AC defense, part I: Defending a free nation

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]

As I have said before in modern warfare, casualties are not caused by bullets. Bullets are almost totally irrelevant. Attrition is caused by High Explosives at the operational level, in most cases divisional level artillery assets or strategic bombing. This was highly destructive in WW2, in 2007 its destructive power is truly awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

Then it seems likely that local militias or a large defense corporation would mirror that sentiment with technology to prevent against such things. Do you think that if an AC area adopted that type of approach it could very well defend itself from outside invaders?

[/ QUOTE ]

So far the only way to deal with this is to have an army so large that you still have some guys left after the opfor has fired all his shells. Some respected military analysts overlook any finer considerations of tactics and strategy and break warfare down literally into who can deliver the most HE to point A or B and how many guys can they have left after this has been done. Retrospective analysis of WW2 in this way proves very convincing.

The Paradigm of war hasnt changed much since WW2, weapons platforms still do the same things, they just do it better.

However we are just entering a shift in paradigm with the introduction of ultra accurate electronic based weapons. This is moving war away from the who can have the most guys left after we have blown the [censored] out of each other paradigm and into an as yet not fully conceptualised paradigm.

This might have implications for AC as it definitely has implications for the State. One of the key roles of the State is to provide lots and lots of cannon fodder to soak up the High Explosives. It is an interesting question as to how the State will evolve when the acquisition of violence no longer requires it to provide this function.

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So ACists are more willing to give the task of national defense to private companies consisting of all kinds of people instead of a one centralized national army? Wow.

There's the miliraty science issue that was already nicely stated.

There's the problem of how the hell can you make decent "organization without centralization"? That sounds like a lovely phrase but inside it's as empty as whatever that's really empty.

There's the question of do you really think rich people who donate money to national defense are actually so compassionate and loyal that they do not seek power and donate money only for selfless purposes? How naiive.

That kind of defense system would be impractical ("organization without centralization" lol) , ineffective (let's fight guerrilla warfare in our cities) and it would still contain many risks of oppression despite of the artificial option of choice (private companies are there to maximize the profit so they are very likely to deceive and create cartels for profit etc.)

I'm nowhere near an expert status of understading all the nuances of anarchocapitalism but at least this idea sounds so naiive and idealistic. It sounds all fine and dandy, "we have the power to choose instead of just accepting monopolized violence" but if that is the heart of AC in many cases it's unbelievably impractical.

Maybe this is an US thing where the government is so screwed. In other smaller countries state actually does do some things pretty well and most importantly, state in many cases is practical and it does not require all these "ifs" and "supposedlys" and naiive assumptions about the power of choice.

[ QUOTE ]
My hope is that the release of creative energy made possible by the Industrial Revolution, together with the rapid increase in standard of living which resulted for the working classes, and the accompanying social mobility that upset traditional hierarchies, has made a ruling class impossible without the aid of a centralized state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just had to paste this in. That's a beatiful way of thinking. If only money grew on trees. Now go play with these utopian assumptions somewhere else and let the adults actually handle the serious matters.

[/ QUOTE ]
What a worthless post.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was provocative, yes. Anarcho-capitalism is an attractive philosophy but the way some of you are touting it as the best damn thing ever since Jesus is silly. And it's so damn impractical. Put your AC into the test of the real world and it doesn't last a day. A fine working free market would be nice in all areas of life but the trust that the free market you're after is actually a possibility in this world is ridiculous. "Free market" can be so easily manipulated that it isn't such a "free" market after all.

[Richard Tanner]

I've had a little time to read over the article and this seems like a rehash of everything that's gone on here.

1) Centralization is bad- I don't get this one. It's not as if an invading army can just take over Wash DC or NORAD and the US military surrenders. There is no head you can cut off to kill the body here, every unit has standing orders. More over, a de-centralized nation may be harder to conquer but it seems easy to occupy, and it's likely that that occupation won't create very good living conditions for your people.

2) The US doesn't have competition- This is half true. They aren't competing with PMC (Private Military Companies) but they do contract out the designs and production of weapons to the private sector. Different companies compete for the contracts. This seems pretty close to the competition that the "free market" projects.

3) Decentralized command structure v. Chain of command- Another rehash of the old "who's in charge" question. Seems dangerously impractical to allow for a lack of command. Now I'm not someone that buys the "the free market will do it (end of explanation)" reason, so maybe that's why I have a hard time here.

4) The lack of large-scale unity re: Invasion- This one always gets me, and to his credit he mentions it with the Alex the Great example. If we just break down US into AC territories that miraculously use the current state borders as guides, then it seems unlikely that they'd all band together to help if one is being attacked. Maybe a few will, but it seems unlikely given what we know about people today that it would work.

All in all, I'm for less regulation and more competition in almost every single aspect of our lives, but the military so far isn't one of them.

Cody

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I've had a little time to read over the article and this seems like a rehash of everything that's gone on here.

1) Centralization is bad- I don't get this one. It's not as if an invading army can just take over Wash DC or NORAD and the US military surrenders. There is no head you can cut off to kill the body here, every unit has standing orders. More over, a de-centralized nation may be harder to conquer but it seems easy to occupy, and it's likely that that occupation won't create very good living conditions for your people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they have *standing* orders. But without the head, they can't get *new* orders. And without that adapatbility, a lot of the usefulness is squandered. These units *can* operate independently, but they are *tuned* for operating with information, orders, etc coming from above.

[ QUOTE ]
2) The US doesn't have competition- This is half true. They aren't competing with PMC (Private Military Companies) but they do contract out the designs and production of weapons to the private sector. Different companies compete for the contracts. This seems pretty close to the competition that the "free market" projects.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this isn't "competition" in the usual sense, any more than my local city government farming out a monopoly contract for garbage collection is. I still *have* to pay for the monopoly garbage vendor.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Decentralized command structure v. Chain of command- Another rehash of the old "who's in charge" question. Seems dangerously impractical to allow for a lack of command. Now I'm not someone that buys the "the free market will do it (end of explanation)" reason, so maybe that's why I have a hard time here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Decentralized =/= non-existent.

[ QUOTE ]
4) The lack of large-scale unity re: Invasion- This one always gets me, and to his credit he mentions it with the Alex the Great example. If we just break down US into AC territories that miraculously use the current state borders as guides, then it seems unlikely that they'd all band together to help if one is being attacked. Maybe a few will, but it seems unlikely given what we know about people today that it would work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would "AC territories" use "current state borders as guides"? Guides for *what*, exactly?

What you describe is basically the situation circa 1776. They certainly banded together.

[ QUOTE ]
All in all, I'm for less regulation and more competition in almost every single aspect of our lives, but the military so far isn't one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

So far in this post, you've basically said you don't see any *advantages* to less regulation on more competition in this particular aspect of the economy. Do you see any *disadvantages*??

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, they have *standing* orders. But without the head, they can't get *new* orders. And without that adapatbility, a lot of the usefulness is squandered. These units *can* operate independently, but they are *tuned* for operating with information, orders, etc coming from above.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem here is that they're still getting orders. You and others have made it seems as if there exists a commander-in-cheif that makes all the calls and if he's killed the rest of the armed forces just run around like chickens without heads. This just isn't the case, in this information age and with the complete chain of command in place right now, there is no "head" to cut off. This is neither weakness nor really a strength, just functionality. It may have been in the middle ages when seeing the king killed on the battlefield meant game over, but certainly not now.

[ QUOTE ]
But this isn't "competition" in the usual sense, any more than my local city government farming out a monopoly contract for garbage collection is. I still *have* to pay for the monopoly garbage vendor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see it as being almost identical, the only difference is that instead of you and I getting to pick differnt options, it's chosen for us by our repersentitives.

As for the "I still have to pay part", now we're arguing theory, different topic. Again I'm for almost total deregulation, so the evils of taxes aren't unknown to me.

[ QUOTE ]
Decentralized =/= non-existent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, but the point I was making is that if there are multiple companies (and in every projection I've heard of, the numbers range from 5-10 to hundreds) there isn't a way to integrate them all quickly. This should be obvious given what we know about people, namely that we can never agree. You think companies are wasteful now, wait until they are forced to bicker over things like this.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would "AC territories" use "current state borders as guides"? Guides for *what*, exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice my "miraculously" comment, I'm just using the states so that we'll have a frame of reference. In reality, pick any borders you like.

As an aside, I can't understand why people don't think that ACland will have borders (not that you said this, thus it's just an aside). How can it not. My town is full of wild, crazy, gamblin', coke snortin' people and a few miles over is a town founded by Catholics, certainly there will be borders. Different ideologies combined with the human nature to belong create these sorts of groups.

[ QUOTE ]
What you describe is basically the situation circa 1776. They certainly banded together.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under one flag, yes. They were a country. A country based more on confederation then federal power, but a country still.

Look at any denomination of people. Hell look at this board. Sides stick together, I may not agree with Joggers methods, but more often then not I'll give him a little "fudge room" in his arguments because, in general, he's on my side. Are you or anyone else any different. The more divided we get the more that sense of belonging kicks up. So it's not a stretch to think that at some point (in ACland) if there's an attack, people may not want to help my "crack free, gamble 'til you drop-ville" because we're "evil", paying no mind to the big picture.

By no means a certainty either way, but I think human nature (what we know of it) should play a large role in our discussions. Also, I reject the notion that Morneuyx put forward that we can't know human nature, I think certainly behavioral science isn't a fraud and there's valuable knowledge there.

[ QUOTE ]
So far in this post, you've basically said you don't see any *advantages* to less regulation on more competition in this particular aspect of the economy. Do you see any *disadvantages*??

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I'll divide it into two parts so that it will be more useful for you.

Real life- The military wastes on a massive scale, and because our system has basically given the free reign to spend whatever they want, I don't see this waste stopping.

Ideologically- Yes, but far less. Any armed force, from a man with a gun to the US military, is prone to the corruption of power. The market will not change this, nor will voting. I do think it's possible to at least attempt to keep it in check (limits on size, use), but as I've said before, we cannot fight our nature.

Cody

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, they have *standing* orders. But without the head, they can't get *new* orders. And without that adapatbility, a lot of the usefulness is squandered. These units *can* operate independently, but they are *tuned* for operating with information, orders, etc coming from above.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem here is that they're still getting orders. You and others have made it seems as if there exists a commander-in-cheif that makes all the calls and if he's killed the rest of the armed forces just run around like chickens without heads. This just isn't the case, in this information age and with the complete chain of command in place right now, there is no "head" to cut off. This is neither weakness nor really a strength, just functionality. It may have been in the middle ages when seeing the king killed on the battlefield meant game over, but certainly not now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to have to come back to this.

[ QUOTE ]
But this isn't "competition" in the usual sense, any more than my local city government farming out a monopoly contract for garbage collection is. I still *have* to pay for the monopoly garbage vendor.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see it as being almost identical, the only difference is that instead of you and I getting to pick differnt options, it's chosen for us by our repersentitives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. If we both want something different, one of us is going to get disappointed. That's a pretty big difference. Further, in a free market, I can appoint an agent to act on my behalf, but in this case, other people are picking my agent for me.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the "I still have to pay part", now we're arguing theory, different topic. Again I'm for almost total deregulation, so the evils of taxes aren't unknown to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theory? You mean taxes for defense haven't actually been observed in the wild?

WTF?

"I'm for 'almost' total opposition to murder, but I still want to be able to kill a few people."

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Decentralized =/= non-existent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, but the point I was making is that if there are multiple companies (and in every projection I've heard of, the numbers range from 5-10 to hundreds) there isn't a way to integrate them all quickly. This should be obvious given what we know about people, namely that we can never agree. You think companies are wasteful now, wait until they are forced to bicker over things like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Going back to your first point, you can't have it both ways. You're saying that the current US military is decentralized, so that it doesn't matter if some "big chicken" commander gets picked off. Now you're saying it *is* centralized, which gives it some "integration" advantage. Yet private firms manage to work together all the time, increasing efficiency along the way.

I don't think companies are "wasteful" now, certainly not when compared with baroque bureaucracies like the US military.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would "AC territories" use "current state borders as guides"? Guides for *what*, exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice my "miraculously" comment, I'm just using the states so that we'll have a frame of reference. In reality, pick any borders you like.

As an aside, I can't understand why people don't think that ACland will have borders (not that you said this, thus it's just an aside). How can it not. My town is full of wild, crazy, gamblin', coke snortin' people and a few miles over is a town founded by Catholics, certainly there will be borders. Different ideologies combined with the human nature to belong create these sorts of groups.

[/ QUOTE ]

These "borders" are known as property lines.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What you describe is basically the situation circa 1776. They certainly banded together.

[/ QUOTE ]

Under one flag, yes. They were a country. A country based more on confederation then federal power, but a country still.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. There wasn't "one flag". The Betsy Ross flag wasn't complete until 1777. The colonies were, in effect, 13 seperate governments. It was more of an alliance like NATO than a nation. That model continued at least until the Constitution was ratified, and wasn't totally eradicated until the civil war.

[ QUOTE ]
Look at any denomination of people. Hell look at this board. Sides stick together, I may not agree with Joggers methods, but more often then not I'll give him a little "fudge room" in his arguments because, in general, he's on my side. Are you or anyone else any different. The more divided we get the more that sense of belonging kicks up. So it's not a stretch to think that at some point (in ACland) if there's an attack, people may not want to help my "crack free, gamble 'til you drop-ville" because we're "evil", paying no mind to the big picture.

By no means a certainty either way, but I think human nature (what we know of it) should play a large role in our discussions. Also, I reject the notion that Morneuyx put forward that we can't know human nature, I think certainly behavioral science isn't a fraud and there's valuable knowledge there.

[ QUOTE ]
So far in this post, you've basically said you don't see any *advantages* to less regulation on more competition in this particular aspect of the economy. Do you see any *disadvantages*??

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I'll divide it into two parts so that it will be more useful for you.

Real life- The military wastes on a massive scale, and because our system has basically given the free reign to spend whatever they want, I don't see this waste stopping.

Ideologically- Yes, but far less. Any armed force, from a man with a gun to the US military, is prone to the corruption of power. The market will not change this, nor will voting. I do think it's possible to at least attempt to keep it in check (limits on size, use), but as I've said before, we cannot fight our nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? I'm asking if you see any disadvantages to "less regulation and more competition". Not disadvantages to more centralization.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So ACists are more willing to give the task of national defense to private companies consisting of all kinds of people instead of a one centralized national army? Wow.

There's the miliraty science issue that was already nicely stated.

There's the problem of how the hell can you make decent "organization without centralization"? That sounds like a lovely phrase but inside it's as empty as whatever that's really empty.

There's the question of do you really think rich people who donate money to national defense are actually so compassionate and loyal that they do not seek power and donate money only for selfless purposes? How naiive.

That kind of defense system would be impractical ("organization without centralization" lol) , ineffective (let's fight guerrilla warfare in our cities) and it would still contain many risks of oppression despite of the artificial option of choice (private companies are there to maximize the profit so they are very likely to deceive and create cartels for profit etc.)

I'm nowhere near an expert status of understading all the nuances of anarchocapitalism but at least this idea sounds so naiive and idealistic. It sounds all fine and dandy, "we have the power to choose instead of just accepting monopolized violence" but if that is the heart of AC in many cases it's unbelievably impractical.

Maybe this is an US thing where the government is so screwed. In other smaller countries state actually does do some things pretty well and most importantly, state in many cases is practical and it does not require all these "ifs" and "supposedlys" and naiive assumptions about the power of choice.

[ QUOTE ]
My hope is that the release of creative energy made possible by the Industrial Revolution, together with the rapid increase in standard of living which resulted for the working classes, and the accompanying social mobility that upset traditional hierarchies, has made a ruling class impossible without the aid of a centralized state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just had to paste this in. That's a beatiful way of thinking. If only money grew on trees. Now go play with these utopian assumptions somewhere else and let the adults actually handle the serious matters.

[/ QUOTE ]
What a worthless post.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was provocative, yes. Anarcho-capitalism is an attractive philosophy but the way some of you are touting it as the best damn thing ever since Jesus is silly. And it's so damn impractical. Put your AC into the test of the real world and it doesn't last a day. A fine working free market would be nice in all areas of life but the trust that the free market you're after is actually a possibility in this world is ridiculous. "Free market" can be so easily manipulated that it isn't such a "free" market after all.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes we know that's what you think, but excuse of if we don't just take your unproven assertions as fact. Nor is the place to discuss AC viability in general. There's no limit on new threads to start.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely the entire argument doesn't rest on this premise? Because that's what your statement above is implying.

[/ QUOTE ]
That particular point rests on that premise, yes.
[ QUOTE ]
You can argue anything if you claim that economic model A will be infinitely more prosperous than economic model B. I haven't seen any AC attempts to either quantify the degree of this prosperity increase, or provide evidence for it. Some kind of quantifying of this effect would be the absolute minimum required before stretching to the kind of claims made in this article.


[/ QUOTE ]
Then you haven't been looking too hard. This is the 2p2 politics forum right?
[ QUOTE ]
Russia was prosperous for a long time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Source plz.
[ QUOTE ]
China is growing at 9% a year.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cooperation and free trade from any nation with an AC nation disincentives conflict between the two. Being that there's no shortage of cooperation between the two now, I don't see this as a big problem. Even if we grant China the ability to obliterate AC land (and TOAFK indicates that would mean decimating the entire area) why would they want to? I have no incentive to bomb the places I shop at.
[ QUOTE ]
Germany and Japan were two examples of very prosperous nations who were brutal the point of evil. Rome was barbaric. Brutality and prosperity don't seem to be very closely linked.


[/ QUOTE ]
Worlds changed a lot since then too.
[ QUOTE ]
Also realize that many potentially offensive nations, such as China, live in the current shadow of US military might, and others under its protection.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you elaborate on the point you're making here?

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. If we both want something different, one of us is going to get disappointed. That's a pretty big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty big?? That's huge. It's the reason I like privatization so much (including the privatization of privacy, but that's another topic). I mean with health care, I'm not really hurt if you pick an idiot doctor, nor are you hurt if I choose to go to a great one. With food, we can each have our favorite farms and be just fine. However, with the military (I'm working under the assumption that the US fades away slowly and everyone else in the world is basically the same, fair?) we don't have that luxury (in my estemation) for reasons explained further down.

[ QUOTE ]
Theory? You mean taxes for defense haven't actually been observed in the wild?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I mean theory in the sense that's it's not plausable that we bring down the US government tomorrow and get to dissolve into ACland. So I'm (as a Libertarian) firmly in the make it better camp. That means if Ron Paul is the lesser of two evils, I'm voting for him. I like his ideas for the most part, he gets my vote. Some people don't want to vote and that's their right, but you (and others) need to look in the mirror and repeat "I will NOT see AC in my lifetime" over and over until it sinks in. Then maybe we can start to make some change. I firmly believe that pouting on internet message boards and causing fights won't help anything. But as I said, a different topic.

[ QUOTE ]
"I'm for 'almost' total opposition to murder, but I still want to be able to kill a few people."


[/ QUOTE ]

If you could kill one person to save 1 million...etc etc and on and on.

[ QUOTE ]
You're saying that the current US military is decentralized, so that it doesn't matter if some "big chicken" commander gets picked off. Now you're saying it *is* centralized, which gives it some "integration" advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think of it like this: There is no "head" to cut off to kill the body, but since there exists a firm and (99%) unquestioned chain of command, decisions can be made and carried out brutally effieciently. This speed would not likely exist on such a scale without the force behind the US Military. PMCs could certainly have their own chain of command, but would be unlikely to amass a power equal to that of the US (and required for effective protection). More over, it's unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) that given what we know about stress and human nature, that these many and ideologically varied companies could band together to fight with the effectiveness of the US Military.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think companies are "wasteful" now, certainly not when compared with baroque bureaucracies like the US military.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry meant to say "you think the military is wasteful now, wait til the private firms get ahold of it." The idea that once something goes private all the fat is trimmed is silly. Businesses exist to make money, and ignoring manpower and land limitations they'll hamper competition if allowed, sometimes using the same red tape as governments. At any rate, this is largely tangential to the thread

[ QUOTE ]
These "borders" are known as property lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you don't think it will stay this way right. HOAs and other organizations will pop up, giving rise to citys, perhaps even states, in all likelyhood nations won't be far behind. People will realize they hold a large amount of power and try to oppress others...

Maybe we're so messed up physiologically that it's the natural order of things. I wish there was a way to test this.

[ QUOTE ]
Huh? I'm asking if you see any disadvantages to "less regulation and more competition". Not disadvantages to more centralization.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoops! Read that wrong. In any case those things I listed in my OP in this thread about cover it. I don't see it being a particularly effective way to do it. I'm for deregulation and privatization of alot of things, but not the National military.

Cody

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're saying that the current US military is decentralized, so that it doesn't matter if some "big chicken" commander gets picked off. Now you're saying it *is* centralized, which gives it some "integration" advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Think of it like this: There is no "head" to cut off to kill the body, but since there exists a firm and (99%) unquestioned chain of command, decisions can be made and carried out brutally effieciently. This speed would not likely exist on such a scale without the force behind the US Military.

[/ QUOTE ]

So again, which is it? What happens when that upper layer, where the strategy is decided, is disrupted?

And does this theory indicate to you that the US should strive to further "integrate" the NATO allies? Our collective defence is compromised by depending on these "inefficient" units. Our speed and scale will be increased. Our worship of efficiency must *dictate* that we "integrate"!

Plus, hey, they're free riding. Let's start with canada. We can give them a week to think about it, then we start sending the bombers.

[ QUOTE ]
PMCs could certainly have their own chain of command, but would be unlikely to amass a power equal to that of the US (and required for effective protection).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Protection from whom? Would you lose sleep at night if the US only had half as many ICBMs? B2 bombers? Vast amounts of the US defense budget are dedicated to *offensive* resources.

[ QUOTE ]
More over, it's unlikely (not impossible, just unlikely) that given what we know about stress and human nature, that these many and ideologically varied companies could band together to fight with the effectiveness of the US Military.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think companies are "wasteful" now, certainly not when compared with baroque bureaucracies like the US military.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry meant to say "you think the military is wasteful now, wait til the private firms get ahold of it." The idea that once something goes private all the fat is trimmed is silly. Businesses exist to make money, and ignoring manpower and land limitations they'll hamper competition if allowed, sometimes using the same red tape as governments. At any rate, this is largely tangential to the thread

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Imagine Wal-Mart turning into a PMC. I'm sure they'd just be itching to send expeditionary forces to Iraq. Businesses exist to make money, right? So obviously they'd blow tons of cash on boondoggles, more even than the US military which has no profit motive! What kind of logic is that, exactly?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These "borders" are known as property lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you don't think it will stay this way right. HOAs and other organizations will pop up, giving rise to citys, perhaps even states, in all likelyhood nations won't be far behind. People will realize they hold a large amount of power and try to oppress others...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the same old argument; a population will work to gain *real* independence, then immediately forget all about what they wanted and roll over for tinpot of the week.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we're so messed up physiologically that it's the natural order of things. I wish there was a way to test this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This is so patronizing and condescending. "I'm not sure I can trust you with freedom, I'll just have to keep imposing upon you." Yes, it's scary. But it's not your right to make such a decision.

Imagine the arguments against abolition. "We can't be sure what the negroes will do, we have no choice but to keep them enslaved."