[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

Providing a counter-example to an unfair generalization about what "we" have is cherry picking?


[/ QUOTE ]

lets leave that point aside for a minute. Im gonna stick with the point that they are not counter-examples.

America is a mafiaso group with theocratic and fascist elements. So far as moorobot was saying anarchy will descend into those with the most guns having the most power then this is what America represents.

For him to say oh well anarchy will have theocratic and fascism on a larger magnitude than a governed world is unfounded in the least, and im wondering if you're willing to defend that line of thinking.

[ QUOTE ]

Of course invading countries and trying to force them to have the sort of government we want doesn't work well. That's a completely different issue. It's not as if not being an anarcho-capitalist makes one an imperialist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it does.

You're saying when you invade a territory rather than country and force them to have the sort of government you want then that is just fine and dandy? If you agree governments now aren't voluntary institutions, then how do you think the came about and how doe they expand?

[ QUOTE ]

Uh if you're saying a political system is only good if it works for every society then nothing is satisfactory, including anarcho-capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Im saying that democracy should not exasperate problems that the tenets claim the system will solve. If we want to know whether democracy is a good tool for solving conflicts among divided individuals then we should go somewhere where people are divided to test this, dont you think?

For example, if people think minimum wage laws are effective they should try implement them in bangladesh. Just because our society doesnt collapse due to minimum wage laws doesnt mean the aren't harmful. We can get away with using them here because the effects are much more diluted but when you apply the wrong medicine to someone who is truly sick the disastrous results will be much less deniable.

[ QUOTE ]

A dictatorship is a country in which a dictator has absolute power. There is no one person in the US or even branch of govnernment that has absolute power. So again, calling it a dictatorship is silly and incorrect. Your point can be made without using that word.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're playing on semantics rather than focusing on the argument. If a group of people enforce their will and dictate to others how to live by rule of force, call this what you will and then readjust what i said with that word in place. Call it mob rule instead of dictatorship.

some might still argue that the executive branch has dictatorial powers too btw.


[ QUOTE ]

In anarchism, they don't have to go to the trouble of amending the constitution. So I don't see how this is a flaw of democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because they can use the state money and power to enforce their will rather than their own money and power.