The Plight of Mariestown

So is this town theoretical or an actual place? Because its more like a theoretical conception of BS more like it since I'm unable to find it online. - It’s not real - it is an representation of just about any town in America.
“Anarchists are a joke for all I care since your barely recognize the fact that the development of government is a process rather than simply a place or identity.” Come again? We recognize that government is a development always in progress. The problem is it develops like a cancer and like cancer, kills its host.

“The creation of nation-states will always happen even if the world ended up being drastically de-populated.” So far this is true - save for the indians and other tribe like bodies who did okay for themselves before the empires took over...but i guess i should be glad about that then because then i guess we wouldn’t have these wonderful roads right?

“You (Shanklin) try to sell snake oil by suggesting that the Anarchist view is somehow almost utopian by nature since humanity can be free from greed and free from being violent.” Michael never claimed that and i cannot think of any real anarchist who has. The evils of the world are constant and strike with or without government. All government does is make these evils bigger and more remote from their core support so as to stay in power.

“Well guess what, history has been full of violence as well as greed. You cannot deny the process of history itself and from what I can bet, you're not even a history major.” No it can’t and once again we never tried to claim otherwise. However at least we are honest and believe in ourselves enough to want self governance over a forced one that does nothing but take while claiming to be good.

“ The anarchist mode of governance can only exist if the World has been drastically depopulated” or educated and relying less on group thought.

“but even then, once population grows back, the need for territory and protection grows with it.” However government only conquers, sells to its people death and betrayal to get it. An anarchist may not commit such an atrocity.

“ Just read Gun, Germs, and Steel and that alone discredits the concept of Anarchist ideas since it points out that nation-state development is a process no matter where you go in the World.” Will definitely read now - thanks for the recommendation as I am always looking to learn. However nation states are never moral - they just use the moral sheild to hide behind when their govt grants them favors from its ill gotten gain. I am not an anarchist because i believe it to be a winning strategy. I am an anarchist because it is the only moral way to go where i can live with myself at night.

Ok, you have to understand that even before the British Empire or the Spanish empire came to the new world, the indigenous were at war with each other constantly. Thats why for example the large city of the Mississippian civilization was largely abandoned when Europeans eventually encountered it. Believe it or not, when European began to enter the shores of North America, various indigenous groups began to form confederations in order to create unity and stability so that they could have negotiating power with European powers. Even non-European societies experienced patterns of war and peace no matter the size or continent. African nations before 1884 experienced the rise and fall of kingdoms from the Kingdom of Mali to the Kingdom of Kongo. What government does is create stability and if you deny that then its rather laughable since we're here today bitching about it behind different computers. Government "technically" becomes evil when the people don't get themselves involved in the process (elections). Again, this all goes to the basic enlightenment concept of the Social Contract (Anarchists always ignore). Again, if you hate the way our government works right now, don't bitch and mourn about it and do something! Thats the point of being a citizen and if citizens fail to be active in reforming government, then government becomes disconnected from the people and guess who replaces individual citizens? Big corporations. Education is a vague term since we might as well be either talking about pragmatic approaches or the philosophical approach. If the whole point of government was to sell its people to death, then we wouldn't have had a medieval society since the whole point back then anyways was to protect your subjects and in return they made stuff for you. That again, evolves overtime and we went from a wall+castle to well defined borders and elected officials that are suppose to follow what we say. Self-proclaimed anarchists have indeed caused deaths through rioting in the 19th and early 20th century and hence, the anarchist movement hasn't been exactly peaceful either.

“Ok, you have to understand that even before the British Empire or the Spanish empire came to the new world, the indigenous were at war with each other constantly.” Not all of them were though. It is true that there were many tribal disputes - that I cannot and will not argue. However not all of the same tribes were ‘constantly’ at war. A more accurate way to put it would be ‘many of the tirbes would fight over territory, and after the fighting went on for sometime a truce was made, and the same tribes rarely fought with each other after that’.

“Thats why for example the large city of the Mississippian civilization was largely abandoned when Europeans eventually encountered it. Believe it or not, when European began to enter the shores of North America, various indigenous groups began to form confederations in order to create unity and stability so that they could have negotiating power with European powers.” They were forming these confederations to gain favor with the new people coming on their shores - and it should be noted that alot of infighting came from those who did not want this favor. Also, look what happened when favor was gained - they were still swindled out of their land and later forceably removed. Then we had a myriad of wars amongst the new occupants over the same land - each with the backing and orders from their perspective governments (French, Spanish, English, Germans, Irish etc). Then once england finally won - the colonies were fully under English control. Then when the colonies grew they spread like wildfire and warred against the French and Spanish (mainly the Spanish) over territory - all with their governments orders. Then under government orders we had a civil war. Then after the union was sealed under Lincoln (because people were tired of fighting) - we took our wars overseas - all under government order. Point is - the fighting has always been and will always be there. Government just took it from tribal size to global scale.

“ Even non-European societies experienced patterns of war and peace no matter the size or continent. African nations before 1884 experienced the rise and fall of kingdoms from the Kingdom of Mali to the Kingdom of Kongo.” Same as above - and are still on heavy conflict to this day. I am not seeing proof that having a government has stopped the fights.

“What government does is create stability and if you deny that then its rather laughable since we're here today bitching about it behind different computers.” Where has it created stability? Here in the states, in England etc? Sure i guess you can say that - as long as your sure to include the multitude of global conflicts we have maintained for over a hundred years now. Just because you see peace and order here, does not mean that the whole world is stable - if it was, we would not be spending over 1 trillion a year + in foreign conflicts. So How is me denying your version of stability laughable as oppose to a broader scope of the US empires actions? Because we are on different computers? How does that prove it?

“Government "technically" becomes evil when the people don't get themselves involved in the process (elections).” Really - so our government has gotten less evil since 1788 as voting rights etc have continued? I voted once - the other guy i disagreed with was elected...havent voted since...I have written my congressman - and gotten only a generic response meaning the ‘elected official’ not only does not represent me, but he cares less what i have to say to boot. No, I am very politicially active - just ignored by my ‘representatives’ because they never like what i have to say.

“ Again, this all goes to the basic enlightenment concept of the Social Contract (Anarchists always ignore).” Social contract made by who? If I never agreed to a new law or statute - then what obligation am i under to follow it? Because someone like you voted for it? If that is the case, then why should i be responsible for a contract you called for?
“ Again, if you hate the way our government works right now, don't bitch and mourn about it and do something!” As stated letter have been written etc - even a few office visits. And nothing. You want me to go out and take time away from my family and work to protest is that it?

“Thats the point of being a citizen and if citizens fail to be active in reforming government, then government becomes disconnected from the people and guess who replaces individual citizens?” I was active and was ignored - which means the government does not give a damn about me or those like me. Your using the same argument that has been replayed over and over throughout all of time, and it never works.

“Big corporations.” Most big corporations would not be big minus govt subsidy - they would have gone under long ago.

“Education is a vague term since we might as well be either talking about pragmatic approaches or the philosophical approach.” Agreed.

“If the whole point of government was to sell its people to death, then we wouldn't have had a medieval society since the whole point back then anyways was to protect your subjects and in return they made stuff for you.” Except that protection only served to make their subjects poorer, and most of the conflicts then came more from injured pride of aristocrats - not to merely gain more subjects.

“ That again, evolves overtime and we went from a wall+castle to well defined borders and elected officials that are suppose to follow what we say.” Who is we? Not me that’s for sure - they rarely listen to their own intelligence and advisors. Well defined borders? Yeah, those are working out very well aren’t they?

“Self-proclaimed anarchists have indeed caused deaths through rioting in the 19th and early 20th century and hence, the anarchist movement hasn't been exactly peaceful either.” Never claimed it to be. Yet how many have all the anarchists killed? A few thousand? Ten thousand maybe? How many have governments killed fighting each other? Hundreds of millions - you tell me which is more moral.

thanks for the history lesson and moral argument
you have my vote up

I am saying that using ones natural right to defend oneself as oppose to a reliance on police is not only a money saver, but a major reality check.

Sure if you want to go to jail or prison.

let's ask also how many calls are "resolved" by the police?
I and my family together have had 3 burglaries, and a few simple theft calls to the police. In our lives, not ONE thing has ever been recovered, nor one person punished.
One theft ended up being a mistake and they returned the phone themselves the next day, but that's as close as it ever came.

implying what about the right of self-defense, exactly?

the right to self defence is one thing but to take the law into yopur own hands is another.

The two are not exclusive.
If I shoot a man for invading my home, I have most certainly done both.

If someone trys to enter your home you have a right to defend yourself at any cost. That is called the castle law.

True in MY state, but that brings up a good point: If I move to somewhere with a less enlightened view on guns, like say, California, or Massachusetts, does my location actually cause me the LOSS of that right? In any case, if the government fails to recognize my right, it doesn't cease to exist, it simply means they're in the wrong and I will have to fight with THEM, too. If I'm lucky, it will be in a courtroom.

Well I truely hope you never have to find out how they are in other states.Those that live in such states need to fight till they have a right to defend what is theirs.

In a war of words, choose your weapons carefully. They aren't fighting till they HAVE a right, they're fighting till their inherent right stops being violated. :)

In a war of words make sure you have a dictionary with all the words in it

Or know em all by heart, but that takes more effort, eh? ;)

yep that and know all your rights and use them

Seriously - you must love mad max because thats the only response you ever have to articles like this...seriously - the town had no issues prior to the enactment of a real police force in this case - so I am wondering on what historical basis you make this inane response?

PS - Mad Max was a movie - can you think of a real example to use?

What? This is actually real?

Oh come on, the whole country is falling apart and we're headed towards economic collapse. I thought you anarchists would enjoy the reference.

An economic collapse would be nasty i will admit - but if the state was so good at what it did, then the collapse would never have been. Besides - anarchists like myself are not irrational and do not think of looting or anything else as a moral or good. On the contrary we see the signs and plan for the worse - making sure we are self sustaining so in the event of a collapse - we could care less.

You should really focus on not being so defensive. But then again, it's all human nature dude. Whether there's a government or not, people will be shitty to one another. I figure the state of nature will make for a great equalizer when it's all said and done.

All government does is empower one section of society over the rest, and grant the illusion of stability and order.

That's one way of looking at it. Conversely, government can equally be interpreted as a means of preventing one segment of society from exercising complete dominion over the rest. And while that whole illusion of stability and order thing is something worth contemplating, we shall soon see whether, and how quickly, that illusion evaporates.

Lets take America for an example. We mostly had local governments at the time of succession from England which by the way was not even agreed on by everyone. Dickenson who was in office at the time was not for it for an example - he wanted reconsconiliation with England. Henry was another story. What was apparent though, was that the favors shown from England on some colonies and their mechants at the expense of others was such an artificial imbalance that took a revolution to fix. The problem that resulted was that the newly freed colonies used the British model to begin their own republic. They figured that if they had a written vs a verbal constitution, that it would prevent the new government from becoming England part 2. I am not sure if you heard of Ogden vs Gibbons, but it was one of the earliest cases where the new government showed favoritism to one company over another for political points. Instead of righting this wrong, the new federal government endorsed it. Since then, things have not changed one bit. Government uses its force to make one company succeed at the expense of the others when it would otherwise have failed. So for all those saying that limited government is the answer needs a history check - because even when government was limited, there were still many wrongs it committed. So far, history has only proven that government is merely the best means to conquer and enslave a people.

Yeah, I know all about that Commerce Clause case. And you make a good point about artificial vs. natural selection of businesses. And I understand where you're coming from about the whole conquering and enslaving thing. However, governments are also formed as a means of preventing people from being conquered and enslaved. And while I also understand that you believe this could be achieved through voluntary means, I would like to refer you to Madison's belief in that notion prior to the War of 1812. How well did that go?

I'm not saying that government is the be-all-end-all to all of humanity's problems, but it does serve some important roles.

I think the problem today is that we've forgotten what it's like to be in the state of nature--red with tooth and claw--to appreciate some of the things that government can do. But then again, I sure as hell don't claim to have all the answers here.

“ However, governments are also formed as a means of preventing people from being conquered and enslaved.” Maybe true - ours was not though. Ours adopted partly because many people at the time did not know what else there was. It was fairly well accepted at the time because in its earliest stages, it was rarely abused saved by the few cases of those like Aaron Burr. Meanwhile Hamilton and John Jay were more then drooling at the chance to gain control over the people - and veiwed the commoner as something far under them.

“ And while I also understand that you believe this could be achieved through voluntary means, I would like to refer you to Madison's belief in that notion prior to the War of 1812.” Note here - this not exactly an appropriate example because the war of 1812 was a well accepted probability to the so called founders. Unfortunately the initial revolutionary war was barely won - and only because France was threatening to invade England - who as a result had to pull back from the colonies on a ‘will deal with them later basis’. However none of the founders ever made that concept widely known to the colonists who were still trying to recover from the revolution. As such, the people grew an unhealthy trust for their representatives and Hamiltons new army under Knox. Due to the Alien and sedition acts along with many others, the newly freed people had no way to stand up for themselves either as to do so would have landed them in jail. The resulting situation led to the colonists being ill prepared from the war of 1812 which by the way was not brought on by their actions.

“How well did that go?” Self- explanatory = during the war of 1812 the British ran up one side of us and down the other. Also, as Madison grew older, he grew to regret his comments made when he saw what the country was becoming under the fairly new federal government - just read some of letters to Jefferson written in his later years.

“I'm not saying that government is the be-all-end-all to all of humanity's problems, but it does serve some important roles.” Any of these roles it has been successful in - especially in the long run? Take national defense for example - can you think of anything in that category?

“I think the problem today is that we've forgotten what it's like to be in the state of nature--red with tooth and claw--to appreciate some of the things that government can do.” Yet the education levels in our country grew rapidly where education was mostly in the private sectors. Invention etc was also hardly the result of government investment, but rather private investment. However by taxing profits from businesses the government rewards the failures.

“But then again, I sure as hell don't claim to have all the answers here.” Nor do i - and your really giving me a run for my money - and i am loving every second.

remember red china
now they own us

our best growth in education was after WWII with public education under the GI bill and their children's education
Not until we put a man on the moon did we cease to advance our ability in building this nation

The country's economy, in the hands of the government, is being ridden into the ground. That's a DOUBLE travesty for an anarchist because all we can do is watch and think "I know how to make this stop, but the government would actually have to STOP, SIT BACK, and DO NOTHING for a change!" and we're all aware that they never do that.

preventing one group from taking THEIR monopoly use of force and violence, at worst.

through the strength of capitalism, no less!

I believe it was the desire to help our children become the leaders of the world not servants to wall street whims

Red china has no desire to see our children become anything but a source of food for them. And if China has a "Great Wall street" it'll be the first I've heard of it. :)
Anyways, implying that billion dollar companies are a bigger threat than trillion dollar governments with more military inventory than WalMart's annual sales still comes off a bit contrived in the scale of things.

red china has their own space station and we must find rent a rocket company to get to the Russian international space station and bring our astronauts home

Red China doesn't have private space ventures cropping up. We'll be ok, the new industry is going to be MUCH more efficient than NASA.

bull
they have the desire to out do us
and we are a batch of can't do and don't haves
and God will prevail in our behalf and follow the party of NO
eat at McDonald's buy your cloths at walmart and be buried in a tickle me ELMO coffin
and have sex in a chevy van that is against the law because our schools must teach celibacy and become a fry cook at hardies

And nobody makes you do ANY of those things.
The only thing this country has REALLY lost are the entrepreneurial "start your own business if you can't find a job" spirit, and the ability to push government aside and get bureaucrats out of the way so progress can happen.

check any used car lot and see your entrepreneurial results

Actually, some of those are corporate shills too, but for the ones you're probably talking about, sure: You'll see cars that are priced higher than the average joe wants... Why? Because the ones that were priced to move... Are already gone! :) Someone liked it, and bought it. The thing is, they find voluntary buyers for plenty of their inventory, or they go out of business. Car prices reflect this, and no coercion takes place... Except at the government level where taxes are thrown in on top of every price.

they got car pools and don't have too sell anything
they have finance pools that control buyer ability to purchase and they can sell the same car five times and have the buyer to repair the car for the next buyer
it is not against the law
and big government has no control over these shills
It is alright to steal from the undeserving ignorant low life citizens that carry much burden of labor at the convenience and whim of labor sellers

I don't think you know what a car pool is.

Nobody MAKES a buyer sign an agreement, no matter what you'd think... In fact, if they do, that's GREAT, because an agreement under coercion isn't valid, and the car's all yours. :)

It's YOUR fault if you buy a car that you can't afford... Or a house... Or even a cell phone plan, or your high speed internet. None of this requires government intervention until one of you breaks the contract... and even then, you COULD use private conflict resolution, and you may have agreed to do so.

You said "stealing" though. Name it?

a con artist is a thief and there is no crime until you con the wrong brother in law

Yes, a con artist is a form of thief, and you're apparently implying that all used car salesmen are thieves. Why aren't they in jail then? Either government REALLY IS exactly as bad as I'm saying, or you're libeling an entire category of people.

Either way, there's a crime or not REGARDLESS of who a person is. Whether government chooses to recognize it or not depends on how virtuous they are.

Apparently you're saying that ours sucks, and I agree.