11/29/2006

It's Not a Civil War -- It's a Faith Based Melee

24 comments:

Kowboy Kurt said...

If you guys would only listen to Rush and Hannity, you would know that there is not a civil war in Iraq. It is secretary violence and I glad I'm packing my Viagra when the secretaries get violence. I keep them in my golf bag next to the...

Cato said...

A Civil War is preferable over terrorist violence. Just sounds bad but at least there are sides people can take and there will be a winner.

Paul R. Nelson For Congress said...

Cato:

The trouble is that since they are all named Mohammad and wear turbines, you can't tell the sides apart.

Kalvyn Clean said...

Are those gas turbines or jet turbines?

General Chaos said...

I think the "winner" will be anarchy.

Cato said...

You say it like it's a bad thing.

A Lennon Sister said...

Cato:

You make a good point. "Anarchy" is always painted with a negative brush by both ends and the middle of the political spectrum. They always point to the blood in the streets, car bombs and devastation. It's like only looking at the manure and waste going into the compost heap and ignoring the potential for flowers.

I can hear they song now: "All we are saying is give anarchy a chance."

Did you ever read the novel Wild In This Streets by Robert Thom?

Cato said...

Anarchy is "without rulers", nothing more. There is a difference between anarchy and say, chaos, as there can be order in anarchy. If there were not laws against murder would you just go crazy and start killing people left and right? The idea that government is needed to keep us from falling into the abyss of chaos is quite laughable.

However, I highly doubt that any anarchy or much chaos at all would come from a civil war. In fact it would end up being a hell of a lot more peaceful (less chaos) and there will be a winner in the form of some type of authoritarian government which is not necessarily bad.

Cato said...

Let me clarify -- I would find an authoritarian government "bad" but many people would welcome it as they have throughout history including our own.

666 said...

Cato:

So anarchy would be like rational, thinking adults living within the peaceful co-existence of their ideals and chaos would be when fear-induced, panic stricken kindergarterner get a hold of automatic weapons when they should instead be taking a nap and refuse to submit to a parentally enforced time out.

Cato said...

No not really.

666 said...

Cato:

Don't be so wordy in your responses.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

I think there's a distinction between
Authoritarian and authority.

Anytime there's been a major disaster in a populated city, there is chaos in the absence of authority.

To welcome Anarchy is to welcome Chaos.

There has to be a balance. We are not able to handle total liberty whether you want to admit that or not!

Cato said...

Even with the catastrophic events on Sept. 11th in NYC, I wouldn't call what followed "chaos" even though much of the infrastructure for law enforcement was taken out (their emergency operations center, for example, was destroyed).

A man with a gun standing in front of his door facing would be looters is an authority. There need not be government for there to be order, however government has conditioned us for generations through multiple different types that we need them to be safe.

To welcome anarchy is not to necessarily welcome chaos, but I will admit that chaos can come to pass. BTW, I am more of a minarchist then an anarchist even though I sympathize with them greatly, mainly because there needs to be agreed upon punishments for criminals and some sort of entity to execute them and whatnot.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

Let's revisit 9/11. Did the 5800 some planes in the sky "voluntarily" curtail their flights?
Why was V.P. Chaney scurried into a peviously unknown bunker command center the Secret Service, because we needed no authouritie on 9/11.
Did some militia gather their Ak47s and get in their kayaks and head for Afghanistan?

A much better situation to look at would be Katrina. In desperate situations deperate people do desperate things, without some authority to stop them chaos is inevitable.

"A man with a gun standing in front of his door facing would be looters is an authority."
So "Might makes right" what if all the gangsters joined forces with a hundred times the fire power to overwhem Mr. Gun toting citizen?
Who has the authority of brute force then?

Cato said...

He should have invested in some heavier equipment. But I don't know why you think it would go down to that.

Gangsters are fueled by sale of illicit drugs, anyway.

Of course you want to talk about Katrina, but I really don't care about New Orleans. It is a dirty city and it is run by a government as corrupt if not more so than Chicago in it's heyday of Democrat's grip.

The people of New Orleans would have been better off with no leadership than the leadership they had, of that I am certain.

Cato said...

And by the way -- I didn't say might makes right, you did. You are the one who says there needs to be an authority over people in order to keep them from just going NUTS. In the end, that authority is always force.

Anonymous said...

FYI:

Organized crime didn't really become profitable until Prohibition.

Another interesting factoid I heard the other day was the the US market for legal drugs and illegal drugs is about the same in dollar terms.

Cato said...

That is interesting.

But yes, you are right. Organized crime and prohibition of substances people want go hand in hand. Of course, to end the prohibition would cause a temporary bit of people going NUTS with the herion, but after a while it will cool down. Employers could still forbid people from using it and usage would be about the same. And there wouldn't be so much violence on the streets and children dying.

Legalize drugs.

For the children.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

Here's a suggestion. Get some Yellow
foamcore and print the following in it
and stick it in your front yard.

Legalize drugs.

For the children.

Cato said...

There is a larger black market for marijuana than cigarettes. While I would be disappointed in the heavy regulation of drugs (as in I'm sure you would need to be 18 to purchase them) it would exist after legalization. As it stands its easier for children to get illegal drugs than legal ones.

Anyway, a Civil War would be preferable to the current state of affairs.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

Now I know what the Vote NO people mean by "doing better". Sell drugs to the kids, legally ,so they can skip out of schools to buy more drugs and everybody wins.
Kids get high. Legal drug dealers boost the local economy, and taxpayers don't have to build new school for drop outs. Brilliant!

Why didn't I think of this solution?
After legalizing drugs (no age limit of course)let's move on to legal prositution for kindergardeners!
It'll give new meaning to Santa coming down the chimney with a HO,HO,HO.

Cato said...

Because clearly government making things illegal stops them from happening and clearly without the government making something illegal everyone and I mean EVERYONE will just go NUTS doing WHATEVER is NOW LEGAL. When Lawrence v. Texas was decided, remember when no matter where you looked, men were having sex with each other? All over the country men were sodomizing other men.

amnesia said...

CATO:

I'm glad you're keeping stats on that ball game cause I wouldn't want to have to.