Who Do You Want in Power?

[128shot]

Bah Mises.

He made a large error, what was meant stateless, he appeared to have made an error, what he seemed to mean by "state" was the present capitalist state. A feudal state is largely different. But also the Nordic feudal socieies still worked largely by class. Also Mises I believe claimed the public property was nonexistant. No society could ever fucntion without some public property, not even capitalist.

you will have a hard time convincing me of that one.

 

[Comrade Brian]

Fine then, I'll use your own site too, for bonus points.

Iceland did not have an executive branch of government. Instead of a king they had local chieftains. One permanent official in their system was the "logsogumadr" or law-speaker. His duties included the memorization of laws, the provision of advice on legislative issues, and the recitation of all legislative acts one time while in office.

Sounds like a government and state to me. Governments make laws to keep their ruling class domination intact>the chieftains.

There was no public property during the era of the Vikings in Iceland, all property was privately owned.

Private property makes separation of society, separation of society makes class, classes make states, to keep domination over all other(s).
http://www.mises.org/story/1121

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Private property makes separation of society, separation of society makes class, classes make states, to keep domination over all other(s).
http://www.mises.org/story/1121

I cannot find a successful country that does not have property rights of some kind.

 

[128shot]

Fine then, I'll use your own site too, for bonus points.


Sounds like a government and state to me. Governments make laws to keep their ruling class domination intact>the chieftains.

Private property makes separation of society, separation of society makes class, classes make states, to keep domination over all other(s).
http://www.mises.org/story/1121

We're talking about sensible anarchy, which is more of de-centralized "government" (local chieftans? come on man, thats de-central government, that is actually in touch with its people, its natural to have leaders.....) instead of no government at all.


So, well, I win.

 

[Comrade Brian]

We're talking about sensible anarchy, which is more of de-centralized "government" (local chieftans? come on man, thats de-central government, that is actually in touch with its people, its natural to have leaders.....) instead of no government at all.

Oh I get, this is not anarchy, its just "sensible" anarchy. You should have told me from the beginning. The also this article contradicts itself.

Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government

So by that it means that Iceland was without any government "sensible" or not.

I cannot find a successful country that does not have property rights of some kind.

By "country" do you imply a modern capitalist state? Also, what "rights" does anyone have? A right to life? A right to liberty? Stop making invisible "rights" for excuses, your "rights" are easily taken away by anyone, and some have boundries as clear as mud.

 

[nineplus]

There's no party currently in American politics that I support without grave reservations about their policies and their ability to lead.

Given the amount of social upheaval that the loss of the Republicans and Democrats would cause, though... I think the best answer would be my political party, composed of myself and my loyal followers.

hahahaha this is EXACTLY what I was about to type

guess you and I can duke it out for power eh?? lol

 

[nineplus]

Assuming our system of government is still in place, but the Democrats and Republicans lose power, which party do you want to be in power?

I don't support any of the current parties whole-heartedly.........none of them lol

If this ever happened I think what you'd see was within 25 years you'd have new names on the same old parties going back and forth over the same old issues and voters putting one group in power, then the other, with the same alternating pattern we currently see.

And while I can easily find fault with our country and our government, I believe the reason the same characters and same pattern would emerge is because in a basic bare-bones sort of way, it actually works.

Not perfectly or anything close mind ya

 

[128shot]

Oh I get, this is not anarchy, its just "sensible" anarchy. You should have told me from the beginning. The also this article contradicts itself.

So by that it means that Iceland was without any government "sensible" or not.


By "country" do you imply a modern capitalist state? Also, what "rights" does anyone have? A right to life? A right to liberty? Stop making invisible "rights" for excuses, your "rights" are easily taken away by anyone, and some have boundries as clear as mud.

yes, sensible, because it is impossible to have absolutely no type of "government" when we speak of anarchy, at least in my view, it is absence of strong, central government like a federal government and it is more governed on a local level or state-local level, or governed by individals working togethor via a corporation or other means of co-operation.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I'd like to see a democratic-Socialist party in power....