If government is the answer...

[Harvey]

...then how stupid was the question?

[Matthew N. Wright]

...then how stupid was the question?

Government is the result of man's natural tendency to congregate. Government is not the enemy. People who grow up in the USA (both of us) tend to see it that way because ours is a country that likes to involve itself in everyone's business. People in Sweden don't really consider the government to be the enemy.

[Harvey]

...then how stupid was the question?

Government is the result of man's natural tendency to congregate. Government is not the enemy.

I didn't know it was a natural tendency, considering the human species has been in small, decentralized tribes and groups for over 99.5% of its existence.

If anything, massive centralization seems to be against human nature; perhaps a destructive mutation.

[Harvey]

People who grow up in the USA (both of us) tend to see it that way because ours is a country that likes to involve itself in everyone's business. People in Sweden don't really consider the government to be the enemy.

Sweden is a small decentralized state much unlike our government. I mean, this doesn't even form an argument. Every fact you have stated is mostly true. The only thing that is vague is the definition of government. I'll narrow it down:

Rulers are the enemy. They destroy autonomous incentive that creates efficient and sustainable production. They remove the ability for individuals to decide effective rules for themselves.

[Matthew N. Wright]

People who grow up in the USA (both of us) tend to see it that way because ours is a country that likes to involve itself in everyone's business. People in Sweden don't really consider the government to be the enemy.

Sweden is a small decentralized state much unlike our government. I mean, this doesn't even form an argument. Every fact you have stated is mostly true. The only thing that is vague is the definition of government. I'll narrow it down:

Rulers are the enemy. They destroy autonomous incentive that creates efficient and sustainable production. They remove the ability for individuals to decide effective rules for themselves.

That sounds like the generalistic opinion of someone who has never participated in any kind of organizational effort with a position of responsibility.

"Rulers" as referring to country leaders are only the enemy of those who decide to be an enemy, unless directly proclaimed otherwise. Even then, sometimes being an enemy of some of your people is not such a bad thing either. I'm pretty sure in the American Civil War that Abraham Lincoln was an enemy to anyone who wanted to keep slaves, no? I don't mind having an enemy like that in power because I agree with his reasoning. In this situation, you would have been a confederate saying that no one should tell you that you should or should not have slaves, and that by doing so they are 'evil' or the 'enemy'.

I think the real question is, "Why would anyone want to stick around and fight when there are places they can go and live a productive life that won't fight with your ideals?". Only narcissists stick around and stake claim to things they can never have control of, against the greater good.

[Harvey]

People who grow up in the USA (both of us) tend to see it that way because ours is a country that likes to involve itself in everyone's business. People in Sweden don't really consider the government to be the enemy.

Sweden is a small decentralized state much unlike our government. I mean, this doesn't even form an argument. Every fact you have stated is mostly true. The only thing that is vague is the definition of government. I'll narrow it down:

Rulers are the enemy. They destroy autonomous incentive that creates efficient and sustainable production. They remove the ability for individuals to decide effective rules for themselves.

That sounds like the generalistic opinion of someone who has never participated in any kind of organizational effort with a position of responsibility.

"Rulers" as referring to country leaders are only the enemy of those who decide to be an enemy, unless directly proclaimed otherwise. Even then, sometimes being an enemy of some of your people is not such a bad thing either. I'm pretty sure in the American Civil War that Abraham Lincoln was an enemy to anyone who wanted to keep slaves, no? I don't mind having an enemy like that in power because I agree with his reasoning. In this situation, you would have been a confederate saying that no one should tell you that you should or should not have slaves, and that by doing so they are 'evil' or the 'enemy'.

I think the real question is, "Why would anyone want to stick around and fight when there are places they can go and live a productive life that won't fight with your ideals?". Only narcissists stick around and stake claim to things they can never have control of, against the greater good.

Abraham Lincoln was an enemy because he wanted to eliminate state sovereignty and centralize all people under one rule, which works against the "greater good". Different cultures want different things. Enslaving all people on one region, continent or plant is not the solution. It makes things inflexible and inefficient. It causes disorder and conflict among different cultures. It only causes more war. Some populaces are going to do things you don't like including slavery: you can't change that. What you can do is move to states or countries that support your morals. You can also only do business with people who don't use slave labor. It's very simple.

Only narcissists go around enslaving every culture they don't agree with.

There is no "American" people. There used to be Texans, Missourians, Californians, etc. That's how it should of remained because it truly reflected the culture you chose to be apart of. An "American" culture is too broad and represents too many different interests. A more decentralized system is more logical and more flexible to individual desires.

[MoonShadow]

...then how stupid was the question?

Government is the result of man's natural tendency to congregate. Government is not the enemy.

I didn't know it was a natural tendency, considering the human species has been in small, decentralized tribes and groups for over 99.5% of its existence.

If anything, massive centralization seems to be against human nature; perhaps a destructive mutation.

It has been proposed that the human species is capable of maintaining a maximum of about 150 personal relationships before civil structures with formal rules are required to maintain order.  This is also the maximum stable size of tribes across human history.  It's not natural at all for humans to form group associations beyond this limit.

[MoonShadow]

There is no "American" people. There used to be Texans, Missourians, Californians, etc. That's how it should remained because it truly reflected the culture you chose to be apart of. An "American" culture is too broad and represents too many different interests. A more decentralized system is more logical and more flexible to individual desires.

You do tend to say a lot of extreme crap, but on this point you are dead on.  There is no such thing as "American culture" and probably never has been.  Germany goes to great lengths to prevent 'divergent cultures', to the extreme of persecuting Christian homeschoolers with a Nazi era law, because they openly fear that would lead to civil conflicts in the future.

[cbeast]

Not only is there not "American Culture," but Americans cannot even make a good beer.

[MoonShadow]

Not only is there not "American Culture," but Americans cannot even make a good beer.

Some of us can, but you just can't get those exported.  You're lucky if they are shipped across state lines.  The 'BBC' here means the Bluegrass Brewing Company.  I don't care for beer, myself, but from those I know who do, the BBC makes beers that are better than well known brands such as Guiness.

[boonies4u]

Abraham Lincoln was an enemy because he wanted to eliminate state sovereignty and centralize all people under one rule, which works against the "greater good". Different cultures want different things. Enslaving all people on one region, continent or plant is not the solution. It makes things inflexible and inefficient. It causes disorder and conflict among different cultures. It only causes more war. Some populaces are going to do things you don't like including slavery: you can't change that. What you can do is move to states or countries that support your morals. You can also only do business with people who don't use slave labor. It's very simple.

1. they did change it
2. for some people living with a group of people who share the same morals isn't enough
3. some people believe that the civil war was necessary to form a "more perfect union"

What do you mean by "enslaving all people on one X"? Are you talking about how Russia treated post WWII germany or like how the Union treated post Civil War south?

Or do you mean the sense of one human being the property of another?

[Harvey]

Abraham Lincoln was an enemy because he wanted to eliminate state sovereignty and centralize all people under one rule, which works against the "greater good". Different cultures want different things. Enslaving all people on one region, continent or plant is not the solution. It makes things inflexible and inefficient. It causes disorder and conflict among different cultures. It only causes more war. Some populaces are going to do things you don't like including slavery: you can't change that. What you can do is move to states or countries that support your morals. You can also only do business with people who don't use slave labor. It's very simple.

1. they did change it
2. for some people living with a group of people who share the same morals isn't enough
3. some people believe that the civil war was necessary to form a "more perfect union"

What do you mean by "enslaving all people on one X"? Are you talking about how Russia treated post WWII germany or like how the Union treated post Civil War south?

Or do you mean the sense of one human being the property of another?

Slavery in the sense of compromising the sovereignty of all the individual states. A centralized state is only a single point of failure. There's nothing perfect about it.

[boonies4u]

Abraham Lincoln was an enemy because he wanted to eliminate state sovereignty and centralize all people under one rule, which works against the "greater good". Different cultures want different things. Enslaving all people on one region, continent or plant is not the solution. It makes things inflexible and inefficient. It causes disorder and conflict among different cultures. It only causes more war. Some populaces are going to do things you don't like including slavery: you can't change that. What you can do is move to states or countries that support your morals. You can also only do business with people who don't use slave labor. It's very simple.

1. they did change it
2. for some people living with a group of people who share the same morals isn't enough
3. some people believe that the civil war was necessary to form a "more perfect union"

What do you mean by "enslaving all people on one X"? Are you talking about how Russia treated post WWII germany or like how the Union treated post Civil War south?

Or do you mean the sense of one human being the property of another?

Slavery in the sense of compromising the sovereignty of all the individual states. A centralized state is only a single point of failure. There's nothing perfect about it.

1. That isn't slavery.
2. Yes. Chain of Sand vs Chain of Iron and all that
3. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Union and Confederacy were not united over the issue of states' rights (to have slaves). To some the civil war was the fulfillment of the Constitution.

[Harvey]

Abraham Lincoln was an enemy because he wanted to eliminate state sovereignty and centralize all people under one rule, which works against the "greater good". Different cultures want different things. Enslaving all people on one region, continent or plant is not the solution. It makes things inflexible and inefficient. It causes disorder and conflict among different cultures. It only causes more war. Some populaces are going to do things you don't like including slavery: you can't change that. What you can do is move to states or countries that support your morals. You can also only do business with people who don't use slave labor. It's very simple.

1. they did change it
2. for some people living with a group of people who share the same morals isn't enough
3. some people believe that the civil war was necessary to form a "more perfect union"

What do you mean by "enslaving all people on one X"? Are you talking about how Russia treated post WWII germany or like how the Union treated post Civil War south?

Or do you mean the sense of one human being the property of another?

Slavery in the sense of compromising the sovereignty of all the individual states. A centralized state is only a single point of failure. There's nothing perfect about it.

1. That isn't slavery.
2. Yes. Chain of Sand vs Chain of Iron and all that
3. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Union and Confederacy were not united over the issue of states' rights (to have slaves). To some the civil war was the fulfillment of the Constitution.

Every part of the Constitution stands under its bretheren. The Federal government acted out of its allotted powers in every significant action taken in the Civil War. The actions made by the Lincoln Administration were the most unconstitutional in history. The state's powers are not limited under the constitution despite out-of-line court precedents. Only the federal government is limited by it. That's how it was authored. That is the intent of its message.

The state's are supposed to be sovereign entities.

[boonies4u]

1. That isn't slavery.
2. Yes. Chain of Sand vs Chain of Iron and all that
3. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Union and Confederacy were not united over the issue of states' rights (to have slaves). To some the civil war was the fulfillment of the Constitution.

Every part of the Constitution stands under its bretheren. The Federal government acted out of its allotted powers in every significant action taken in the Civil War. The actions made by the Lincoln Administration were the most unconstitutional in history. The state's powers are not limited under the constitution despite out-of-line court precedents. Only the federal government is limited by it. That's how it was authored. That is the intent of its message.

The state's are supposed to be sovereign entities.

1. Not everyone believes that the federal government expanding its powers is unconstitutional. The writers of the constitution knew that they could not come up with EVERY power the federal government should have.
2. The Constitution limits the powers of both the federal and state governments, by giving certain powers to the federal government and certain powers and rights to the citizens which cannot be taken away without due process of law.
3. I do not agree that the Constitution was only created to limit that power of the Federal Government.

[Harvey]

1. That isn't slavery.
2. Yes. Chain of Sand vs Chain of Iron and all that
3. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Union and Confederacy were not united over the issue of states' rights (to have slaves). To some the civil war was the fulfillment of the Constitution.

Every part of the Constitution stands under its bretheren. The Federal government acted out of its allotted powers in every significant action taken in the Civil War. The actions made by the Lincoln Administration were the most unconstitutional in history. The state's powers are not limited under the constitution despite out-of-line court precedents. Only the federal government is limited by it. That's how it was authored. That is the intent of its message.

The state's are supposed to be sovereign entities.

1. Not everyone believes that the federal government expanding its powers is unconstitutional. The writers of the constitution knew that they could not come up with EVERY power the federal government should have.
2. The Constitution limits the powers of both the federal and state governments, by giving certain powers to the federal government and certain powers and rights to the citizens which cannot be taken away without due process of law.
3. I do not agree that the Constitution was only created to limit that power of the Federal Government.

The original founding father's are rolling in their graves. Go ahead, join the traitors of The Federalist Party and Alexander Hamilton. I'll stand by the constitution as it was intended by its writers. A federal government with indefinite power only leads to tyranny. The founding fathers knew that very well. With no boundaries, you might as well not have a constitution at all.

I hope you enjoy the ruins that are America. Breathe it in. Smell that? It's martial law and it's coming right around the corner.

[boonies4u]

1. That isn't slavery.
2. Yes. Chain of Sand vs Chain of Iron and all that
3. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Union and Confederacy were not united over the issue of states' rights (to have slaves). To some the civil war was the fulfillment of the Constitution.

Every part of the Constitution stands under its bretheren. The Federal government acted out of its allotted powers in every significant action taken in the Civil War. The actions made by the Lincoln Administration were the most unconstitutional in history. The state's powers are not limited under the constitution despite out-of-line court precedents. Only the federal government is limited by it. That's how it was authored. That is the intent of its message.

The state's are supposed to be sovereign entities.

1. Not everyone believes that the federal government expanding its powers is unconstitutional. The writers of the constitution knew that they could not come up with EVERY power the federal government should have.
2. The Constitution limits the powers of both the federal and state governments, by giving certain powers to the federal government and certain powers and rights to the citizens which cannot be taken away without due process of law.
3. I do not agree that the Constitution was only created to limit that power of the Federal Government.

The original founding father's are rolling in their graves. Go ahead, join the traitors of The Federalist Party and Alexander Hamilton. I'll stand by the constitution as it was intended by its writers. A federal government with indefinite power only leads to tyranny. The founding fathers knew that very well. With no boundaries, you might as well not have a constitution at all.

I hope you enjoy the ruins that are America. Breathe it in. Smell that? It's martial law and it's coming right around the corner.

If NDAA 2012 isn't stopped, I will be leaving. I am against any government infringing on human rights or the rights of its citizens.

I just think the states have not been infringed on given my interpretation of the Constitution. I would rather see the iron chain break then watch the chains of sand twist and clash. Maybe then it could be started over again right.

[Harvey]

1. That isn't slavery.
2. Yes. Chain of Sand vs Chain of Iron and all that
3. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Union and Confederacy were not united over the issue of states' rights (to have slaves). To some the civil war was the fulfillment of the Constitution.

Every part of the Constitution stands under its bretheren. The Federal government acted out of its allotted powers in every significant action taken in the Civil War. The actions made by the Lincoln Administration were the most unconstitutional in history. The state's powers are not limited under the constitution despite out-of-line court precedents. Only the federal government is limited by it. That's how it was authored. That is the intent of its message.

The state's are supposed to be sovereign entities.

1. Not everyone believes that the federal government expanding its powers is unconstitutional. The writers of the constitution knew that they could not come up with EVERY power the federal government should have.
2. The Constitution limits the powers of both the federal and state governments, by giving certain powers to the federal government and certain powers and rights to the citizens which cannot be taken away without due process of law.
3. I do not agree that the Constitution was only created to limit that power of the Federal Government.

The original founding father's are rolling in their graves. Go ahead, join the traitors of The Federalist Party and Alexander Hamilton. I'll stand by the constitution as it was intended by its writers. A federal government with indefinite power only leads to tyranny. The founding fathers knew that very well. With no boundaries, you might as well not have a constitution at all.

I hope you enjoy the ruins that are America. Breathe it in. Smell that? It's martial law and it's coming right around the corner.

If NDAA 2012 isn't stopped, I will be leaving. I am against any government infringing on human rights or the rights of its citizens.

I just think the states have not been infringed on given my interpretation of the Constitution. I would rather see the iron chain break then watch the chains of sand twist and clash. Maybe then it could be started over again right.

Yeah, I am leaving as well whether the NDA passes or not; Canada or the Caribbean. I would try Switzerland if I had the income. Maybe later.

The military complex the US is building is scaring the hell out of me. When I see drones being sold to local police departments, that's the final straw. It's about to go 1984 and I am not going to stick around. If Texas successfully secedes, I might come back.

I just witnessed a police cadet threaten to shoot me in the back of the head the other day. I am literally traumatized at this point. I can't take it. The abuse of power I am witnessing on a daily basis is literally tearing my mind apart. I can't walk past a cop without shaking in fear. I am tired. I am just tired.