Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Barakistan

We've already tried the whole Republic thing, and we've seen how it works and what happens to it. Other countries have tried it too, with the same result.

Go on...

I certainly can't see how anarchy would by design handle an external aggressor such as Russia or China. Say for a moment that your utopia did somehow happen here in North America. And lets further say that the Chinese and Russians want "lebensraum" and the abundant natural resources that we have here. How is your anarchist society going to handle an invasion by those entities? With no Navy or National Guard or even a small standing army, how would we repel the invaders? Invite them in? Pay them off? Guerrilla war? To what point and under what leadership? I can tell you from a military POV that anarchy won't work in a military environment or in combat. Combat seems like anarchy, and can devolve into it if tactical control is lost, but there's usually a heirarchy of command to keep things moving along, and recover from or exploit mistakes.

How would a nuclear deterrent be created and maintained? Saying that it wouldn't be needed is to deny facts. Not having defense capabilities able to react within minutes to an external nuke threat sounds like national suicide or servitude, take your pick. If the new anarchist nation decided it was a good thing to have, who designs, pays for and maintains the systems? Individuals? So now we're back to feudalism. The individuals with the most money and means hire and acquire the best and most efficient defense/offense methods. Then they decide that they need something, and that something is held by another group who want too much for it, or don't want to sell it, so you have mini wars over resources.

Pete E makes a good point too. Roving bands of brigands will be able to take what they want when they want it, and unless you're willing to either pay to have a security force, or do it yourself, the society would be vulnerable to that. How do you maintain a defense against brigands and still work at whatever trade you have? Heck, even if you hired the security guards, they may decide to take over if they want to, and how do you counter that?

The closest thing to anarchy that I recall in recent history is the French Revolution, and that ended with Bonaparte.

I say again, as flawed as our Constitution may be, and as corrupted as the system into which it has devolved has become, your description of anarchy doesn't seem either realistic or palatable. It seems to me it would be much easier to try and fix the flaws we have and repair the system, than it would be to abandon it for something that, to me, seems utopian and unworkable given the nature of humanity.

So, you get the impression from my posts that I favor big government? You mean because I don't embrace the fantasy of a society where no one seeks to exercise unchecked and arbitrary power over the lives of other? The reality is that there will always be those willing and able to surround themselves with enough thugs to impose their unchecked will on the remainder of humanity. Give that system enough time to develop, and it becomes what we call The State. The solution to The State is to impose on it the rule of law. That process is called the institution of government. It's that simple.

Your insurance company will repel the Russians for you.

Sorry, Barak, I couldn't resist.

You may be the exception, TRH. But you know better than most that modern conservatism does NOT want small government! And the liberals sure as [bleep] don't.

You're a smart guy, Barak. It's a shame that you waste all that brain power fantasizing about things that cannot, in light of reality, possibly be. You'd be a real benefit to the cause of restoring the Republic established by the Founding Fathers.

i understand his thought process.....might not agree with some of it.....some of it i would prefer over what we have.....i grew up as part of a huge family....rough figuring is i have over 100 first and second cousins.....most of my family is highly opinionated....im used to listening to ppl whos beliefs are different than mine....if they put some thought behind them im more inclined to listen more......

Barak has put alot of thought into this....its what he honestly believes is best.....but most importantly he really isnt an arse about it it and encourages ppl to put thoughts into arguments to try and prove the jist of what he is saying is wrong cause he WANTS to see any holes in his theories....

one thing to keep in mind is he has openly shared that he is autistic or has autistic tendencies(i forget which) so its a solid bet his thought process is different from most....push comes to shove he is less of an arse bout how he presents his self and his ideas than some on here i agree with more.....