Statist Troll Bingo

[downzero]

I'm pretty sure many of these cliches are posted on here on a daily basis:

 

[IndyDave1776]

That fits in most cases, although I will grant that true anarchy had never worked.

 

[poptab]

So you are one of those immoral economist people.

 

[poptab]

That fits in most cases, although I will grant that true anarchy had never worked.

What do you mean by anarchy?

Anarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anarchy /=social chaos

 

[IndyDave1776]

What do you mean by anarchy?

Anarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anarchy /=social chaos

The literal absence of any form of government. A human society can function with minimal government, but there is a reason why every society in history has required some form of government to function, even in a tribal society in which the elders governed the tribe without much more in way of punishment available other then harsh words or excommunication from the tribe.

Especially in a society of hundreds of millions of people, there must be some formal government in order for the nation to exist as such. Following the link you so kindly supplied, Kant had a nice succinct description for four states of being in a society. His definition of anarchy seems to be a pleasant thought; However, in order for this to work, a society would have to exist completely devoid of those of criminal inclination and those willing to take untoward advantage of others which would lead promptly to an authoritarian form of government.

Herein lies the true weakness of anarchy--it is a ripe fruit waiting to be picked by those desiring absolute power. In the end, I believe that our founders were correct in their belief that the best way to achieve maximum liberty in a sustainable form is a constitutional republic with very narrowly limited powers and people bright enough to stop encroachments when they start rather than accepting arguments predicated on 'necessity' in one form or other, even when propagandized with images of children and kittens. William Pitt wisely observed that necessity is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves. Let me think...gun control, asset forfeiture, unlimited warrantless searches based on the Alpo-chewing writ of assistance on a leash, the PATRIOT Act, and plenty of other violations of our rights were presented and accepted as necessity.

The best possible solution I can see is an immediate return to the Constitution with the only potential change being a language update to remove some of the points of abuse carried out by deliberate misinterpretation. I would like to think we could have a stateless society, but it has never worked and even if it could work internally, we would be unable to present any credible national defense, creating yet another problem.

 

[rambone]

I like the bingo idea but I think several of the blocks are weak or poorly written. If I get a chance I would like to make my own.

 

[poptab]

The literal absence of any form of government. A human society can function with minimal government, but there is a reason why every society in history has required some form of government to function, even in a tribal society in which the elders governed the tribe without much more in way of punishment available other then harsh words or excommunication from the tribe.

Especially in a society of hundreds of millions of people, there must be some formal government in order for the nation to exist as such. Following the link you so kindly supplied, Kant had a nice succinct description for four states of being in a society. His definition of anarchy seems to be a pleasant thought; However, in order for this to work, a society would have to exist completely devoid of those of criminal inclination and those willing to take untoward advantage of others which would lead promptly to an authoritarian form of government.

Herein lies the true weakness of anarchy--it is a ripe fruit waiting to be picked by those desiring absolute power. In the end, I believe that our founders were correct in their belief that the best way to achieve maximum liberty in a sustainable form is a constitutional republic with very narrowly limited powers and people bright enough to stop encroachments when they start rather than accepting arguments predicated on 'necessity' in one form or other, even when propagandized with images of children and kittens. William Pitt wisely observed that necessity is the argument of tyrants and the creed of slaves. Let me think...gun control, asset forfeiture, unlimited warrantless searches based on the Alpo-chewing writ of assistance on a leash, the PATRIOT Act, and plenty of other violations of our rights were presented and accepted as necessity.

The best possible solution I can see is an immediate return to the Constitution with the only potential change being a language update to remove some of the points of abuse carried out by deliberate misinterpretation. I would like to think we could have a stateless society, but it has never worked and even if it could work internally, we would be unable to present any credible national defense, creating yet another problem.

I think limited government is an oxymoron. The US is a good example.

 

[Mark-of-Scotland]

I'm pretty sure I may have used all of these in one epic drunken rant last year.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think limited government is an oxymoron. The US is a good example.

It worked fine until we started ignoring the Constitution.

 

[RockofStrength]

I think limited government is an oxymoron. The US is a good example.

It's not an oxymoron: it's simply inevitable that a limited government will fall to the whims of morons. Anarchy is the oxymoron: there is and will always be someone enforcing authority in some way over the populations that exist. Even if someone "hides out" and is "free" in his little corner, his life is still being dictated by someone with a bigger stick or a bunch of little ones.

 

[jrogers]

Why do you hate our troops?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Why do you hate our troops?

?

 

[jrogers]

?

 

[IndyDave1776]

I suppose I interpreted that in a different way. I find those to be beautiful examples of the fact that the most effective lies are constructed using a significant element of truth which is twisted into a falsehood rather than being complete fabrications. For example, I appreciate the troops greatly, consider national defense to be important, agree that some wars are necessary, and appreciate the fact that we do not speak German, nor by extension, are we under NSDAP rule with some successor to Hitler as head of state; However, that does not mean that I accept those statements as argument stoppers any time the .gov uses them.

Disagreement with wars that are not in our national interests or else are carried out stupidly does not mean that I disrespect the troops, object to strong national defense, believe all wars are justified, or want the United States run over by foreign dictators. It simply means that I do not accept the buzzwords/phrases you highlighted as trump cards that automatically end the argument when the .gov needs stuffed back into its box.

By the way, those red circles are a pretty neat trick. How did you do that?

 

[jrogers]

I suppose I interpreted that in a different way. I find those to be beautiful examples of the fact that the most effective lies are constructed using a significant element of truth which is twisted into a falsehood rather than being complete fabrications. For example, I appreciate the troops greatly, consider national defense to be important, agree that some wars are necessary, and appreciate the fact that we do not speak German, nor by extension, are we under NSDAP rule with some successor to Hitler as head of state; However, that does not mean that I accept those statements as argument stoppers any time the .gov uses them.

Disagreement with wars that are not in our national interests or else are carried out stupidly does not mean that I disrespect the troops, object to strong national defense, believe all wars are justified, or want the United States run over by foreign dictators. It simply means that I do not accept the buzzwords/phrases you highlighted as trump cards that automatically end the argument when the .gov needs stuffed back into its box.

By the way, those red circles are a pretty neat trick. How did you do that?

So you admit to being a statist troll?

Also, http://www.getpaint.net/

 

[IndyDave1776]

So you admit to being a statist troll?

Also, Paint.NET - Free Software for Digital Photo Editing

How do you figure that? That is like saying that because I don't like to be a victim of crime I automatically support a police state.

We need national defense. It is good form to have a modicum of respect for people who are willing to make an open-ended commitment to serve the country regardless of cost. That doesn't mean that those truths justify supporting actions of the government which far overreach its constitutional boundaries. I fail to see how anything I said established anything other than that I do not accept the use of statements which are true at face value to be twisted into supporting other conditions and actions which are being loaded piggyback on them which do not belong there and are not justified by the basic statement being used. It is very much parallel to saying that you should be polite to most everyone, but that doesn't not mean you have an obligation to allow yourself to be victimized in the name of being nice.

 

[jrogers]

How do you figure that? That is like saying that because I don't like to be a victim of crime I automatically support a police state.

We need national defense. It is good form to have a modicum of respect for people who are willing to make an open-ended commitment to serve the country regardless of cost. That doesn't mean that those truths justify supporting actions of the government which far overreach its constitutional boundaries. I fail to see how anything I said established anything other than that I do not accept the use of statements which are true at face value to be twisted into supporting other conditions and actions which are being loaded piggyback on them which do not belong there and are not justified by the basic statement being used. It is very much parallel to saying that you should be polite to most everyone, but that doesn't not mean you have an obligation to allow yourself to be victimized in the name of being nice.

Relax, I'm just giving you a hard time. I've seen you post enough anti-government diatribes by now that there's no mistaking you for a fan.

The point here is that the chart is ridiculous. Most of the phrases have perfectly cromulent applications. It is a list of libertarian/teabagger strawman arguments and nothing more.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Relax, I'm just giving you a hard time. I've seen you post enough anti-government diatribes by now that there's no mistaking you for a fan.

The point here is that the chart is ridiculous. Most of the phrases have perfectly cromulent applications. It is a list of libertarian/teabagger strawman arguments and nothing more.

Fair enough! I guess I play nicer when I am still fully awake!

 

[jrogers]

Playing nicely is boring.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Playing nicely is boring.

Have a good night!