WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

943

(post is archived)

I get what you mean

And I also think that you need to update your optics

It's not .gov censoring you online, it's not .gov calling the shots

You could have zero gov right now, you would be screwed just as much if not even more

Why is that?

https://explicithistoire.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/bilderberg-reseau.jpg

.gov at this point is merely a front, IMO

Removing .gov from the equation isn't going to make power go away

As the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same

How well would the interests pictured above do, in an anarcho capitalist environment? They would probably do very well

And in a communist environment? They would probably do just as well...

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Removing .gov from the equation isn't going to make power go away

It will remove socially accepted coercive power. which accounts for 99% of property right violations around the world. Therefore there is great reason that by eradicating your gene-set, such power would be removed.

They would probably do very well

The government was instrumentaly essential at every point of their activities. You're speculating at best. At worse, you're enabling their means to evil, hence the call for genocide.

In an anarcho-capitalist envrionement there would be no national debt (no debt owned by an institution which can so reliably tax the shit out of their cattle without resistance to pay a rate of return) to fund the world wars, the UN wouldn't be able to preside over institutions that own and rule over most of humanity. There would be no population that would tolerate the laws that maintain fiat monopolies (even more essential to funding the world wars) or coercive cartels.

The tolerance of coercion form national power is their primary conduit of power through which they operate, to say that they woudl fair just as well without it is hubris beyond your authority so I very much doubt you know anything about me, let alone what I mean.

Your turn to explain how they would be able to achieve what they have without the state, go on.

[–] [deleted] 0 pt (edited )

>It will remove socially accepted coercive power. which accounts for 99% of property right violations around the world. Therefore there is great reason that by eradicating your gene-set, such power would be removed.

Property right violation you say? There's no property right violation when you don't have property rights to begin with

You have property rights because there's a legal framework backing and enforcing them. It's like borders, it's an imaginary thing, without an army to defend them, it's just a fantaisy, it's not real

Are you a one man army?

>The government was instrumentaly essential at every point of their activities. You're speculating at best. At worse, you're enabling their means to evil, hence the call for genocide.

I'm a realist, those "you are guilty of helping .gov you scum!" victimization techniques will lead you nowhere with me

...

Golden rule, the one who has the gold makes the rules, that's power 101

And you and I don't have the gold, they do

>In an anarcho-capitalist envrionement there would be no national debt (no debt owned by an institution which can so reliably tax the shit out of their cattle without resistance to pay a rate of return) to fund the world wars, the UN wouldn't be able to preside over institutions that own and rule over most of humanity. There would be no population that would tolerate the laws that maintain fiat monopolies (even more essential to funding the world wars) or coercive cartels.

Again, might is right, even more in an anarcho capitalist context, see golden rule

We already lose badly in a fight with rules, and you think we would prevail in a no rules fight?

Enslaved we would be in about one generation, medieval style

No coercive cartel? That's like ignoring what? 2000? 3000? 5000 years of tyranny? Organized crime?

>The tolerance of coercion form national power is their primary conduit of power through which they operate, to say that they woudl fair just as well without it is hubris beyond your authority so I very much doubt you know anything about me, let alone what I mean.

>Your turn to explain how they would be able to achieve what they have without the state, go on.

They would skip the fraud and scam soft power phase, and go straight for the jugular, totalitarian style

Don't worry, there's no shortage of goons willing to help them for a quick buck

.Gov is a front for the biggest crime syndicates, it's the velvet glove for the iron fist

Remove the glove you still get the iron fist

They don't seek power, THEY HAVE POWER

[–] 0 pt (edited )

So you've left the debate about ideal behavior to ''that's how stuff is I'm so smart! and I have no interest in debating startegy.

Goodbye then. May a nigger give you a practical demonstration of that level of engagement.

google a positive account of property rights for why property rgihts exist instead of giving this religious tier bullshit view of yours.