The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#1,080
#1,080
SergeantVol said:
Iran backs Hezbollah.
Click to expand...

Hezbollah had evolved into something very different than ISIS or al queda. They have only been involved in fighting Israeli occupation for the last 25 or 30 years. Their purpose and conduct has been far different since their inception and early terrorist activities. I'm not defending the attacks on the US embassy or marine barracks bombings and other early terrorist activities, but i view the fight against Israel in a far different light.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,081
#1,081
ClearwaterVol said:
Hezbollah had evolved into something very different than ISIS or al queda. They have only been involved in fighting Israeli occupation for the last 25 or 30 years. Their purpose and conduct has been far different since their inception and early terrorist activities. I'm not defending the attacks on the US embassy or marine barracks bombings and other early terrorist activities, but i view the fight against Israel in a far different light.
Click to expand...

No doubt you do. Hezbollah and their kind are freedom fighters, amiright?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,092
#1,092
Let's not act like Hezbollah wants to legitimately govern. They want the destruction of Israel and the eradication of the Israeli people. The common tactics for propaganda are on the same level as the Nazis. Are you afraid that the Jews will eat your children? Hezbollah and the various other Palestinian factions have convinced the Palestinians that this is the case. Over the past 20 years or so, Israel has conceded in most negotiations to leave Palestinian territories alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,096
#1,096
SpaceCoastVol said:
I don't have time this morning to explain this to you, but I will leave it at this point and tell you that you are flat our wrong for the most part. There is SOME competition, but not what you think. And that "competition" is one week... one bad Christmas... away from bankruptcy. WAL can bleed a LOT to kill their competition. The other way does not work. QOL for those left standing has diminished exponentially. My father went from being fairly successful to bankruptcy. Those that didn't, had to downsize... considerably. If that is your version of utopia, then you are winning
Click to expand...

I'm from a small town, too. Walmart has been there for decades and there's never been more small businesses than present day. Some businesses will lose out to a Walmart if their services and products are closely replicated by WMart. Others, even those with duplicate product/services will thrive because even in that town of <40K, not everyone wants to drive across town or they have differing offerings.

WMart has vacated Germany due to not being able to compete with native discounters. Large discounters are popular because people can buy for less, spend or squirrel the savings in other ways to benefit them, thus extending their dollar. WMart is closing 150 domestic stores mainly due to having too high a saturation in those areas. Small businesses will move in and fill those needs, so it works both ways. Even the most monopolistic businesses have competition except perhaps in the case of natural monopolies.

I don't subscribe to privately monetizing the protection of rights, enforcement of contracts or national defense to markets, but think it a superior philosophy regarding economic activity.
 
Last edited:
#1,097
#1,097
hog88 said:
What's more efficient than our agriculture of today? Community gardens?

You have yet to detail how food and other necessities could be transported alternatively.

I-40 could very well be a losing proposition with required maintenance and upkeep. Without proper maintenance it would become a safety hazard where people wouldn't want to pay the tolls to drive on it.
Click to expand...

But citizens would still decide that outcome. If the fees were too high and people began taking I26 between the states, the company would have to operate more efficiently or sell it to someone who could. If privatized, the state should be expected to no longer tax that amount from residents. Non-resident travelers would also be supporting it via toll, so it should actually cost residents less.
 
#1,098
#1,098
n_huffhines said:
Basically, the old west was anarchy. A lot of towns went periods of time without any law at all.

Think about it like this...the old west was as close to anarchy as we've had, and people were willing to go through hardships just to move there. People today won't move from TN to GA for a good job, and people were willing to ride a horse across the country for a little taste of anarchy.
Click to expand...

And yet, both the relatively ungoverned early colonies and the West gravitated to government. For all its attractiveness economically, anarchy doesn't generate the same fondness when viewed or experienced as a guarantor of rights, contracts, or national defense. That is not to say government absolutely guarantees those things either, but it appears the nature of people to continually perceive it a better option. Government seems to be the natural state of people.
 
#1,099
#1,099
volprof said:
Unfortunately, we have to be involved in the Middle East, as long as oil is valuable.
We certainly don't have to be as involved as we have been though. That is clear.
Click to expand...

I think the unfortunate thing is, we do have to be as involved as we are. When Nixon/Congress were faced with waning creditor appetite to continue financing the war for fears we couldn't repay the debt, the decision was made not to control spending, but to turn the dollar into a fiat currency with no gold reserve restraint.

Of course, that left creditors asking what then, provides value to your currency? The answer was the petro-dollar. In effect, our fiscal health is intertwined not just with having OPEC oil priced in USD and profits deposited in Western banks, but underwriting every despotic regime subscribing to the petro-dollar system via military technology and direct support.

We couldn't put distance between ourselves and the Wahhabi House of Saud even if we wanted to.
 
Last edited:
#1,100
#1,100
ClearwaterVol said:
You wouldn't fight if another country invaded and kept an occupying force in your country?
Click to expand...

I read a lot on this. In the mid-1800s, Jewish organizations funded large land acquisitions in the area termed Palestine. I found no references to Jews stealing land, but read accounts of Arab leaders complaining of landowners selling land to them. The lines drawn by the original mandate were indefensible, thus ill-conceived, and the newly-minted Israeli state refused to surrender them post-conflict. I dare say if Mexico and Canada had plotted same against the U.S., we'd still own ingress into each country 500 miles deep.

That said, even as Arafat was a chronic poison pill in negotiations - probably due to fear of assassination were he to abandon the perpetual 'death to the Israeli state' stance he bore responsibility for - Israel has also adopted an intractable and peace-defeating stance. The West Bank, for example, has experienced periods of relative stability that Israel has not capitalized on by making any concessions. OTOH, after abandoning Gaza settlements, the area became a staging ground for rocket attacks.

I'd fault Israel for that, but their post-war land acquisitions considerably less. Israel isn't going anywhere. The Palestinians will have to divorce the idea of eradicating the Jewish state.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top