Wilber Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 If they're dumb enough to put their money into a Canadian owned bank and then turn around and attack Canada, they'd deserve to fall apart as an organization...and they would in that scenario. With no money they'd be scattered to the wind. I'll bite. Why would they be dumb enough to put their money in a Canadian bank then attack Canada? Or more to the point. Why would they put their money in a Canadian bank if they were going to attack Canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Thats completely debatable and a matter of opinion. I would not use our military as an instrument of global socialism. There IS the odd extremely rare case where I think its in our interests to fight some war across the pond, but we certainly shouldnt be spending billions of dollars on that. In terms of our own security all our airforce needs to do is patrol our airspace, and Im not even sure we need manned planes for that. Patrol our airspace and do what exactly if they find a threat? Alert a diplomat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 It is a lot less likely if there is the military as well as professional police forces to stop that, the likelihood of someone gathering enough strength to overthrow the government rises exponentially when you let them arm themselves and you disarm the government. At this moment the government has a monopoly on heavy weapons and a well trained force remove that and arm some petty dictator and things get interesting. You're arguing against anarchy, not what I advocate. Thats why they let the banks regulate themselves right? And it turns out they aren't too good at it. In a free market banks can "regulate" all they like. If they don't provide value to consumers, they'll go out of business. Different name same garbage. You are promoting anarchy learn its meaning. I'm not the one who doesn't understand the difference. They should form their own police right? Gee why am I even arguing you flip and then you flop so much its hard to keep your bullshit straight. You're arguing either because you really cannot see the difference between small government free-market capitalism, and anarchism - or you're pretending not to see the difference so you can keep arguing against something I haven't said, and I don't advocate. Why you would do that? My only guess is because you have nothing to refute small government free market capitalism's validity as a viable alternative. No police, no military no enforcement = laws are useless. I agree. Of course, your definition of police, military, and contract enforcement differs from mine. Somehow you've confused my proposing a different kind of policing, military, and enforcement than what we have now as being advocating none of it and supporting anarchy. Maybe eventually you'll get it. Protect the liberty how? With very very strong language? Property rights, laws, contract enforcement, law enforcement, courts, military. Not top-down bureaucratic iterations of those - as you like to defend, but variations, scaled down, a public sector restricted in size. No, a small group gain power and everyone loses power. That's despotism...we're closer to that now than we would be with far less government intervention in the economy. Yeah because the holocaust was ethical right? Not to us, no. But we're not everyone. To the Nazis it was very ethical. The world extends beyond your front doorstep. Yeah and when they figure out that they can get their funds from somewhere else and call their own shots? What funds? Yes Africa is a good example to show how your anarchy solution leads to petty dictators and warlords controlling the supply and hence the people. I agree, you've described anarchy. Good job. What this has to do with what I propose is beyond me. My "anarchy solution"? Have you even read my replies? No you are talking about anarchy, you have made no distinction in anything but name. Let me know when you have an argument against small government free market capitalism. They protest because they don't agree with something, they cause violence and destruction wherever they go and I would prefer that there is something between them and my family, if it is not the police or the military it would be a rifle and myself. You're a walking contradiction. Re-read what you just wrote there. I am paid to form a police force, I eliminate those pesky little things like standards(bureaucracy) and realize that I have a monopoly of armed man in my city so I decide that the federal government can try to call the shots but I will tax the people in my town or city and fund my own operation. I introduce a tax to every business and that automatically increase the cost and then tax the people to decrease available funds. I control the supply and I control the people, My family and close friends/allies get top notch healthcare everyone else gets the left over. You're going to pull off a coup d'etat? Good luck with that. Let me know when you want to talk about free market capitalism. so you think it has never happened? When you remove the law and place law enforcement in the hands of private citizens this cannot happen? Still arguing against anarchy...not what I propose. You're wasting your own time here. I control the standard because I have the guns, you want to get good healthcare you have to be useful to me, you are not useful you get what everyone else gets... You're doing a great job arguing against positions I do not hold. Eventually you will clue in? Maybe? The way you are proposing it, it is the exact same thing in a different name. Then you don't know what anarchy is. Anarchy is zero government. That is NOT what I advocate. That should be clear enough for you to understand. 10,000 years of history and not one example of success? Define: success. How many years was it before the many great inventions that benefited society came into being? There are more great inventions to come. They aren't held back by years of unsuccessful attempts. Eventually its figured out and done right, and we all benefit. I have the guns and I help the bad doctors stay in business, loyalty to the local warlord leads to better treatment while the common people get nothing. Anarchy. For about 5 minuets before someone takes over. Anarchy. Again, 10,000 years and not one viable example... See above. I think this proves that in all of human history this idiotic idea has never survived for long as someone always comes on top and no one is there to stop him. Nothing ever exists...until it does. And "someone always comes on top and no one is there to stop him" is a concern in an anarchic society. Not a free market capitalist society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 You advocate a system that has not succeeded in thousands of years of human history because it is so completely idiotic it is not even funny. The idea you are proposing will survive for about a month before someone takes power, no central power means that neighbourhoods will fight until someone wins over the entire city, which leads to city states and potentially decades of warfare to form countries which lead to even more warfare to form larger countries and in a few hundred years we would be the same place as now only with hundreds of years of warfare, billions of lives lost and a standard of living to rival 12th century europe. No central power = anarchy. I propose a small government, minimal in size, limited. It's not "no central power", it is a small amount of central power...do you understand the difference between something existing and something not existing? You haven't shown that yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Go in to the most gang infested neighbourhood and flash a few thousand dollars while sitting by a nice car and try your brand of diplomacy... What? What are you talking about? A gang-infested neighbourhood? What does that have to do with anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 But that is the result of what you're advocating. There's a reason that your utopia doesn't exist in the real world. Anarchy is a the result of free market capitalism? Based on what? Your say-so? It's not utopia, nothing's perfect, but it's a lot better than the current corporatist state. The level playing field doesn't exist because the majority of the citizenry is too brainwashed or distracted to understand they're getting hosed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Go in to the most gang infested neighbourhood and flash a few thousand dollars while sitting by a nice car and try your brand of diplomacy... If your diplomacy cannot stop a smalltime gangster from beating you and taking your money, your diplomacy will not work on a warlord, a terrorist or a dictator(see Rwanda). Over-simplifying economics, business, and geopolitics seems to be your stock-in-trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 All good things come to those who wait. I reply in order. Eventually I get to them all...I hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 And here you have argued about removing all policing and letting citizens form their own police forces... Policing is not a "thing" only when the government does it. Do you understand that? Policing is not just the current top-down expensive bureaucratic machine we have now. Policing is defined many different ways. Yes, citizens can form their own police forces. And yes, it might be better than the current system. But again, for the umpteenth time...I advocate a small government free market capitalist society...one where the government should play a role in policing of some kind. How many times do I have to say this/explain this before you understand? Do you understand that "citizens" forming "their own police forces" is not the same thing as "removing all policing"? But don't get confused and jump to the conclusion that my preferred system would include citizens forming their own private gangs. That is not ever what I have proposed. You have to remember too, that a government is supposed to be by, for, and of the people...that is NOT what we have now. In a free market capitalist society the government would be by, for, and of the people. The government would be the people, and vise versa...law enforcement would be an extension of that...and that is not anarchy, and that is not the current system. Have you got this figured out yet? What you are proposing will shortly thereafter lead to anarchy therefore your position is to promote anarchy. Because you say so? So essentially you would like to hire mercenaries to police the country? How about understanding what I'm actually saying instead of constantly trying to put false labels on what I'm saying? Mercenaries? Give me a break. They will not be loyal to the government after they realize that they can get their funds from "taxing" the people and the government can do nothing about it therefore they skip getting the funds from the government and tax their people. Anarchy. Because you just removed the military and police two institutions loyal to the government be it municipal, provincial or federal and hired mercenaries who are loyal to whoever provides money and supplies at which point they will realize they can get whatever they want without the government. Anarchy. Great, who is going to stop them? The government with no police or military forces to do so or the government with a token force that can do nothing but use stern language? Anarchy. You advocate eliminating the power of the government to enforce the laws and placing that power in private hands, which would lead to the government becoming irrelevant and dozens of warlords from popping out all over the country. Eliminating the power of government? No. Limiting? Yes. See the difference? You probably do, but you won't admit it. Not sure why. You are suggesting removing the arm of the government that protects the people and enforces the law and replacing it with essentially a mob which would promptly ignore the direction of the government because they quickly find other sources of income and the leader of that mob is his own boss and won't have to listen to a government with no power. Anarchy. Place the weapons out of the governments hands and arm the citizens while letting private citizens form their own militia's means that the government has no means of protecting the people or enforcing the law... which will lead to anarchy and quickly in to dozens of city states with petty warlords fighting over other city states to increase their power. Anarchy. Because historically if anyone has tried to do as you suggest it would lead to anarchy and quickly to a dictator who grabs power. Because you say so? Great, I say that's ridiculous. And? Fortunately I have a brain and have common sense so not much danger of me getting an idiotic idea like that. Good one. Because you suggest a, which would lead to be(anarchy), which leads to c(dictatorship/warlords) which leads to d(war). Your mistaken belief might be that what will happen is free market but it will go down the path of any previous attempts and will be an abysmal failure only on a larger level. Again based on nothing but your say-so. There's no logic or reason in this scenario you've laid out. Why would a free market capitalist society lead to anarchy? Because mercenaries are notoriously unreliable, highest bidder gets their loyalty. Good thing I don't support the idea of hiring mercenaries. AKA private militias. a.k.a. nothing...a guy owning guns to protect his property is not a militia. It's a guy owning guns to protect his property. Jumping to conclusions seems to be a hobby of yours. You are for wasting money? Because you either invest properly or you don't invest at all, spending a few million to a billion to keep a coupe of thousand soldiers in the army will help no one, it will just be a waste of resources. What are you talking about? A couple thousand soldiers? Where are you getting this from? I've never mentioned 2000 soldiers. But keeping a standing army, or some kind of defense...yes, that might be useful. Does that mean I advocate throwing money away wastefully on toys? No. There has to be limits - lest we go broke trying to protect ourselves. Then there's nothing left to protect. And I never said that we should buy a thousand jets... I haven't said you did. But you're not the only person who wants jets in this thread. And these jets...they're bloody expensive. And there's no end in sight to purchasing them. You buy a bunch, they get old, you have to buy more, and so on and so on. Not to mention fuel costs, infrastructure, personnel...it just goes on and on. You can have a military without wasting untold billions of dollars in the process. A solution exists somewhere...my suggestion is we don't waste money buying toys. If there's a cheaper alternative, I'm all ears. But in the mean time, embracing diplomacy and trade is a big help, and a form of defense just like any other. so you propose we keep sufficient soldiers to protect Canada... so what like 200,000? 300,000? Because our army right now is not big enough to do that properly, its just big enough to make the US feel safe enough not to decide to take over our defence. This is the point...it's never enough. So, you put a limit on it. "Safety" is arbitrary...the definition means different things to different people. One person says one fighter jet is enough to feel safe, another says 10, another says 5000. The point is, safety is an idea...it's not ever something you can achieve. It's all in your head. So, it makes no sense to spend billions on fighter jets. Some drones? Maybe. Some nukes. Maybe. Soldiers? Probably. Other toys...who knows? The point is not to go bankrupt trying to achieve some kind of "feeling" that really doesn't mean anything. So lets hand it over to warlords and dictators? Look at Afghanistan circa 1960 and compare it to Afghanistan of 2001-2012 and see how good the warlords and dictators have been for that country and its people. Anarchy. Unfortunately you are proposing we disarm, let mercenaries defend us until they realize that they can just as well take from us and no one could do a thing, you are proposing we give up freedom to some dictator... not my idea of freedom. Anarchy. And no progress will be made when someone can go to your house and do as he pleases simply because there is no one to protect you and they are the law... Anarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Keep waiting, he doesn't like to answer when things don't fit in to his fantasy. More like it takes time to go through and reply to it all. Patience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Nations do not have friends, nations have allies, and nations have national interests when your national interests are contrary to my interests then we would part ways, precisely why over the last few thousand years few nations have fought side by side continuously in multiple wars, they are allies as long as it benefits both sides when one side has something to gain but the other side does not alliance is over. We are "friends" with the US as long as it is beneficial to them, should it become contrary to their national interests to be allied with us and be our trading parter they will cut us off in a second. You don't understand alliances. You've described befriending a nation for the benefit of both. A friendship is fine. You can cut that off when it no longer benefits you. An alliance comes with obligations be it military or others. They are to be avoided unless you want to allow another nation to have a say over your own affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Destroy what? Their gold? You think this is 1760? Your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Problem is they had something the Germans needed as in that moment, while Canada is loaded with resources they could use and develop at their pleasure once they have taken it. If we are to use the same tactic as Sweden we might need a couple of hundred Nuclear Warheads and be willing to kill about 35,000,000 Canadians to prevent someone from using our land and resources for at least a few hundred years... I think when all things are considered 65 F35s are not all that expensive... Yes, nuking the Canadian natural resources is just what I've said. And yes, of course it's 65 jets for now. FOR NOW... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 But your theory rests in us convincing every nations on earth as well as every terrorist organization to keep their funds in Canada and our banking system in order to have leverage over them, should one terrorist organization chose to keep their money somewhere else they are not threatened by us and can attack us at will while we cannot do a thing but probably beg the UN for peacekeepers who will watch us get slaughtered and urge calm. Over-simplification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Then what is the magic number? What Equipment do we have? how many soldiers to protect Canada? There is no magic number. What equipment, how many soldiers? Good questions...keep asking them...point those questions at the idea of buying jets and we'll be on the same page. How many jets? What kind? To what end? Now you're getting it...there is no magical solution out there, and no number solves the problem. One thing's for sure. We don't need to waste billions of dollars. And one way we avoid wasting money is to ask those questions, before we jump to knee-jerk solutions and get all wrapped up in gear porn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 How long does your car run before you have to buy a new one? forever? I carpool, and let someone else incur the costs of upkeep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 You define security, since you seem really elusive on it by saying we should let civilians form their own military units all the while the government will not waste money on a military but will have a military sufficient to defend Canada but without spending any money... Elusive? I'm not elusive at all, but this imaginary thing called "security". That's elusive. It's all in your head. A small, minimal government can have a military, just not a wasteful one. And again, there are other ways to enhance defense, diplomacy, friendship, trade...these are a big help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Which would lead to no government and various petty dictators with weapons terrorizing the people, which would lead to forming of city states and larger nations until we end up with a couple of large nations with dictators. How would it lead to that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 No, they will build piplelines where they want and sail tankers wherever they want. Who's going to stop them? You and your buddies with their private armies? Why would they stop at just the oil sands? National defense is fine, as long as it's not allowed to fester into some kind of world police, and we're not wasting money on hardware we don't need. A humble foreign policy is best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Good defence. Blow yourself up. How do you destroy gold anyway? Over-simplification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kward Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 I'll bite. Why would they be dumb enough to put their money in a Canadian bank then attack Canada? Or more to the point. Why would they put their money in a Canadian bank if they were going to attack Canada? Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted December 10, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Your point? My point is that your obvious lack of knowledge/insight into human history leaves your utterly ignorant as to how the world has worked in various places and at various times, and how this history repeats itself. We have regulations etc because the crap you're peddling here has been proven to work out poorly for the vast majority of people, over and over again, on innumerable occasions. See Standard Oil for one of the easiest examples. Regulation can go too far, sure, but total lack of regulation is just as bad. "Stereotypical small-town Albertan libertarian"...pick that up from a road sign on the Hanlon? Or maybe some political screed on a flyer you found in front of Trappers? If we didn't know from your juvenile profile pic, the Trappers reference seals the deal. What are you, like 19? Libertarian? Absolutely. Naive? Just the opposite. Charming? Sure. You'd like to think that. Naive was about the nicest way I could think of describing your posts. Ignorant and completely clueless would be leaning more towards reality...but the amount of effort you're putting into arguing off the entire forum is cute...or charming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
login Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Why would they be dumb enough to put their money in a Canadian bank then attack Canada? Or more to the point. Why would they put their money in a Canadian bank if they were going to attack Canada? Saves the wire transfer and conversion fee... on the flipside.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 I carpool, and let someone else incur the costs of upkeep. Essentially you use people, just like you want us to use the US for defence... shows real character. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Signals.Cpl Posted December 10, 2012 Report Share Posted December 10, 2012 Over-simplification. So how would you strategy work anyway? You say we blow it up then you say that blowing it up is oversimplification....make up your mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.