It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

War Is Always Pointless

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I don't need the government to protect me.

1. I can hire a security guard if necessary.

2. I can arm myself if necessary.

3. I can buy insurance if necessary to protect my property.

4. I can arbitrate disputes of property and contract in a private arbitration court.

The State DESTROYS property, it does not protect it.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the State protects peoples property.

It STEALS it through the use of violent force and DESTROYS it in warfare.

If I had to chose between the police or a private security guard company to protect my property, I'm hiring the security guard.


The State protects your propety because China would like your resources. You do not have the resources to keep China from coming in and taking them. So you pay a portion of your resources to the state along with everyone else to keep China from coming to take your resources. The State is your protector of your "Ownership". As long as you must "own" you will never have peace.

What you are desiring is not Anarchy, but to be your own feudal lord.

With Love,

Your Brother




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


I direct you back to my OP argument.

If there were no US government, what would China attack?

Google HQ?

What would China do once they invaded?

Take property like a bunch of Viking raiders?

Wouldn't it be cheaper and more cost efficient for China to simply buy the stuff rather than spending billions on a military invasion?



edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


I direct you back to my OP argument.

If there were no US government, what would China attack?


You.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


LOL

For some reason I don't think the nation of China is concerned about me personally.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


LOL

For some reason I don't think the nation of China is concerned about me personally.


Your right! It's not about YOU. It is about the resources you "own".

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
War is an excuse for domestic tyranny. Americans who have not yet realized this, please think about it. You have a wonderful country, but some of you have been blindly nationalized to think every single one of your citizens is better than anyone else, and, more importantly, that your government is the most just and good leaders in the world. No government cares about the country theyre fighting, only the people they can control. By creating an enemy, they unify the people that are on theyre "side". Its only to gain more control over you without you noticing. It is the reptilian part of the brain that is govering your governors, and it is sucking you dry, beautiful people



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


I think the French would have been better off under German rule.

Perhaps the French Jews would have suffered, but the French people as a whole would probably have been better off if they simply did nothing to fight off the Germans.

All the resources that were spent and destroyed fighting the Germans could have instead been put to use in a productive fashion.

There would have been zero French war casualties if the French decided to do nothing.


edit on 11-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


But all the Jew casualties would have been ok? Like me doing nothing when my freinds get hauled off. Your whole idea here is a majior fail unless you are just looking at responces. Otherwise you are the type that would just walk by someone being killed on the street.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


So, China wants my resources.

Why not just buy them off of me?

Lets do some simple math.

China spends 20 billion annually on military spending, it would easily cost them 10 times that amount to invade and plunder.

So, what's the simpler and easier solution for China to get my resources:

Buy them from me or attempt to invade the entire nation, plunder its resources, and haul them back?

For that matter, what is the US government engaged in right now?

Is it not PLUNDERING the US public through the use of violent force?

What is the difference if China uses violence to take from me or the US government uses violence to take from me?

What is the difference?

Further, since voluntary trade economically benefits both parties, why would China attack in the first place?


edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


I think the French would have been better off under German rule.

Perhaps the French Jews would have suffered, but the French people as a whole would probably have been better off if they simply did nothing to fight off the Germans.

All the resources that were spent and destroyed fighting the Germans could have instead been put to use in a productive fashion.

There would have been zero French war casualties if the French decided to do nothing.


edit on 11-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


But all the Jew casualties would have been ok? Like me doing nothing when my freinds get hauled off. Your whole idea here is a majior fail unless you are just looking at responces. Otherwise you are the type that would just walk by someone being killed on the street.


Is it better that a million jews die or that 10 million civilians die?

Is it better that an entire nation is impoverished by war time spending, or that the nation's resources are left in the same state they were previously?

Further, the French could have resisted the German occupation by non-violent means far more effectively by simply not complying with German rule.

The Germans would eventually exhaust themselves economically trying to control an unwilling population, just as the Soviets did in Afghanistan, and just as we are doing right now.

Rather than spending money on fighting Germans, they could have used a tenth of that money to move their Jews out of the country to safety and simply engaged in non-violent resistance.



edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Wonderful post. As the 14th Dalai Lama said when asked why he doesn't fight back against the Chinese who stole their land, murdered his people, and torture/imprison them, "The power of guns is temporary, the power of truth is forever and will always prevail." He then went on to clarify that it is always okay to defend yourself when in IMMEDIATE danger. I fully, 100%, wholehartedly agree with is statement.

I know others will fully, 100%, wholeheartedly disagree with this statement and that is completely understandable.

edit to add: what I get from the Dalai Lama's statement is that, in the end, the righteous will prevail. If a war is started because of lies, greed, or a hunger for more power and the instigator is the victor, there will only be a temporary victory. When all is said and done it is the righteous who stood on the side of truth that will have an everlasting victory. It might not come as soon as it is hoped for, but they will have a more deserving victory.
edit on 12-1-2011 by nunya13 because: Add a statement



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
So, China wants my resources.

Why not just buy them off of me?

Lets do some simple math.

China spends 20 billion annually on military spending, it would easily cost them 10 times that amount to invade and plunder.


They spend this much because we have a state to protect you. Take away the state and they could invade and conquer at a fraction of the cost. Why buy from you when they could just kick you out?

Did we buy the Americas from the natives here? No, we simply invaded. It wasn't until the organised and militarised, ie set up a state, that we had to start buying land from them. When this failed we went back to using military might.


Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
For that matter, what is the US government engaged in right now?

Is it not PLUNDERING the US public through the use of violent force?

What is the difference if China uses violence to take from me or the US government uses violence to take from me?

What is the difference?

Further, since voluntary trade economically benefits both parties, why would China attack in the first place?


Of course the US is plundering the public. It has been since the signing of the Constitution. A state costs money and must take it by force. No one willing gives up that which they "own" except by what? Fear and Personal Gain!

We are going in circles my friend. You dislike your current government. This is understandable. Yet you wish to maintain "ownership" of things which they protect for you. This is not understandable.

The only reason China does not invade is because you have a state in place. Without the state having the ability to fend off the invasion, it would be far cheaper for China to just come take what they want.

If you want to be free and have peace, you must lose your attachments to "ownership". As long as you have that attachment, you will always be on guard against thieves, invasions, and swindlings. Those things you own block your sight from the glory of humankind working together.

You do not have to take my view. If your view brings you peace, joy, and love for all, by all means keep it.

It is always your choice.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Again, the US government is not protecting my property - it is STEALING IT and DESTROYING IT in wars.

So your argument that I need the State to protect my property is logically flawed right from the start.

You seem to equate THEFT to the protection of property rights.

This is ridiculous.

You also seem to think nations are interested in doing things that are against their own economic self-interest, since you think China would invade a trade partner without any good cause.

This too is ridiculous.



edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Again the US government is not protecting my property - it is STEALING IT and DESTROYING IT in wars.

So your argument that I need the State to protect my property is logically flawed right from the start.

You seem to equate THEFT to the protection of property rights.

This is ridiculous.


What is the difference in the State taking it to fight wars for your protection and you hiring security guards to fight wars for your protection?

Don't hire security guards, you will only call them thieves when they send the bill.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Again the US government is not protecting my property - it is STEALING IT and DESTROYING IT in wars.

So your argument that I need the State to protect my property is logically flawed right from the start.

You seem to equate THEFT to the protection of property rights.

This is ridiculous.


What is the difference in the State taking it to fight wars for your protection and you hiring security guards to fight wars for your protection?

Don't hire security guards, you will only call them thieves when they send the bill.

With Love,

Your Brother


Well, security guards don't fight wars and are paid voluntarily for their services to PROTECT property, not to take it.

The State uses theft to then fund further methods of theft, and doesn't protect any property in the process.

What exactly is the State protecting me from?

Being looted by another State?

I AM ALREADY BEING LOOTED BY A STATE - so what difference does it make?

To be honest, I WOULD RATHER BE LOOTED BY CHINA BECAUSE THEIR TAX RATES ARE LOWER HAHAHA


edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Yes war is pointless, but in a capitalist paradigm it serves the purpose of supporting the military industrial complex thereby the primary beneficiary of all of this misery...the global cabal of elite bankers primarily the Rothchilds. The Bankers and their elite cronies, play both sides of every conflict and by doing so maximize profits. The Rothchilds have been doing this for centuries. IBM produced the punch card system for the Nazi concentration camps. Coca-cola continued sales in Germany during WWII, selling Fanta orange to the fascists....and on and on. Ours sons, daughters, fathers, mothers are sent to a pointless death under a banner of covert oppression. Countries are invaded. Millions are murdered all to make the obscenely rich, even richer.

Capitalism has become the scurge of mankind, it is raping the planet and slaughtering millions of innocent human beings all for profit. We have no choice but to run our societies on oil, Exxon-Mobil, BP, Shell wouldn't allow it to be changed and yet they blame us for driving the cars. Nuclear energy produces nuclear waste which will remain deadly for 10,000 years and should a nuclear power plant suffer a catastrophic disaster....the china syndrome and nuclear fallout spews forth to render vast swaths of land uninhabitable for untold years.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating communism or socialism nor any other form of government. Historically these latter systems of government have lead to enslavement and oppression on a massive scale. No I'm for true freedom, some type of local totally democratic paradigm where equality of all men and women are honored.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by HUMBLEONE
 


WOAH THERE TANTO


Yes war is pointless, but in a capitalist paradigm it serves the purpose of supporting the military industrial complex


Please explain what is capitalist about a government using the violent theft of taxation to take fruit of the peoples labor by force and then hand it to merchants of death.

You are telling me that without government's involvement, the public would be out there snapping up F-35 fighter jets and bombing Afghanistan?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Again, the US government is not protecting my property - it is STEALING IT and DESTROYING IT in wars.

So your argument that I need the State to protect my property is logically flawed right from the start.

You seem to equate THEFT to the protection of property rights.

This is ridiculous.

You also seem to think nations are interested in doing things that are against their own economic self-interest, since you think China would invade a trade partner without any good cause.

This too is ridiculous.

You do not own "your" property, the state does. Have you paid off your mortgage? You have, good for you! Now you still have to pay property tax don't you? So don't pay your property tax and see who really owns "your" property. "We have the illusion of freedom, but what we are really free to choose is from 26 kinds of bagels"- George Carlin

edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by HUMBLEONE
 


WOAH THERE TANTO


Yes war is pointless, but in a capitalist paradigm it serves the purpose of supporting the military industrial complex


Please explain what is capitalist about a government using the violent theft of taxation to take fruit of the peoples labor by force and then hand it to merchants of death.

You are telling me that without government's involvement, the public would be out there snapping up F-35 fighter jets and bombing Afghanistan?

Private profits, public losses. The Fed is a scam, we know this, don't we. Taxation is a scam, we know this don't we. We are using public funds collected by the Treasury to send to the Fed which is a cabal of private banks to loan back our taxpayer money to the government (which is also a Corporation) to buy bombs, bullets and guns to send our kids off to a foreign land to fight solely for Corporate interests. What a rackett! They are raping us on multiple fronts!



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by HUMBLEONE
 



Private profits, public losses.


That is not capitalism.

That is Italian Fascism, predominately called corporatism in modern American terminology.

I request that you refrain from calling corporatism capitalism, since it gives voluntary trade interactions a bad rap that they don't deserve.


edit on 12-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
War is pointless.

It's a great soundbite, I'll agree. I'll even go so far as to agree with you that many of them are, indeed, pointless.

However... (you knew that was coming, right?)

When a group of people decide that you, and yours, are an unneccessary blight on the world, and come to, amongst other things, remove you, and yours, from this world, war becomes, not pointless, but a tool for survival.

I can't help but find your response to Agit8d Chop somewhat disturbing. The Jews would have suffered, but the average French citizen, you imply, would have been better off...? Would you be so kind as to explain that? What exactly are you saying there?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join