too deep for him to change his stripes overnight like that.  >:(
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on April 16, 2010, 01:07:03 am
Politics evolve.  People change.  We hope to survive.  Leaving the world a better place for our kids.

The TransProg / Tranzi government is currently attempting to remove our options for the control of our lives.  What they didn't expect was the reaction by the population and the growing unrest.  People are getting pissed and organized.  Voices are getting louder and heard. 

Twenty years ago, flying a plane into an IRS Office would not have been considered a viable form of protest.  (Stupid.  Stupid.  Stupid.)  We're already seeing changes as various subjects are discussed.  The subject language has begun to change.  Government supported viewpoints are no longer blindly accepted.   Even as the government propaganda machine and it's supporters attempt to demonize opposition. 

It's not going to be "pretty" and people on both sides will not "play fair".

New opportunities to introduce Libertarian Ideas and Ideals.  To their surprise, people will begin to listen and think.  Change will happen as people are educated and begin to believe.  Every lasting societal change developed slowly, gaining acceptance, eventually enactment and empowerment.

It's late, I'm tired and not thinking as well as I would like.  But I still have hope, we'll leave a better world to our kids.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on April 16, 2010, 08:37:17 am
In the 2008 election I didn't vote for Bob Barr, the LP candidate.  I held my nose and voted for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.  I still suspect that Barr obtained the nomination just so he could do some payback to the political party that helped kick him out of congress in the first place and his having seen the "light of liberty" so to speak was just an act.  He sure didn't do much campaigning after his LP nomination win.  His statist roots (drug "warrior" and so on)  as far as I'm concerned just simply go too deep for him to change his stripes overnight like that.  >:(

This is certainly understandable; I debated the issue deeply as well.  I finally ended up voting Barr (or rather, his slate of electors) because Penn Gillette though that Bob's "conversion" was legitimate.

As for voting in general, I do so with the express goal of maximizing deadlock.  It doesn't really solve any problems, but at least it delays some of the more egregious attacks on freedom while folks catch on to what is happening.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Frank B. on April 16, 2010, 04:51:27 pm
I finally ended up voting Barr (or rather, his slate of electors) because Penn Gillette though that Bob's "conversion" was legitimate.

Penn Gillette supported Barr?  Must have been Bob's cheesy mustache.  ;)


Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on April 16, 2010, 09:34:47 pm
I didn't know that Penn who is a well known Libertarian had supported Barr, but to me that really wouldn't have made a difference in my voting.  When you look at Bob Barr's long record as a Georgia congressman, the kind of legislation that he voted for and against and the fact that the Libertarian Party in Georgia successfully targeted him for defeat, I find it nearly impossible to believe that Barr had "switched sides".  My opinion, and I have nothing to support this, is that Barr wanted to "pay back" the LP for his congressional election defeat by pretending to join them, getting the nomination for president and then doing almost nothing during the campaign thus wasting an opportunity for the LP to grab some attention and support.  Add to that the disgraceful way that he snubbed Ron Paul, the one man that if he had treated respectfully might have given his endorsment (and later what came to be Tea Party support) and it fits, at least to me, that Barr is and was a wolf in sheep's clothing.   >:(
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: SandySandfort on April 16, 2010, 10:43:11 pm
I finally ended up voting Barr (or rather, his slate of electors) because Penn Gillette though that Bob's "conversion" was legitimate.

Penn Gillette supported Barr?  Must have been Bob's cheesy mustache.  ;)

I just asked Penn and he says he said some nice things and Barr visited him back state, but that he really didn't get on board. That seems consistent from what I know about Penn.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: sams on April 17, 2010, 07:35:13 am
I finally ended up voting Barr (or rather, his slate of electors) because Penn Gillette though that Bob's "conversion" was legitimate.

Penn Gillette supported Barr?  Must have been Bob's cheesy mustache.  ;)

I just asked Penn and he says he said some nice things and Barr visited him back state, but that he really didn't get on board. That seems consistent from what I know about Penn.

Has a foreigner and not so biased like an actual American, I can only say that Penn ''Bull Shit'' have far more influence than Bob Barr would ever have ... so this is like Jordan endorsing me to play the All-Stars

From the few I can see through the internet, Glenn Beck, John Stossel, Penn and all the other media liberianish guys are having a far greater impact than any politicians. Than there is Cato, Mises, Reason and the like are the second contributors and giving the intellectual ammunitions

The only real contribution from libertarian politician are the one made by Ron Paul, who despite never winning, his able to project the ideas by taking advantage of his positions and electoral media coverage...

Political electoral victories are only secondary and consequences of effective change ... from the contributions of all the above and more, Libertarian politicians can be elected in almost all party .... but expecting a ''rise'' of the libertarian party is just playing the usual Blue/Red team game
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on April 17, 2010, 06:34:13 pm
It's starting to get interesting out there.  A survey just came out that shocked the establishment.  According to the poll a matchup between Obama and Ron Paul in 2012 would be Obama 42% and Paul 41%.  Needless to say that the poll has not only a lot of liberal democrats but alot of non-conservative republicans soiling themselves.  I think that in 2012 Ron Paul will decide not to run as president mainly because of his age, but his son Rand who is in the lead as Kentucky's next senator may indeed decide to run for president and may just win.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: sams on April 18, 2010, 08:28:13 am
It's starting to get interesting out there.  A survey just came out that shocked the establishment.  According to the poll a matchup between Obama and Ron Paul in 2012 would be Obama 42% and Paul 41%.  Needless to say that the poll has not only a lot of liberal democrats but alot of non-conservative republicans soiling themselves.  I think that in 2012 Ron Paul will decide not to run as president mainly because of his age, but his son Rand who is in the lead as Kentucky's next senator may indeed decide to run for president and may just win.

I would doubt if the US had not elected a completly unquallified senator for POTUS  ;D

But like a comedian of the name of Caliendo said to Glenn Beck, people are just so sick of career politicians that they may elect a dude like Ron Paul ... But Rand is too fresh for this, maybe Gary Johnson will be the one to take this race by surprise
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Heinlein Libertarian on April 18, 2010, 08:59:11 am
I'll say it once, because it has to be said:

If the Libertarians would give up the "no initiation of force" pledge and accept a military, they would have almost every member of the Tea Party and a goodly number of Republicans voting for them in a heartbeat.

There are a great number of furious Republicans out there who want to elect people who are determined to dramatically cut spending, regulation, and who want to appoint judges who believe that almost every act of Congress since Coolidge has been unconstitutional. People know the Libertarians are serious about this, but they are not going to vote for them if they are not serious about defending the country. "We'll all stay home and pretend tat people are not trying to kill us" is not a foreign policy, it is a suicidally stupid thing to do.

Call me a statist, but it's true: People will not vote for the Libertarians until they learn to love the Armed Forces.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: sams on April 18, 2010, 01:05:42 pm
I'll say it once, because it has to be said:

If the Libertarians would give up the "no initiation of force" pledge and accept a military, they would have almost every member of the Tea Party and a goodly number of Republicans voting for them in a heartbeat.

There are a great number of furious Republicans out there who want to elect people who are determined to dramatically cut spending, regulation, and who want to appoint judges who believe that almost every act of Congress since Coolidge has been unconstitutional. People know the Libertarians are serious about this, but they are not going to vote for them if they are not serious about defending the country. "We'll all stay home and pretend tat people are not trying to kill us" is not a foreign policy, it is a suicidally stupid thing to do.

Call me a statist, but it's true: People will not vote for the Libertarians until they learn to love the Armed Forces.

I think you should take things under context : This is a completely theoretical discussion about principle of Libertarianism ... not a political declaration ... we are talking about hypothesis and trying to redefine the boundaries of the possible

so let me clarify in practical/political terms:

1- Libertarian doesn't hate the military, the just believe it should defend the country instead of patrolling the world, they ''love the military more than the wars''.

2- Libertarian believe in the right to response in case of attack

3- In all practical  purpose, no country in the world is able to even attempt an attack against the US and Libertarian with in charge would likely push for more Nuclear Deterrence, which means that any attacker is Nuclear ash before dinner.

4- Libertarian foreign policy is being slowly accepted and one of the sign is conversion of Glenn Beck to a Ron Paul style of foreign policy : Defence and not Offence

The non-interventionist policy is good, it just need a good selling and marketing

PS: don't be bothered by the ''You are Statist'' stuff, it is almost always the shouted by self-righteous immature people
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on April 18, 2010, 01:23:38 pm
I would doubt if the US had not elected a completly unquallified senator for POTUS  ;D

But like a comedian of the name of Caliendo said to Glenn Beck, people are just so sick of career politicians that they may elect a dude like Ron Paul ... But Rand is too fresh for this, maybe Gary Johnson will be the one to take this race by surprise

Uh, Sams... I don't think that argument is in any way justified.  I'll be remiss if I didn't point out that Obama! spent what only a short time as a state representive in Illinois and I think just two years as a U.S. senator before he was elected President.  That may not be "completely unqualified senator" to you but it is to me.  I also believe that people are sick and tired of Washington insiders and what they stand for and it anyone can pull it off its Rand Paul.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: sams on April 18, 2010, 03:23:39 pm
I would doubt if the US had not elected a completly unquallified senator for POTUS  ;D

But like a comedian of the name of Caliendo said to Glenn Beck, people are just so sick of career politicians that they may elect a dude like Ron Paul ... But Rand is too fresh for this, maybe Gary Johnson will be the one to take this race by surprise

Uh, Sams... I don't think that argument is in any way justified.  I'll be remiss if I didn't point out that Obama! spent what only a short time as a state representive in Illinois and I think just two years as a U.S. senator before he was elected President.  That may not be "completely unqualified senator" to you but it is to me.  I also believe that people are sick and tired of Washington insiders and what they stand for and it anyone can pull it off its Rand Paul.

My point is that the "completely unqualified senator" IS OBAMA

The dude got real political talent but we must understand that this is his first real assignement

About Rand, I don't know much about him, but he looks like his father to smart and on the issues ... and maybe with some training He could oust Obama ... but He doesn't look like He is going to do so
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: wdg3rd on April 18, 2010, 04:35:06 pm
I'll say it once, because it has to be said:

If the Libertarians would give up the "no initiation of force" pledge and accept a military, they would have almost every member of the Tea Party and a goodly number of Republicans voting for them in a heartbeat.


The Zero Aggression Principle comes first.  The Pee Party and their Republican butt-buddies can go home and do whatever they do behind closed doors.  (I neither want to watch nor report, unlike them).
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: wdg3rd on April 18, 2010, 04:56:15 pm

Call me a statist, but it's true: People will not vote for the Libertarians until they learn to love the Armed Forces.

I spent my four in the USAF.  I have no love for the Armed Forces.  Deal with it.  La Esposa is probably a better shot than you are.

(She's better than me, and I'm damned good).

Yes, I will not hesitate to call you a statist.  And I don't give a rat's ass how the majority chooses, I'm not part of it (if they attack me and I need to defend myself, it's a target-rich scenario and I can only die once).  (La Esposa will be upstairs and I just mentioned she's better than I am, we'll have a bunch of escorts to Hell).
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on April 19, 2010, 09:35:00 am
"My point is that the "completely unqualified senator" IS OBAMA"  
Sorry.  I should have noticed the smiley face, don't know why I didn't.  And your right of course.  If you have never read any articles by Doug Casey (International Spectulator) you need to.  He puts out a free e-mail usually about once a week called "Conversations with Casey"
He points out that Obama in his opinion isn't just doing the wrong thing regarding the economy of the United States, he doing the exact opposite of what's right.  As a community activest and organizer he has ZERO business experience yet he seem to think that the United States government can run insurance companies, car companies and the like.  I'm doing this from memory alone, but if I remember correctly in 1990 the federal government took over the opportunity of the Bunny Ranch in Nevada for non payment of taxes by the owner.  In just two years the Bunny Ranch went out of business.  Let me just point out that if the government can't run a business at a profit that sells nookie and cheap booze that it has no business being in charge of anything.   >:(
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on April 21, 2010, 01:29:12 am
I remember that one.   You're correct.  The government bankrupted the "Bunny Ranch" is less than two years.  I believe it was torn down and the property sold at auction.  I think the property was used a set in one of the "Gumball Ralley" movies, before it was torn down.

I've always wondered how the government was able to prove a business which operates largely in cash was evading taxes.  Remember, the IRS has their own courts.....  Kind of obvious isn't it.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on April 21, 2010, 10:06:22 pm
Dough: I don't think that I remember readng that it was torn down.  I thought that the property was later bought by someone else who turned it into what it had been before but payed the taxes and kept out of the government's s**t list.  Could be wrong though.  ;D
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on April 23, 2010, 12:50:25 am
We can only hope.  Fantasies of one kind or another should be a part of everyone's life.

Part of my former job was patrolling the Mannheim Brothels.  Doing so, I met some of the most beautiful and plainest women I've ever seen.  Some were collage students working their way through college or doing studies of their clients.  Others were just people who gave value with service.  People who were just nice to talk with.  Others were worse than a rabid Wolverine (They usually didn't stay around long).

One notable thing about their operations.  As an organized market place, several rules were strictly enforced.  As a result we had 18 cases of Sexually Transmitted Diseases during a year long study and tracking of public health records.

I met people who enjoyed their work and did their best for their customers.  These ladies were the most popular and highest paid.  Some liked the money and could not find another job which paid as well with their available skills and training.  These ladies did OK.  Others hated what they did, came for the money, but usually didn't stay around long, and had the lowest earnings.

These ladies worked within the law providing a requested service.  Unfortunately so many of our laws are a result of someone's desire to control another.

 
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: terry_freeman on April 23, 2010, 02:05:07 am
Do not confuse "no initiation of force" with "no military" -- what part of "initiation" did you fail to understand? We don't go around beating up people, but anyone who initiates force against us will suffer dearly.

What applies personally applies to nations. Switzerland "goes not abroad in search of monsters to slay", but is thoroughly prepared to defend itself.

A libertarian government in America, likewise, would reclaim that phrase from John Q. Adams, and would defend itself far more cheaply than this bizarre politicized  POS bunch at the Pentagon, which is more interested in buying support from every Congresscritter than in a cost-effective defense.

Ron Paul, and other libertarian politicians are minarchists. Before you rule out libertarians, exercise enough neurons to understand the difference between minarchists and ancap, which have two different notions about who should provide defense.

Ancaps have the more consistent set of principles; knowing that governments are incompetent at everything else, it seems stupid to trust governments to provide defense.  If for some reason you disagree with that analysis, you can comfort yourself with the notion that minarchists would support a continuation of a right-sized goobermint-type military, dismaying as that prospect seems to me.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: sams on April 23, 2010, 06:27:19 am
Ancaps have the more consistent set of principles; knowing that governments are incompetent at everything else, it seems stupid to trust governments to provide defense.  If for some reason you disagree with that analysis, you can comfort yourself with the notion that minarchists would support a continuation of a right-sized goobermint-type military, dismaying as that prospect seems to me.


I believe that minarchies is a necessary step towards ancap ... since who ever jump from normal view points to anarchy generally end up being a social anarchist ... which is a stupid oxymoron

So instead of torpedoing the Libertarian from the right, anarchist could support them when possible and question them when necessary, but all in way to gain more minds, not by alienating them  ;)
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on April 23, 2010, 09:48:30 am
We can only hope.  Fantasies of one kind or another should be a part of everyone's life.

I met people who enjoyed their work and did their best for their customers.  These ladies were the most popular and highest paid.  Some liked the money and could not find another job which paid as well with their available skills and training.  These ladies did OK.  Others hated what they did, came for the money, but usually didn't stay around long, and had the lowest earnings.

  When you think about it that's usually the case for other service industries as well, the ones with the most positive outlook, the best smile and pleasent manner are usually the ones who make the most from their customers.  Waitressing comes to mind.  ;)
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Sean Roach on April 23, 2010, 04:43:53 pm
I figure if enough differences developed in the laws of the various states, there'd be enough population movement to the more comfortable states, which would tend to be the freer states, that the other states would soften their own regulations in order to compete.
To me, a federal law, pushed by the states, is an attempt to cement the playing field so no one has to actually compete.

Competition is rarely good for the provider in the short run.  The producer has to work to keep their edge, or even to stay in the middle of the pack.  It does pay off later in more efficient methods, but those are several pay cycles away.
Competition is good for the consumer, in that it gives them the opportunity to choose what is best FOR THEM out of the available choices.  Eventually, it gives them superior choices, as the producers compete to win them over.
Forcing lack of competition is good for the producer in the short run, and since wealth tends to be measured relatively, (as in, in comparison to the wealth of others,) tends to be good for the established producers as well.

Government provides a range of services.  It is, however, not a buffet.  You can't choose to take a serving of military protection, a serving of police protection, and a side dish of playgrounds for the kids.  You have to pay up front for a serving of everything.  So long as there is no competition, there is no reason to reduce the costs, in order to reduce the prices of those services, and in many cases reasons to pad both in order to satisfy other desires.
I don't think government is BAD, but I feel government needs real competition.  I want to see the 50 states as States again, and not as dependent counties marching to a Federal drum.

I want Texas to legalize wide spread gambling, and Arkansas to legalize underage drinking, and watch Oklahoma decide whether or not they get, or keep, more productive workers if they do likewise, or if they provide a haven from such vices.
And if the coasts stay full of socialist radicals, fine.  The weather is nice enough.  Certainly some Americans have moved to China in pursuit of lucrative jobs.  Just keep their policies out of mine, and others, back yards.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on April 23, 2010, 06:17:32 pm
Government provides a range of services.  It is, however, not a buffet.  You can't choose to take a serving of military protection, a serving of police protection, and a side dish of playgrounds for the kids.  You have to pay up front for a serving of everything.  

This prompts me to bring up a concept I came up with a couple of months ago, when contemplating the concept of "democracy".  What I concluded is there are really (at least) two forms of democracy:


For those who are concerned about using the term  "anarchist", they can instead identify themselves as "market democrats" and supporters of a government based entirely on "market democracy" with a position identical to that of "anarcho capitalists", or other often equally confusing terms.

If  you like the terminology, please feel free to use and propagate it.  [/list]
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: nottheowl on April 24, 2010, 03:10:54 am
Historically, whatever you call 'em, they make the term their own. "Tory", "gothic", "hippy", even "scientist" were once terms of abuse. Perhaps the recent tendency to censor terms deemed "politically incorrect" has ended this; I seem to recal that "dyke" was almost claimed by the community involved, but never became mainstream.

I'm personally too exercised by the question "what am I?" to concern myself with "what are they?" and tend to restrict myself to "what do you intend and have you considered the long term consequences of success?"

On the other hand, one sounds terribly confrontational using that last phrase in a conversation.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: wdg3rd on April 25, 2010, 09:26:16 am
Historically, whatever you call 'em, they make the term their own. "Tory", "gothic", "hippy", even "scientist" were once terms of abuse. Perhaps the recent tendency to censor terms deemed "politically incorrect" has ended this; I seem to recal that "dyke" was almost claimed by the community involved, but never became mainstream.

Just as folks with sub-Saharan ancestors are free to call each other "nigger", the terms "dyke", "faggot" and others are freely used between members of their respective communities.  It's simply not acceptable for an outsider (unless that outsider is a close friend) to use them.

And in some circles (Green, Fundy), "scientist" is still (or again) a term of abuse.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: NemoUtopia on June 30, 2010, 05:50:42 pm
Historically, whatever you call 'em, they make the term their own. "Tory", "gothic", "hippy", even "scientist" were once terms of abuse. Perhaps the recent tendency to censor terms deemed "politically incorrect" has ended this; I seem to recal that "dyke" was almost claimed by the community involved, but never became mainstream.

Just as folks with sub-Saharan ancestors are free to call each other "nigger", the terms "dyke", "faggot" and others are freely used between members of their respective communities.  It's simply not acceptable for an outsider (unless that outsider is a close friend) to use them.

And in some circles (Green, Fundy), "scientist" is still (or again) a term of abuse.


Okay, I'm bringing this up because I'm genuinely curious: how does this fly? The only way I can see this working as it does is because of the PC movement to censor offensive speech having succeeded in making people ashamed to be caught using an 'offensive' word. Speaking as someone who doesn't give a damn except for the practical reality of using said terms around those that would take violent offense, it's just really confusing for me. How do people justify such a double standard, most especially those groups that are FIGHTING double standards? It's one thing to claim a word and take the insult as a compliment, it's quite another to preform the "that is OUR word!!!" phenomena.

I am immediately minded every time I think about it of the Star Trek [Original Series] episode "The Savage Curtain" where where 'Abraham Lincoln' refers to Uhura as a 'charming Negress' and then apologizes for "politically correct" reasons. Her response is that it has been learned not to fear words. Incidentally, this is the episode that led Nichelle Nichols to openly accuse Rodenberry of writing 'morality plays in space', to which he laughed and shushed her saying something to the effect of 'don't let the producers know, they haven't caught on yet.'

Of course, I'm also minded of Rush Hour and the 'what up, my N-word?' scene. How would this concept of lingual importance affect a society like the Belt in EFT? Certainly we have seen the concept of honor play into such matters in 'mountain societies' (I'm thinking the Celts and the South/Appalachia here, clans and kinsmen and feuds), but in a more advanced AnCap society like the Belt...I confess I simply can't think completely through all the implications myself at this point. Handled at the completely individual level? How would such be ruled in arbitration if a dispute did arise? That sort of thing.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Scott on July 02, 2010, 05:45:18 pm
It comes down to historical power relationships.

Historically, words like "nigger" or "spic" or "wop" or "kike" were used by whites to remind people of the targeted ethnic groups that they were social inferiors. And before equal-rights legislation, social inferiority carried with it a formal legal inferiority more damaging (and often lethal) than the informal inferiority suffered by these people today. These were words used to tell people, "you're not a real person, like I am, you're just a nigger/spic/wop/kike/faggot/whatever."

And so, they contained a strong pain-association which carries over to the present.

These oppressed groups generally tried to mitigate the psychic damage of these words by claiming them as their own, and using them among people in their own group. I can't say how well this has worked, although I do know that the practice is controversial within those groups. Some black people object to other blacks using the word "nigger" in any context. Some suggest that the acceptance of these terms in-group is more a sign that people have internalized their own oppression.

Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on July 02, 2010, 10:23:54 pm
Reminds me of an incident that happened to me in West Palm Beach a number of years ago.  I had pulled up my car at a Walgrens at the same time as another  man was getting out of his.  I was gathering up my coupons and he was about 20 feet in front of me as we both entered the store.  Another black man about the same age as him came out of the store saw him and started calling him every name in the book including a few names that you simply don't say unless you want to fight.  After a few seconds the first man made a few comments about the others mother and wife.  I figured for sure that any second one of them would either pull and knife or gun on the other.  Instead, they both laughed, through their arms around each other and slapped each other on the back.  I kind of wonder what would have happened though if one of them was wrong on their identification of the other and the second assumed that those were fighting words.  I know I did.   :P
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: terry_freeman on July 04, 2010, 11:43:04 pm
I think the two guys must have known each other personally; I have seen similar cases where one guy just rips into another, who then responds, and it's a way of saying "we are such good buddies that we can play these crazy games with each other for fun." Usually they're "blood brothers" in the military or college or something of the sort.

"Why, you old SOB! What are you doing here?"

"I just got back from a great time with your wife - she says you're not hardly doing your bit in bed any more, so I had to lend a hand, old man."

"Well thanks, bro, it's good to have somebody taking care of important business in this town."

Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on July 05, 2010, 10:05:12 am
They had to have known each other personally.  You don't use the kind of language that they did to each other unless you are willing to sacrifice your life to the other.  I figure they were old military buddies who hadn't seen each other for quite some time.  I know that if someone that I didn't know well had called me those names my reply would have been something like "Okay, Mother****er it's on!!!"
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on July 11, 2010, 02:18:27 am
The people I know well enough to tolerate that kind of behavior from, know better than to do it.  I don't "joke around" that way and don't care for it.  To me it shows a lack of respect.  For the person being insulted and the lack of respect for for himself, by the person doing the insulting. 
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on July 11, 2010, 08:14:17 pm
I don't either.  I was raised by my grandparents and my great grandmother.  Back then that kind of behavior was simply not accepted under any circumstances.  Even playing a harmless practical joke on someone was frowned on severely.  I won't do it to other people and I expect them not to do it to me.  A lot of things have changed since I grew up and was that age...and not for the better.  >:(
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on July 12, 2010, 03:46:47 am
When we grew up, that kind of behavior would get you a sore rear and or a your mouth washed out with soap from the nearest adult.  Never mind what your parents would do.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on July 12, 2010, 10:24:34 am
Yea.  Just look at the TV series Jackass and Punk'd.  If those two shows don't encourage bad behavior I don't know what does.   >:(
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: quadibloc on July 12, 2010, 09:02:48 pm
Do not confuse "no initiation of force" with "no military" -- what part of "initiation" did you fail to understand?
The assumption is that a military would always require taxation, even if you can have one without conscription.

While the Second Amendment is not meant just for militia members, the kind of citizen militia it refers to is, of course, outside most present-day experience. Even if Libya, a dictatorship by all reports, pretends to have one.

So it isn't initiation that was not understood, but rather that the understanding of military was not general enough.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: terry_freeman on July 13, 2010, 08:29:58 pm
A militia does not require taxation. It can be organized as a voluntary, self-funded organization. Do Civil War re-enactors rely on taxes? If the government did not prevent people from using larger military equipment, militia groups would fund it themselves.

The Founder's idea of the militia was that it should be strong enough to defeat the federal army; otherwise, it was a pointless exercise, since it was meant to provide for the security of a free state. This is spelled out in detail in one of the Federalist Papers.

Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on July 14, 2010, 12:17:19 am
Without the tax burden we carry, militia members in a free society would have the resources for effective  weapons.  Training and motivation will supply the rest.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: J Thomas on July 14, 2010, 01:37:46 am
Without the tax burden we carry, militia members in a free society would have the resources for effective  weapons.  Training and motivation will supply the rest.

You talk as if this is necessarily so. When the latest weapons depend on whatever current technology provides, though, I think it is a toss up. Sometimes the most effective weapons will be affordable. Sometimes they will not.

Militias will probably not afford warplanes that gulp down 1800 gallons an hour. They will need to find ways to win without those. If that sort of thing actually does lead to victory (I think sometimes it will, and sometimes not) then when the technology swings that way they can't face a state that is willing to spend that kind of money.

However, it might turn out that libertarian ideology will spread well enough to reduce that threat. Nations that spend heavily for weapons might become extra vulnerable; their people might be extra likely to disband their governments and also their expensive militaries.

And in the worst case, if relatively cheap militias can put off defeat long enough, expensive government militaries might start to fail. We've seen that in Vietnam, in Afghanistan with the USSR and the USA both, etc. That's hard on the militias and on the civilian populations. The more the general population gets bothered about the war, though, the more they'll contribute to their militias. You probably can't build things like SOTA warplanes quickly, not to mention training etc. But you might get large quantities of anything that's quick to produce.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: terry_freeman on July 14, 2010, 07:58:47 am
Uh, where does the government get the resources for warplanes, etc? From taxpayers. When taxes end, do those resources go up in smoke?

In times past, private entrepreneurs funded warships, cannon, all the state-of-the-art military resources needed.

Are you certain that the government - which suffers from the socialist calculation problem ( google it! ) - is using resources efficiently? Is it possible that it spends hundreds of billions of dollars not out of economic necessity, not because this is the most efficient way to solve the problem, but because it does not know how to solve the problem efficiently?
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on July 14, 2010, 09:50:54 am
Besides it doesn't take an fighter jet to destroy another fighter jet.  There are man-portable missles such as the stinger or the Russian version called IgLa-S.  I also seem to remember that during the Biafra civil war one side used the Malmo MFI-9B trainer (which is in the same class as the Cessna 150) armed with rockets to destroy a number of Mig jet fighters that were sitting on the ground being refueled.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on July 15, 2010, 02:18:30 am
Pick your weapons, train with them and develop tactics.  Get copies of opposing forces field manuals and study their tactical doctrine.  Identify weak points and train to exploit them.  Train with your team until you know how and what each person is thinking.  Each person must be able to fill the role or position of any team member.  Equip and supply for rapid movement and mission sustainability.

Hit hard, move out, and hit again and again and again.  Your enemy chases the wind and bleeds, with every step.

To date, the U.S. has not fought against a technological comparable force .  Training exercises, such as the Fort Lewis Event cited earlier,  give glimpses of possible outcomes.  In each exercise I'm aware of, the free thinkers won.  Only when the powers that be imposed sever handicaps, did conventional forces win.

As for weapons development:  All due to civilian demand for improved products.  The technology incorporated into the  weapons and the improved function , all demanded by the military for their use.

We have done so much for so long with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.

   
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: J Thomas on July 15, 2010, 06:07:05 am
Besides it doesn't take an fighter jet to destroy another fighter jet.  There are man-portable missles such as the stinger or the Russian version called IgLa-S.  I also seem to remember that during the Biafra civil war one side used the Malmo MFI-9B trainer (which is in the same class as the Cessna 150) armed with rockets to destroy a number of Mig jet fighters that were sitting on the ground being refueled.

I know that you're right part of the time. The question I'm asking is whether you're right all the time. For some centuries people believed that the only really workable way to beat an armored knight was with another armored knight. It took a whole village to pay for one knight, and one wasn't enough, so a ruler with ten knights could hold onto ten villages until somebody with a bigger force could take it away from him. Libertarians didn't get very far in that environment until the technology changed. Maybe it was all illusion, maybe something else would have worked better, but it took them a long time to find it.

However, even if you're only right part of the time, you could be right *now*. Even if it turns out that sometimes the winning military technology leads to centralized governments, that might not be true today or for the next several centuries. The way you learn what's possible for you is not by arguing what has to be inevitably true but by actually trying and finding out.

Still, it's interesting to think about the details. The Biafrans lost despite their innovations, because they weren't strong enough to keep the Nigerian government from cutting off their food distribution. Their people starved until they surrendered, and then starved some more. You can't stymie a more powerful force unless you can keep them from achieving their objective. A central point of armored knights was that they could burn your fields before harvest time (or they could protect others who did) and if you couldn't protect your food supply from them then you lost. Fighter planes mostly protect bombers from other fighters. If you can stop the bombers without using fighters to do it, their fighters are not much use. But if you can't stop the bombers somehow then you can't stop them from bombing whatever they want. When your manufacturing is decentralized and food never has to travel far, then that might not get them much. But if you depend on cities and an enemy can cut off your distribution, then your crops rot in the fields while your people starve -- unless the enemy is merciful.

I want to point out that the USA tried that approach in Cambodia. For various reasons including US bombing and NVA activity, the rice crop had failed. We offered to feed Cambodia provided they fought off the communists. We told the communists not to take over or else their people would starve. But the communists attacked anyway, and the Lon Nol government did an inadequate job of defense, and we naturally stopped the food shipments, and they did starve. We dumped our food in nearby markets at a 90% discount since it wasn't worth shipping back. We blamed the starvation on the Cambodian communists, and it was indeed their choice. If they had surrendered we would have fed Cambodia.

A ruthless government could apply that strategy to almost anybody. Blockade them. Use bioweapons to destroy the crops and then feed them if they surrender. You get some leverage if you're worth so much to them alive that they aren't willing to kill you. Or you could be so unimportant that they don't bother. Or if your ideology takes over enough places fast enough, then surviving governments could only attack on the margins.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: NemoUtopia on July 15, 2010, 11:56:42 am
Speaking of Federalist No. 29, you can tell it's written by Hamilton. He advocates a single, national militia (the word 'uniformity' comes up a fair bit) that is not highly regulated. This is a stark contrast in many ways to a truly libertarian view of a defensive army, because given the structure of the early Constitution and Hamilton's own statement: the only things reserved for the States is the appointment of officers and training ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS. He pretty much goes on and on about how the national government via Congress and the executive branch. This is an important distinction because it places the militia not truly in the hands of the people, but in the direct hands of those with the most political power. A true states-militia to counteract a standing army [or conscripted militia as above] is what I imagine minds like Jefferson wanted, for good reason!

I can only speculate what a Libertarian militia would be like, but I doubt the current standing and deployed forces resemble it. If the U.S. were to make political shifts I suspect the reorganization would be built on the current National Guard and try to seperate its leadership from Congress and the President. In a true AnCap circumstance I don't believe there would be a static structure. Correct me if I'm mistaken (seriously, I want to learn here), but my understanding is that market forces and personal interest would build a limited 'command skeleton' of the volunteers. This could be through a collaboration of security companies and/or volunteers, but the 'top brass' would only remain in command by being realistic, efficient, and sane. Instead of guranteed posts, the divisions would be built on this same principle. The skeleton would bend to the needs of the time and the rest would flux as needed. Anything that becomes too much of a burden will break off.

Just for example, if somebody in one of the armored division starts creating overlarge stockpiles and tries to use militia funds to support a pet design project, he'd get cut instead of being able to see his design fantasy tank become a reality because the military wants to keep things quiet and not discipline a highly ranked commander. If technology advances in air defense, the air divisions will adapt. Instead of static investment in a current design family, parts will be adapted and vehicles phased out in timely fashion (if the advance is new jet technology) or shuck unnecessary air-power and invest in facilities and personnel training (if the advance is in ECM/Ground-to-Air). Even forward thinking modern militaries are extremely reluctant to take these kinds of steps. It's something of a generalization, but ask folks on the inside and you will find more stories (some comic, most tragic) than you can stomach about useless stockpiles and warehouses, old technology that isn't being phased (and likely isn't even being used for training), and imaginative ways that resources are wasted and people die because no one will challenge a senile commander.


This is not just related to what we think of as military technology, either. Medical advances and personal gear would be accounted for. For a very ridiculous and unfortunately true tragedy, there was a general in the U.S. who didn't believe in heat exhaution/stroke...so he had troops run an extended field exercise in full gear during one of the hottest days in summer without breaks or sufficient water. Like all things with the theory, it's not a utopia where people won't make mistakes...but at the very least will be held accountable instead of retiring with full pension to die of old age. The cost of modern advanced militaries as a tax burden is related to many factors a true defense force wouldn't have. Yet most of those factors boil down to the common denominator of 'unecessary'.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on July 15, 2010, 12:27:02 pm
NemoUtopia: Your covering a lot of ground here and I'm not going to respond to all of it.  Just let me say that Dough's analysis is correct and let me give you an example.  During the 2nd world war the P-51 mustang had a top speed of about 430mph while the ME-262 had a top speed of about 540 miles an hour or about a hundred to a hundred and ten mph advantage.  The mustang pilots negated that advantage by waiting around the 262's airfields just waiting for one or more of them to come back in to land low on fuel, possibly out of ammo with it's gear down and slowing for final approach.  In other words they saw a weak point and exploited it by using their longer range and loiter time.  You don't need to have the very best equipment possible, just adequate in greater numbers with good training and tactics than your opponent.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: NemoUtopia on July 15, 2010, 04:56:45 pm
NemoUtopia: Your covering a lot of ground here and I'm not going to respond to all of it.  Just let me say that Dough's analysis is correct and let me give you an example.  During the 2nd world war the P-51 mustang had a top speed of about 430mph while the ME-262 had a top speed of about 540 miles an hour or about a hundred to a hundred and ten mph advantage.  The mustang pilots negated that advantage by waiting around the 262's airfields just waiting for one or more of them to come back in to land low on fuel, possibly out of ammo with it's gear down and slowing for final approach.  In other words they saw a weak point and exploited it by using their longer range and loiter time.  You don't need to have the very best equipment possible, just adequate in greater numbers with good training and tactics than your opponent.

Argh, message lost! Trying again:

That's more what I meant, not that such a militia would constantly be 'cutting edge' but that the existence of such technology and understanding would be accounted for. Just because you can't (or won't) buy it yourself doesn't mean you can't blow it up, as in your excellent example. Conversely, there's a reason muskets aren't used anymore, and I don't expect such a militia would cling to tech and weapons that have truly become out of date.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: terry_freeman on July 15, 2010, 07:03:24 pm
A modern AnCap militia would be a lot more fluid and ready to use tech which would target the weak points of socialist varieties of military agencies. To a degree, this is happening in Afghanistan today. The Taliban are playing by different rules. They don't field one tank versus another; they field cheap IEDs against expensive tanks.

They don't build and try to hold on to fixed bases; they abandon ground which cannot be held, and move elsewhere. This is a lot like the strategy in the game of Go, which is far more fluid than most Western simulations of warfare.

I've used the Afghans for an analogy, since they are making life very difficult for the world's last remaining military superpower, but the analogy only goes so far. A modern AnCap militia would have more capital, more education, and more technology.

In times past, Americans chipped in to build ships equipped for naval warfare. A modern AnCap militia would buy some extremely expensive hardware, if it were necessary. Don't limit yourself by asking "what would the average middle-income guy be able to pay for?" Ask "what would a Bill Gates or George Soros be able to pay for?"

Why would a wealthy person pay a lot for defense? Does not his business depend on a lot of customers, who are geographically dispersed? His interests are widely distributed; he has a considerable interest in defending more than his private domicile.


Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: wdg3rd on July 16, 2010, 12:12:44 am
Kids, advanced tech can be negated with fairly simple weapons.  Fighter-bombers in the 'Nam were brought down by arrows in the engines.  Russian helicopters were brought with Brown Besses (captured during a previous attempt by an evil empire to hold Afghanistan -- unrifled muskets so you didn't have to be that close about how big your balls were) and Look at L. Neil's proposal on county-level SDI -- a gun firing a bunch of BBs into a satellite's or missile's path -- cheap and local.  Yeah, advanced bio tech can be a bitch (hard to fight at local level, also hard to build), advanced or not chem-war is generally easy to beat (not just by wrapping yourself and your house in duct tape and saran wrap per TSA advice)  (if I'm wrapped in either product, it's for sex, not for national defense -- though it's La Esposa's late boyfriend who liked that, I just wear condoms so it's easier to clean up).

Advanced tech tends to be fragile however well it's armored, if government's involved.   NASA's (not that I give them any credit for success) plans were defeated by congressmen who never passed 6th grade public school arithmetic, they just barely could count how many years it took them to get through law school.  But appointed NASA bureaucrats came from that same gene-pool, just like cops and gang-bangers come from the same neighborhoods.  "I got no idea how this works" but it might or it might not -- how do you other ignorant idiots who never had to take remedial science because Dad said we didn't have to vote?
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: Rocketman on July 16, 2010, 12:41:11 am
Conversely, there's a reason muskets aren't used anymore, and I don't expect such a militia would cling to tech and weapons that have truly become out of date.
There is a famous old saying "No weapon system is truly obsolete."  "Just ask anyone who's been hit in the head with a rock lately."  Actually even a musket can and has been used in modern warfare.  When the old soviet union was in Afganistan about 25 years ago at least one chopper was brought down by an old Martini-Henry rifle.  That's the kind of rifle that the British empire used around 1878 during the Zulu wars.  If you can hit the tail rotor with the pure lead bullet of the M-H it supposedly stuck to and unbalanced it.  With no tail rotor to balance the centrifical force of the main rotor the helicopter would crash.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: dough560 on July 16, 2010, 01:13:42 am
You''re correct.  Back when, Soldier of Fortune did an article about the locals shooting down soviet helicopters with locally built .75 caliber flintlock rifles and more modern Martini Henry Rifles.  The shooters positioned themselves on ridge lines and were shooting down at the soviet copters when they started their attack runs.  They targeted the tail rotors.  An ounce plus of big, slow, dumb lead brought down multi-million dollar armored copters.

Everyone has to sleep, eat, fuel etc.  No matter how fancy or armored the equipment, the crew is vulnerable during these times.  The vulnerability increases when the opponent has superior mobility.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: J Thomas on July 16, 2010, 09:25:04 am
Kids, advanced tech can be negated with fairly simple weapons.

That can happen, and there are no guarantees. I personally think that a short OODA loop for new military technology would probably be decisive -- except that in peacetime we don't find out what we'll need, and even a long war would only allow a few OODA cycles. And experience with one war doesn't necessarily prepare you for a different one. The US military is learning to be pretty good at suppressing disorganized hostile civilians -- a useful skill if they find themselves with some sort of insurrection in the USA.

Quote
Fighter-bombers in the 'Nam were brought down by arrows in the engines.

Yes, but we didn't lose enough of them to interfere with carrying out their missions.

Quote
Russian helicopters were brought with Brown Besses

Ditto, it took years for the USSR to lose enough to really feel the pain, and the USA took the credit for hi-tech weapons to do that.

Quote
and Look at L. Neil's proposal on county-level SDI -- a gun firing a bunch of BBs into a satellite's or missile's path -- cheap and local.

That sounds great! I'm a little concerned about the medium-run effect of putting a lot of BBs in orbit, but if the alternative is losing a war then it's easier to put off thinking about the problems of the future until after the war is over.

Quote
Yeah, advanced bio tech can be a bitch (hard to fight at local level, also hard to build)

Primitive bioweapons are hard to fight. Start with known plant pathogens and you don't have to do much to them to hit crops pretty hard. But it's also hard to keep the enemy from culturing what you used and sending spies back with it to hit your crops some. But when they depend on different crops, you still get the advantage.

Human pathogens are harder to think about. You don't want to start an epidemic that spreads who-knows-where, and it's hard to judge how well it will spread until you try it for real. So instead you can try for pathogens that won't spread at all except when you deliver them, and then you get something that military men want to avoid. They want to win today's battle today, they don't want something that will incapacitate the enemy 3 days from now and that might cause friendly casualties if the wind is wrong. Easier to hold them back and retaliate with them if the enemy uses them.

Quote
advanced or not chem-war is generally easy to beat


Soldiers tend to leave their chem-war defensive stuff in storage because it's extra weight they probably won't need. It's easy for them to deal with if they know it's coming, and if there isn't too much of it. So it's usually been used against lo-tech opponents and on poor civilians. 

Quote
Advanced tech tends to be fragile however well it's armored, if government's involved.

True! But can they achieve their objectives? That might depend on the objectives. If they go to tremendous expense to shut you down and as a result their own civilians are kept in poverty, by one twisted view that's a win for them. It's certainly a loss for you. If they don't mind genociding you, and they can spend almost as much as they want to do it, that's hard to defend against. But if they're like the USA and want to run an occupation so they can persuade you how much better it is to do things their way, then they will go home eventually unless they are very close and very large. (Panama versus Iraq.)

There's no one way a war has to go. But I can see special advantages for a libertarian society.

If they obviously lack an army that can invade nations, they don't look like as much of a threat and it's harder to get momentum for war. (That didn't help Panama or Afghanistan, but it helps sometimes.)

If they are rich and friendly, they can say "Look, what we're doing works. You can do it too where you live. If you want to come join us we'll find jobs for you" and that might seriously damage morale for an invading army etc. (It didn't help Czechoslovakia to hurt russian army morale that way, but sometimes it could help.)

If a whole lot of people take initiative, some of them will find effective actions. They might make problems 100 times as fast as enemy commanders can resolve them. That's likely to be very effective when the enemy's goal is to "restore order" but it doesn't prevent massive civilian casualties on your side when the enemy wants to do that.

If you wind up with something of an adhocracy, I'd expect it not to be good at uniified military command, coherent central strategies, or big expensive military R&D programs. So you'd play to your strengths, you'd find ways to get by without relying too much on the things you weren't so good at. It might quite likely work out.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: NemoUtopia on July 18, 2010, 08:56:51 pm
These are all very good points; I stuck myself into giving the defense a structure it doesn't have to have. However, this also leads to the question of efficiency, minimum casualties, and when a defense force has succeeded. It's certainly true that the average citizen supports those who actively resist oppression in a variety of ways, but many/most of these are methods presume that the technologically advanced state is already in an occupational position. From an invading state's perspective, if they occupy the ground they want and have sufficient control of the resource they are aiming for...well, just look at the U.S. in Iraq. History has shown us through recorded history that when an imperialist state of whatever variety is making resource grabs it takes disproportionate losses to forestall them or something that literally keeps their forces from reaching the final location. Of course, this is not always financial or cost in lives…unpopular wars have ousted many a politician and created insurrections that topple governments.

Speaking from the standpoint of those relying on said defense force; I’m not really sure how either the people or the protectors can believe they’ve succeeded if they’re resorting to resistance tactics on their own land. I’m not trying to argue the semantics about ‘resistance’, ‘freedom fighters’, or other terms: wouldn’t the goal of such a defense force be to prevent/deter invasion, or at least provide swift and complete retribution instead of a long term guerilla war? From one perspective, the resources of individuals not actually part of the defense force must be taken into account. An invasion is very difficult when (nearly) every single person is armed and motivated, and if the more materially wealthy have something analogous to precision ordinance and reliable mass-destruction capacity that’s a strong motivation to stay out. But arrows and lead musket balls aren’t going to stop modern bombers and ground-strafing fighters when they’re already overhead. The technologically advanced are very fragile and vulnerable when holding still or otherwise exposed…the heat of battle is not that time.

When speaking of the advances of defense the said force would have to consider the citizens themselves…I know that I, for one, would not put much faith (much less wealth) in a defense force that would be trying to snipe tank treads with Civil War muskets. I have no expectations that an AnCap society would match might in a traditional military arms race…i.e. they probably won’t be building tanks to combat tanks defensively. But when Menacing Neighbor is developing tank armor and new treads I expect they will develop efficient and reliable answers at relatively low cost when needed and fully exploit design flaws of invading technology. This was also what I meant when speaking of defensive installations, although I’m not thinking of classic gun nests or bunkers. I would expect some kind of mobile and inexpensive ECM/AA equipment if Menacing Neighbor is working on faster fighters with better HUDs and communications arrays...life isn’t a RTS computer game where the answer is to build another [static, vulnerable, and expensive] missile tower when an attacker is massing an air force, but nor can the spunky Human-woks defeat (much less deter) the brainwashed Imperialist Tech-Army with sinew bows and rock-and-log traps.

An established forward base by Menacing Neighbor is a temporary and fixable setback to a defense force. Hell, so are advance positions in other neighboring territories if they can be taken out or made ineffective. An occupying foreign army, on the other hand, means the defense force has failed even if they eventually drive off the invaders. Their land has been taken, their resources are being exploited, and even if you argue that the invader hasn’t truly won it’s just an ‘everyone loses’ situation, not a defensive success. The ability to hit someone standing next to you with the rock in your hand does not equate to using that rock to successfully stop a tank, Indiana Jones movies non-withstanding. Besides, I find a combat knife and cheap and significantly more effective alternate if I’m trying hand to hand combat, and doubt any of you would try using a sling with cobblestones when you have cheap and ready access to accurate firearms with piercing/explosive ammunition. If I have the realistic expectation that an aggressive neighbor [individual, group, or state] has developed an alloy, armor, or edge-sharp method that renders said combat knife useless unless I assassinate my neighbor in his sleep, I’ll be paying for a different blade or the means to actually prevent an altercation. Without the limitations and inefficiencies of that neighbor, I'd probably even be able to afford it and still live the life I want to live.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: J Thomas on July 19, 2010, 01:15:19 am
History has shown us through recorded history that when an imperialist state of whatever variety is making resource grabs it takes disproportionate losses to forestall them or something that literally keeps their forces from reaching the final location.

Yes, but if they don't think they have the advantage they won't invade in the first place. It's hard to tell how many times defensive forces have prevented invasions, since we don't know how many extra invasions would have happened if the defenses looked weaker.

Quote
Speaking from the standpoint of those relying on said defense force; I’m not really sure how either the people or the protectors can believe they’ve succeeded if they’re resorting to resistance tactics on their own land.

There's a long list of reasons for a nation to go to war, and the more of the reasons that apply the more likely the war is. Thinking you'll have an easy win is high on the list. Thinking that you're getting stronger while they're getting weaker and you must invade them before they invade you is less common. Religion can start wars but usually in combination with other reasons. A defense force succeeds when nobody invades, and sort-of succeeds when an enemy makes a tentative attack that gets beaten off easily, demonstrating their strength.

The Swiss model works some places. Every male Swiss citizen has a working automatic weapon and ammo, and skis. (Except convicted felons, who are rare.) They have some armor and artillery, and presumably nowadays RPGs etc. They claim they have a "beehive" strategy. If anybody invades they hit back however they can with no particular strategy. A determined invader might kill off almost the entire male population, incidentally destroying all the industry and winning a bunch of picturesque mountains. They are not worth invading. (Also, the last time they faced a serious threat, they sold Hitler ball bearings he desperately needed, and if he invaded those factories would be destroyed. About the time Hitler could no longer invade Switzerland they stopped selling.)

But that approach has not worked for Lebanon. Lebanon has water and the best land in the middle east. It's a strategic location that Israel and Syria both need to control in their disputes with each other, and lots of it is flat. So Lebanon gets invaded regularly by Israel, and dominated by Syria. It works for the Swiss, it doesn't work for the Lebanese.

Quote
I’m not trying to argue the semantics about ‘resistance’, ‘freedom fighters’, or other terms: wouldn’t the goal of such a defense force be to prevent/deter invasion, or at least provide swift and complete retribution instead of a long term guerilla war?

Certainly the goal would be to deter attack. A larger goal would be to also prevent blockade, which might mean threatening the world's biggest navy. If it turns out that the best you can do is to drive out invaders with guerrilla war, then you can do that or surrender. And if the enemy doesn't mind genociding your population but will accept a surrender, then guerrilla war is probably not workable and surrender is better. There's nothing that works all the time, particularly if your enemy is much larger and richer, and ruthless and dedicated to winning. But a good deterrent will very often be enough.

Quote
I have no expectations that an AnCap society would match might in a traditional military arms race…i.e. they probably won’t be building tanks to combat tanks defensively. But when Menacing Neighbor is developing tank armor and new treads I expect they will develop efficient and reliable answers at relatively low cost when needed and fully exploit design flaws of invading technology.

Ideally they would find lots of dual-use stuff. Maybe modify tractors and road-building equipment and earth-moving machines to quickly build earthworks. Commercial trucks to move lots of material. Motorcycles and trail bikes to move individuals some places. Mobility is vitally important, and helicopters are incredibly fast but they're expensive and take a whole lot of maintenance, expensive to run, and they don't hide very well. The more you can get by using stuff from the civilian economy, the less it costs and the more is available when you need it. You need some weapons that have no other use, but everything that's also useful in peacetime benefits your economy instead of sucking from it.

Quote
I would expect some kind of mobile and inexpensive ECM/AA equipment if Menacing Neighbor is working on faster fighters with better HUDs and communications arrays....

Good thought! ECM is a specialised field. If you're 5 years behind then you might as well not even try. But the pace is slowed by bureacracy. If an AnCap business can stay 10 years ahead of governments, it can sell ECM to governments to make its peacetime living, and if one of them tries to invade....

Quote
An occupying foreign army, on the other hand, means the defense force has failed even if they eventually drive off the invaders. Their land has been taken, their resources are being exploited, and even if you argue that the invader hasn’t truly won it’s just an ‘everyone loses’ situation, not a defensive success.

Sometimes 'everyone loses' is as good as you can do. Sometimes you can't even make the other guy lose too.

One advantage is that AnCap is essentially a religion. The more it spreads, the fewer and weaker are the governments that can attack. So if you have a great big AnCap area, a government might only want 10% of it. But if they try for that will they be fighting the whole thing?

It might be more efficient to let them have their 10%. Some of the people could become refugees, going to places that are still AnCap so they can live as they want. Others could stay home and continually point out more efficient approaches to their occupiers. The quicker the governments turn minarchist the less threat they become.

A second advantage is that an AnCap area would probably not develop any single military doctrine. Competing businesses would develop a variety of dual-use items, and various "militias" would develop independent tactics. Usually armies have a race -- a slow race -- to figure out each others' tactics and exploit training weaknesses etc. A conventional army facing AnCap militias would be continually surprised, while the militias could share info about what enemy weaknesses are predictable. They should have a much shorter OODA loop. So if they were strong enough not to lose quickly, they should have a reasonable chance due to their innovation and quick adaptation times.

One of the many reasons for war is generals who want a war. They can't always talk a nation out of a bad war, but sometimes they can. Often their best wars are ones where they get to beat a foreign army while demonstrating superior generalship, and then it's over. A war against militias that do not look all that strong, but which somehow attempt multiple simultaneous approaches to destroy supply lines, destroy communications, make sneaky attacks on command posts, etc would not be attractive. Follow that with an endless occupation of a well-armed civilian population.... If one AnCap area gets torn up making life miserable for a government's generals, every nation's generals may oppose invasion of any other AnCap area.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: terry_freeman on July 19, 2010, 12:18:01 pm
How often has Switzerland been invaded in the last seven hundred years?

Is their strategy one of galumping all over the world, in search of monsters to destroy? Are there Swiss military bases in a hundred countries? No, their strategy is to defend their own land. It seems to be working well enough. All their neighbors fell to the Nazi army, but Switzerland did not.

Yes, the Swiss have an organized army, sort of. But their military doctrine is to fight as independent units. No central authority is permitted to surrender on behalf of Switzerland; doctrine calls for every unit to assume that such a surrender is invalid, and to continue to fight. Anyone trying to conquer Switzerland would discover that it is like Afghanistan on steroids; Afghanistan with superior wealth, training, and firepower; Afghanistan with a hundred thousand sharpshooters who compete on a weekly or monthly basis. 

A wealthy AnCap society would be at least as good. It is a criminal violation of logic to claim that only governments can organize large projects - what do you think corporations such as IBM and ATT do, if not organize large projects? Why do the brains of statists have such gaping holes when they try to comprehend that "liberty is the mother, not the daughter of order?"



Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: NemoUtopia on July 19, 2010, 05:46:36 pm
A wealthy AnCap society would be at least as good. It is a criminal violation of logic to claim that only governments can organize large projects - what do you think corporations such as IBM and ATT do, if not organize large projects? Why do the brains of statists have such gaping holes when they try to comprehend that "liberty is the mother, not the daughter of order?"

I've got no trouble comprehending this...in fact, my point relies on it. Big projects can (and the best do) include simple solutions, efficiency, exploitation of availbable mechanisms, and foreseeing and countering such problems. It would likely be easy for such an AnCap society to develop successful defenses, but developing these defenses is a new forms of arms race that still takes specialists, time, and resources. While governments and their militaries have made glaringly idiotic mistakes in the past, imperialist and aggressive nations have a fair success rate with oppression through reliable tech. It is perhaps a cause of dismay, but some of the most brain-washed scientists and researchers have been among the most brilliant and build things with amazingly high idiot-proofing. I've no doubt the AnCap society would have an extreme edge in the 'race': defend - hold/reclaim is easier than invade - hold, cheaper, and highly incentivized.

But there will be thresholds, just not matching classic chess strength-with-strength thinking. Missiles will still be developed to be faster so flyers can't just outrun them, ammunitions will still be developed to deal with advanced armor, jamming tech will advance to counter signal tech, and vehicles will achieve greater mobility to deal with invading forces. The Swiss have the advantage of the Alps, but they still train, advance, and answer enemy tech with a mix of both superior brainpower and advancing their own tech. Are their advances as bulky, clunky, inefficient, idiot prone, risky, costly, or unreliable as aggressive neighbors? No, but they are still advances to keep stride and a far cry from defending themselves with out of date firearms, ammunition, vehicles, and personal safety/comfort gear. Not all potential AnCap societies have the advantage of skiing being superior to vehicle motion, after all.
Title: Re: Terms with wich we shape our discussions.
Post by: J Thomas on July 19, 2010, 08:03:58 pm
How often has Switzerland been invaded in the last seven hundred years?
Quote

http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/

1315, 1386, 1388, 1414, 1422, 1499, 1567, 1579, 1602,  1782, 1798, 1802.

Some of these were foreign armies supporting swiss factions. For most of swiss history there were serfs who had no political rights and large areas of land had no rights. Equality of all citizens was proclaimed in 12 cantons in 1833, which pretty much ended special rights for aristocrats.

Quote
Is their strategy one of galumping all over the world, in search of monsters to destroy?

They tried that, but lost an offensive war and quit. They still supplied mercenary armies to multiple sides of conflicts for a long time, and that led to some foreign interference in their politics -- foreigners could not accept that they might choose sides instead of fighting for all sides for money.

Swiss society was divided into cantons. Each canton was often unified but not always. The swiss were divided into french versus german language, city versus rural, eventually catholic versus protestant, and later democratic centralists versus traditional feudalists. Each time Napoleon invaded he was supported by democrats. At least one russian invasion was supported by feudalists.

Quote
Are there Swiss military bases in a hundred countries? No, their strategy is to defend their own land. It seems to be working well enough. All their neighbors fell to the Nazi army, but Switzerland did not.

They enthusiastically sold war material to germany, which would have been cut off after an invasion. Various experts argue that they prolonged the war. I am not an expert but it looks plausible to me. After the war they argued it out and decided that in future they will be neutral in spirit as well as following technical obligations.

Quote
Yes, the Swiss have an organized army, sort of. But their military doctrine is to fight as independent units. No central authority is permitted to surrender on behalf of Switzerland; doctrine calls for every unit to assume that such a surrender is invalid, and to continue to fight. Anyone trying to conquer Switzerland would discover that it is like Afghanistan on steroids; Afghanistan with superior wealth, training, and firepower; Afghanistan with a hundred thousand sharpshooters who compete on a weekly or monthly basis. 

It works for Switzerland, it does not work for Lebanon. The official lebanese army does not fight wars that would result in its utter destruction, and it faces that choice regularly.

[quuote]A wealthy AnCap society would be at least as good. It is a criminal violation of logic to claim that only governments can organize large projects - what do you think corporations such as IBM and ATT do, if not organize large projects?

The bureaucracies of large corporations are similar to those of governments. They tend to organize large projects badly, though I have no examples of alternative organizations that do it well. Large projects are currently difficult. An AnCap society could surely create giant bureaucracies to manage large projects, and pour large amounts of resources into them for long periods with no good way to tell how well they're getting results until the projects mature. That's possible for AnCap societies.

I tend to think that successful AnCap societies might tend to do that less. They might concentrate on smaller projects that are more cost-effective and that can be evaluated sooner. Each large project would require the conviction that it is necessary, and would require frequent injection of new resources in the faith that it will someday pay off. My imagination tells me that in a world with lots of people taking initiative, large projects will tend to be overtaken by events. Multiple small projects will coalesce to produce the results desired from a large project before the large project can deliver. I can't prove that would tend to happen, it's just a hunch that could be wrong.