Recently, in a discussion on various forms of government or lack thereof, and anarchy in particular, I brought up the well-known argument that the main risk of anarchy is that it will devolve into “might makes right,” wherein bands of well-armed bandits would take advantage of the power vacuum to establish zones of control and pillage, or what some refer to as “warlordism.” I was referred to the article, But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over, by Robert P. Murphy, by way of rebuttal to my question. Being generally disposed toward anarchy, but harboring serious doubts about its workability and robustness, I was interested in reading what I hoped would be a solid rebuke to my concerns, finally to assuage my fears about what would happen in the wake of a removal of the State, either abruptly, or through initially slow, but increasingly fast, decay.
Murphy’s argument starts out by characterizing the question in a way I will paraphrase as “What would happen to a state of market anarchy, given that market anarchy already exists.” This is not, unfortunately, the situation I envision. My concern is “What would happen on the way to anarchy, given a destruction or decline of a functioning state.” Murphy thus avoids the difficult problem of understanding what will happen as a large Federal state, with many subsidiary agencies and sub-states that are well-armed and on paper, well-organized, fragments as “The center does not hold.”
Murphy states:
It is not enough to demonstrate that a state of private-property anarchy could degenerate into ceaseless war, where no single group is strong enough to subjugate all challengers, and hence no one can establish “order.” After all, communities living under a State degenerate into civil war all the time. We should remember that the frequently cited cases of Colombia and now Iraq are not demonstrations of anarchy-turned-into-chaos, but rather examples of government-turned-into-chaos.
This is a fair statement, as it is obvious that well established states can, and have, degenerated into chaos at times throughout human history. However, this is precisely the problem I am concerned about: we do not live in a blank-slate world; we have all these preexisting structures of government and its executive agencies floating around–think local police departments, State police agencies, and militarized Federal law enforcement agencies of many types, not to mention our State National Guards and the Federal military itself. In addition, in the United States, at least, we also have large numbers of armed civilians, who have a wide variety of small arms available to them, and a rather smaller amount of ammunition, armor, and logistical stores laid in stock.
Murphy’s argument continues:
Now that we’ve focused the issue, I think there are strong reasons to suppose that civil war would be much less likely in a region dominated by private defense and judicial agencies, rather than by a monopoly State. Private agencies own the assets at their disposal, whereas politicians (especially in democracies) merely exercise temporary control over the State’s military equipment. Bill Clinton was perfectly willing to fire off dozens of cruise missiles when the Lewinsky scandal was picking up steam. Now regardless of one’s beliefs about Clinton’s motivations, clearly Slick Willie would have been less likely to launch such an attack if he had been the CEO of a private defense agency that could have sold the missiles on the open market for $569,000 each.
While this is clearly logical in saying that owners of military hardware and organizations have more of a stake in their wise use than mere controllers of such assets (it’s a restatement of the Tragedy of the Commons), in a state of market anarchy, pieces and parts of these structures would look very tempting to a potential “warlord” who is merely trying to take over the next town over and gain control of their instrastructure that is lying around, and, by the way, to get a piece of its industrial or agricultural output. To such a man or woman in such a situation, the expenditure of some hardware and lives may well be a reasonable price to pay for acquiring the assets or labor force of a weaker neighbor.
Murphy goes on to say:
We can see this principle in the case of the United States. In the 1860s, would large scale combat have broken out on anywhere near the same scale if, instead of the two factions controlling hundreds of thousands of conscripts, all military commanders had to hire voluntary mercenaries and pay them a market wage for their services?
Again, the question is not so much the scale of the combat or conquest, but that any combat or conquest would happen at all. My concern is not whether a large nation dukes it out over high-minded principles such as chattel slavery and state’s rights, but whether some dude over in the next county has amassed a group of raiders and an arsenal by which the wish to compel me to give up my stuff or enslave me and my family and friends.
Let’s take the two extreme cases of devolution (or ascension, if you are of an anarchist mind) from Big Statism to Anarchy: the complete and simultaneous evisceration of the national, state, and local governments through something like a catastrophic EMP attack, or a natural disaster such as a large meteor strike that ruins large parts of the national infrastructure while leaving most of the population alive; and a medium-slow decline as a result of economic and political shocks, both exogenous and endogenous, that call into question the legitimacy of our well-known and -loved system of “democracy” here in the good, old, US-of-A.
The case of the sudden collapse is closest to the situation Murphy suggests, but still would require a subsequent formation of a “market anarchy” from the tabula rasa of collapse to demonstrate the situation Murphy lays out in his argument. In this case, I think it’s more likely that the sudden availability of massive amounts of small arms, ammunition, and ordnance once held behind the secure doors of their armories would represent too strong a temptation for local Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, if not Mayors, to resist. While we all like to hope that our military leadership is made of more disciplined stuff, the sudden unavailability of the normal supply chains for food and other necessary consumables might quickly find use as justifications for regional or local base commanders to send out patrols to “requisition” supplies and even labor, all, of course, in their minds allowable in such exigent circumstances to allow them to continue carrying out their duties of maintaining order and whatever else they may tell themselves.
One need not imagine hordes of Mongols sweeping across the country, raiding from town to town to keep themselves supplied; it is enough to see that local power structures will do what is necessary to perpetuate themselves when their superiors are removed or out of touch. This is not, I think, a controversial concept among libertarians.
In the case of a slow decline, one could argue that “market anarchy” could develop more easily as localities begin to understand that their far-flung support networks and sources of funding will no longer be available to them. They might look inward to solve their problems, rather than relying on external assets. In such a case, though, the smaller markets that develop would likely be focused more on survival items such as food and energy production, labor markets, legal services, and education more than defense. It’s obvious that people generally don’t prioritize defense until they find themselves in dire need of it. The number of concealed carriers, or even people who keep a firearm ready for quick deployment for home defense, in this country is much smaller than some fear, or that others would like to imagine. The more successful communities might find themselves ripe for the picking if they look “too successful” to others who have prioritized strength over building institutions. Thus, we have the Mongol horde problem looming its ugly head.
Later in his article, Murphy states:
But for our purposes, the most interesting problem with this objection is that, were it an accurate description, it would be unnecessary for such a people to form a government. If, by hypothesis, the vast majority of people—although they have different conceptions of justice—can all agree that it is wrong to use violence to settle their honest disputes, then market forces would lead to peace among the private police agencies.
Yes, it is perfectly true that people have vastly different opinions concerning particular legal issues. Some people favor capital punishment, some consider abortion to be murder, and there would be no consensus on how many guilty people should go free to avoid the false conviction of one innocent defendant. Nonetheless, if the contract theory of government is correct, the vast majority of individuals can agree that they should settle these issues not through force, but rather through an orderly procedure (such as is provided by periodic elections).
While we would like to think this is the case, consider the number of people in the USA, much less the world, who have even heard of the NAP, much less make any effort to practice it. I feel Murphy gives too much credit to humanity here. It seems obvious that most people actually believe that solving disputes through violence is acceptable, otherwise we would live in a very different world than we currently inhabit. As a person who has great faith in humanity, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt here, but sadly, I don’t see much in the way of confirmation of Murphy’s thesis here.
I’m going to skim past Murphy’s discussion of “free riders” because I think it’s a bit too high-level and relies too much on his other arguments being correct.
Murphy concludes:
The standard objection that anarchy would lead to battling warlords is unfounded. In those communities where such an outcome would occur, the addition of a State wouldn’t help. Indeed, the precise opposite is true: The voluntary arrangements of a private property society would be far more conducive to peace and the rule of law, than the coercive setup of a parasitical monopoly government.
While I really would prefer that a state of Market Anarchy can be stable, robust, and long-lived, I don’t feel that Murphy has convinced me with this particular line of argument. He starts with a state of Market Anarchy and argues that it would hold up. I look at it from the point of view of where our society is and how can it get from here to Anarchy without collapsing and I don’t see the answers in his article. I believe Murphy has argued his proposition well, but it doesn’t constitute an answer to my concern because he has avoided the difficult notion of transition to anarchy.
I really would like to see a rebuttal to my concerns, which are primarily, again, How Do We Get To Anarchy Succesfully from Where We Are?
Like Special Agent Fox Mulder, I Want To Believe. Help me out.
It just takes one also getting a hold of the nukes.
Um, one asshole, not one “also”.
I hate those damn also’s.
I’m surrounded by also’s.
Can one asshole detonate a nuke?
Here is where it gets interesting. IF we are assuming a group did not immediately get hands on launch codes, keys, protocols et al, one very, very talented also could do so. It would need to be disassembled, moved off any missile and a new detonator installed. Another point to make is that nukes degrade and require refreshing. Ten or fifteen years out, you’d be hard pressed to use it for more than poisoning the water. That would take a very dedicated also.
I lot of alsos would probably die in the dissambling and reassembling process. Some fast, some decades later from cancer.
If I were clever enough to disassemble one, I would be wearing a protective hazmat suit. I wouldn’t trust some useless also to follow instructions. Too big a risk of damaging the payload.
You would have to demonstate your willingness and ability to use them for the threat to be believed. Until you erase a city, it’s just posturing.
You’re assuming it would be to gain political power and not just destroy everything.
“Destroy Everything” is not an asshole move, it’s a psycho move.
No shortage of those. I believe we call them Karens, currently. And look at the behavior of the green party. Dump coal in a fountain for attention, or nuke a dirty city?
Gandhi waves and threatens you with his NUCLEAR ARSENAL!
You have pretty successfully described why I am a libertarian and not an anarcho-capitalist.
Same here.
“If, by hypothesis, the vast majority of people—although they have different conceptions of justice—can all agree that it is wrong to use violence to settle their honest disputes, then market forces would lead to peace among the private police agencies.”
It only takes a small handful that is willing to use violence to seize power to do so. That “Vast majority” pretty much concedes that there will be a small handful. And I would not overestimate, by any means, the size of that majority. It’s not that everyone has to personally engage in violence, it’s that enough people are willing to let others engage in violence if they think it will benefit them. And I have my doubts about whether that’s even a majority, myself.
Look at Mexico, where you have real, no kidding warlordism going on. The vast majority of Mexicans wants nothing to do with it. But there it is. Sure, these cartel warlords exist within a state (of sorts), but I fail to see how removing the state will make them peaceful constrictive members of society.
In my mind, anarchism suffers the same flaw as communism – you have to postulate that human nature, as consistently demonstrated over millenia, will either somehow change, or is somehow different than what we have seen so far. Anarchism is utopian for that reason.
“I feel Murphy gives too much credit to humanity here. It seems obvious that most people actually believe that solving disputes through violence is acceptable, otherwise we would live in a very different world than we currently inhabit.”
Yes, it’s the same as arguing that communism will change human nature. There is no utopia.
Is anarchy promising utopia?
Total absence of coercion is pretty much a utopian pipedream.
Markets are not anarchy. You don’t get markets without property and you have a hard time, historically, having property without a government that enforces the right to it.
We tend to mark the fall of the Roman Empire as a particular date in a particular year when, for not the first time, the city of Rome fell to an invader. The question is how much different was it 10 or 20 years before that particular date? Or, 10 or 20 years after? I suspect to those living then, it wasn’t much different.
I’m thinking the difficulty facing big cities for food and energy, even right now, will spark some sort of negative reaction. Importing hungry people isn’t a solution when the infrastructure is barely holding together now.
Thinking because we are isolated we would not feel the affects so quickly is dangerous. A road block, a bridge out and our normal suppliers not having supplies themselves would isolate flyover country the same as big city folks.
One week without food will turn the mildest NAP believer into a Viking beserker. In a for-real food shortage in a big city, particularly one like NY that’s hard to exit, the level of possible violence is unlimited.
I expect cannibalism in under a month.
“Expect” or “look forward to?”
Start hoarding steak seasoning!
You can bet that every exit would be blocked with the blockers confiscating any thing of value, food, water, valaubles, etc
*scribbles notes*
Yep. I think this is under appreciated. In virtually every situation when the SHTF, the suffering is generously distributed.
I was happy to read that your roof is getting squared away.
It’s still a slope roof.
The “boys” have got it all wrapped up, putting their gear away, then come to visit me for the Happy Ending , for them at least
I just finished a book about Pyotr Wrangel, the general who took command of the White Army during the Russian civil war. Unfortunately for Russia, by the time he took over it was too late. One thing that struck me, though, was his foresight in establishing property rights and very decentralized governance. It sure would have made for an interesting experiment.
There have to be barriers to the warlords. Not sure it needs to be a government per se, but definitely mutual defense agreements or something like that.
As far as what precipitates the change, I’m thinking God’s cleansing fire is becoming more likely every day. SMOD sure hasn’t delivered.
Another Carrington Event. Neither God’s cleansing fire nor Lucifer’s Hammer.
Human behavior will devolve with the technological loss. Enlightment anarchy won’t prevail.
Part of the article reminded me of Lucifer’s Hammer.
Yes – and “Dies the Fire”.
Will it? A lot of our issues today are caused by social media and a 24 hour news cycle. If we lose that technology, what then? Go back to the 1970s? Fine with me. There are plenty of mechanics, machinists, carpenters, farmers and other valuable workers to keep society moving forward without computers or the internet.
The transition, though, to a largely pre-electric world (A big-time Carrington Event takes out just about everything electrical, not just IT stuff, is my understanding) will be brutal. Even while we rebuild the electrical infrastructure, millions if not billions will starve.
1970s? Ha! 1870s? Maybe. 1770s? Now you are definitely pre-electrical.
And the die-off is going to be very unpleasant.
The problem becomes who, at this point in time, can actually work with seventies tech? It might seem simple, but who can use a slide rule, tune a carburetor, butcher a cow? Or, more importantly, who can manage todays technology as it is unsupported? Cars can run, but the fuel injection, unless pure mechanical, needs some sort of support and replacement parts are where? There will be calculators and batteries for them, but those only have a life span, who will teach basic mathematics after the fall? And so on.
I just don’t know how much damage would be inflicted. Would those calculators work at all, even with new batteries? Would those “old” tech cars run at all, dependent as they are on electricity to run things like spark plugs, etc.? Would the surge merely interrupt electrical equipment, or would it destroy it, basically.
Guns certainly make the warlord business more dangerous. Before firearms, Vikings, Huns, and Mongols could raid with relative impunity. Unlike the local peasants, they were skilled with bows and hand weapons. And more importantly, they knew how to fight in units.
Put a dozen Vets with rifles into a neighborhood watch, and they could repel a similar number of raiders or even cops. They aren’t going to take out a Ranger Company, but there aren’t many of those.
A little semi-on-topic jesting to lighten the mood: https://twitter.com/MoriahJovan/status/1659688778422968320
I have a story posting tonight.
I will be out at a ball game with my wife.
I will check in later in the evening to see how it is going.
Western / white societies don’t do low level violence very well. We seem to be an all or nothing group of people. Once the local shooting starts, all bets are off and making it stop before it burns out will be impossible.
Neighborhood militias will protect their own. Eventually form alliances or mergers with like minded surrounding areas. Maybe these evolve back into stable states.
I live in a rural subdivision. I know there are multiple hunters in the neighborhood.
There are advantages to being isolated.
Also advantages to being a good neighbor and making friends.
“At today’s HOA meeting, we’ll be discussing overlapping fields of fire.”
I don’t do that well. My neighbor next door is a Nosy Nelly, and I find it’s just best to limit interaction because he won’t stop asking intrusive questions, and then gets irritated that you won’t answer them as if he’s entitled to the information.
Same here. I wouldn’t want to be the sorry son of a bitch who gathered up a few fellow thugs and told them, “Hey, let’s go up the Susitna Valley, I bet they grow plenty of food up there.”
Even in my suburban Bay Area neighborhood there are a lot hunters. I’d say at least 50% of the homes have guns, and those are just the ones I know about. The terrain of our neighborhood is pretty indefensible, but we’d be well armed. And some of Joaquin Murrieta’s old hideouts are nearby.
She’s the chosen one.
Joe Biden just said with a straight face that Nancy Pelosi “helped rescue the economy in the Great Depression.”
Pelosi was born in 1940, 1 year after the Great Depression ended.
Black markets helped ending the Depression
FDR taking a dirt-nap ended the Depression.
👆
Many people credit WW2 with ending the Great Depression. So he’s saying that Pelosi is responsible for WW2. You know what else happened in WW2? Hitler. Therefore Pelosi is responsible for Hitler and the Holocaust, then damn Italian fascist. Connect the dots!
You think I’m old, check out this bitch.
Not surprising for somebody who can’t even remember how his own son died. He’s made this mistake so many times now that it’s clear that he really believes it, and doesn’t remember when he’s reminded otherwise.
https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/1661066254143176713
The biggest flaw I see in post apocalyptic scenarios is what I would describe as a vast sweeping collective amnesia; people apparently forget everything about the Before Time. They forget about co-operation and division of labor, and mutually beneficial exchange of goods and services. Those ideas might not be particularly well developed in most individuals, but they are too well entrenched in day to day life to be lost.
Unfortunately, the assumption that government is an essential good will not just disappear, either. It’s more a question of size and complexity people will find tolerable.
We have the left’s next targets.
Panelist Eugene Robinson asked, “Which southern state do you think is ripest for the sort of transformation you helped accomplish in Georgia?”
Abrams said, “Well, I think that we have an exciting set of elections coming up in Mississippi with Brandon Presley running against a very weakened Tate Reeves. I think Andy Beshear is going to put on a credible race against Daniel Cameron. He has been a strong governor, and that is a real opportunity, and because these are off-year elections, it’s very important that we pay attention to these two southern states that we invest heavily in their success.”
Seems like a sort of “southern strategy” if you ask me. Except this one is via election
fraudfortification.Shorter Abrams: “Vote for the elitist son of a former Governor over that upstart black fella!”
https://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2010/07/bracken-cw2-cube-mapping-meta-terrain.html?m=1
Matt Bracken mapping The Meta-Terrain Of Civil War Two
Ugly but probably not far off.
There are more than one reasons I live in rural Iowa. The possibility of CW2 is one of them.
Importing hungry people isn’t a solution when the infrastructure is barely holding together now.
Let’s not forget the ongoing active destruction of agricultural infrastructure.
https://www.blacklistednews.com/article/84707/john-kerry-declares-war-on-us-farmers-govt-farm-confiscations-not-off-the.html
While sitting next to the largest owner of farmland in the world.
Discussing unconstitutional actions, as always. Fuck you, statist also.
They’ll compensate them with carbon credits.
I think I’ve linked this before, but it’s a good one.
Selco: What an “Average Day” Is REALLY Like When the SHTF
That was an interesting and terrifying read.
I read this article years ago, it seems like. I think I read it on ZH when I was reading ZH regularly and terrifying myself.
I just can’t live like this, always fearing the worst and knowing I’m never going to be prepared enough even if I’m prepping. It seems like an endless, unachievable goal that is not necessary anyway because the promised apocalypse never comes.
My church is big on prepping, but they emphasize family life-changing events like job loss, death in the family, etc. I can sort of handle that. My biggest fear is not going without food *looks at belly* because I’ve clearly prepped, but going without water. I have been hospitalized for dehydration and let me tell you. Thirsting to death would be an agonizing way to go.
As the Roman state withered and withdrew in western Europe, the the garrisons and governors left behind didn’t allow the state to disappear. They simply shrank down the power circle to small feudal estates.
Now if everyone just smoked weed all day there would be Peace Not Greed, I’ve been assured.
It was stupid of you to give them this material, but…Do. Not. Apologize.
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, faces demands from state Democrats to apologize for a remark he used to refer to them during a Republican Party event over the weekend.
“I look forward to the day that Democrats are so rare, we have to hunt them with dogs,” McMaster said at a state GOP convention, a reporter for The State newspaper, Joseph Bustos, tweeted during the event.
McMaster’s comment swiftly drew condemnation from South Carolina Democrats, who called for the Republican governor to apologize.
“As a Black, gay man in America, I’ve had to be on guard for people trying to ‘hunt me down’ most of my life and I know thousands of people across South Carolina are forced to feel the same,” Salley said. “This rhetoric emboldens violent extremists, chills political discourse, and needs to end.”
Go fuck yourself, you race-baiting cunte. Also, statistically speaking, you should worry more about other black people, specifically men, harming you.
“Sorry. I mis-spoke. I meant hunt them with bears. On cocaine.”
Where are you getting the cocaine?
Confiscated from democrats.
Get your horse paste before it’s too late.
This is getting really retarded.
Getting? USG-is-assho strikes again!
Sigh…
I’m sure that will make things cheaper for consumers too.
McMaster’s comment swiftly drew condemnation from South Carolina Democrats, who called for the Republican governor to apologize.
Comparing Democrats to game animals is unfair to game animals. Democrats are vermin.
Well thanks for the depressing reading. I don’t expect the ensuing anarchy to be a good thing.
My other lunchtime punch…
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65642976
95 year old woman with dementia AND a walker was slowly making her way toward him with a steak knife! Dude obviously had no other choices.
I hate people. Couldn’t just wrap that knife in a towel and take it away? What a dick. I have no snarky words.
Should have pepper sprayed her!
🌶️😭
Or smack her arm with something.
As my mother in law suffers from dementia this just really hits. Fortunately, we are happy with her care.
Joe Biden just said with a straight face that Nancy Pelosi “helped rescue the economy in the Great Depression.”
He meant the Great “Recession”. Unfortunately, the magic beans planted with those rescue bills are still coming home to roost.
He has a stutter!
How may times will she go back to the well?
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/e-jean-carroll-seeks-10-million-damages-against-trump-over-latest-comments
The Democrats are going to conduct lawfare against their opponents until the entire legal system blows apart. One wonders if they understand the consequences of such a thing happening.
Until she’s slapped down for frivolousness which should be *checks location of case* never. Something has got to be done about this lawfare.
Kill the lawyers?
When you are in NYC you can do anything. Grab ’em by the wallet. You can do anything.
The Democrats are going to conduct lawfare against their opponents until the entire legal system blows apart.
We have to destroy free elections in order to save Democracy.
Golly, I’m so happy our new overlords have made such great decisions regarding energy. Thank you, overlords, always happy to remain in the glow of your wisdom.
Topping off the diesel tanks equals renewable.
Sean, you know fossil fuels are from the corpses of fuck-tons of ferns 400 million years ago.. On a long enough timeline, everything is renewable.
Don’t lie to me!
https://www.motortrend.com/news/0004-turp-abiogenic-petroleum-theory/
There’s got to be something to that. I always wondered how decomposing dinosaurs got so far underground, even at the bottom of the ocean. A good test would be, could his theory be used to predict where there would be oil fields? Maybe that’s already been done?
Maybe it was biodiesel.
That’s phenomenally retarded.
Welcome to the new normal.
Also, db. let me buttress your beliefs.
Pengie, I re-sent that spreadsheet from my personal email.
All I know is I am rushing the local Costco with a half-dozen other men to secure it and hold it when SHTF. Thanks for the article db
Planning to go out in a hail of gunfire early, I see.
Welcome to Costco, I love you.
https://www.thedrive.com/news/ford-admits-it-was-wrong-on-am-radios-will-add-it-back-to-cars-including-2024-mustang
Huh.
Trying to placate lawmakers.
It was immediately painted as an attack on AM talk radio.
I’m guessing Ford doesn’t want to get the Anheuser Busch treatment. The conservative consumers appear to be finally ready to take some corporate heads.
You don’t want the plebs listening to wrong think on the radio do you?
Somebody on that AM station might convince people that going to an all EV driving population might prove to be a bit short-sighted?
Look, fat- you need to buy a Sirius subscription and listen to Air America….wait, what?
That’s a lot of glue.
In recent years, the BLM has realized the habitat damage to federal, state and private lands caused by wild horses and has held aggressive horse roundups, placing them on Southern Plains ranches.
Although this has been working well, it comes at a huge cost to taxpayers. Since 2013, the BLM has spent over $550 million supporting these captive animals. Currently, there are over 23,500 wild horses on private lands in Oklahoma.
The University of Wyoming and Oklahoma State University completed a publication on wild horses and their management in the West. The study said, even with aggressive roundups, there are still approximately 50,000 horses above the maximum appropriate management level.
I’m assuming that once they’ve rounded up all the aggressive horses, you’ll be able to just walk up to the remaining ones and toss a saddle on them?
The French eat horses.
Just sayin’.
Supposedly horse fat is the best for fries.
No way it’s better than duck fat.
Supposedly it is.
Dogs eat horses and slaughtering/rendering plants used to be a thing.
I saw BLM and said “Why is Black Lives Matter involved?”
They usually only come out for jackasses.
It’s a stunt as well, but good for him.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/firearm-expert-taunts-pro-gun-control-academics-bet-rising-crime
“Duke University professor Phil Cook, for example, who told Lott, “I like the idea of a bet, but am not going to take this one, since I have no confidence that guns and ammo will actually become scarcer in the neighborhoods with high rates of violence.”
So pretty much admitting that gun control doesn’t work to reduce violence.
Can I assume that “also” has entered our lexicon, just like cunte or cod ?
Always gotta be an also Tres
Certainly for the life of this post. Many thanks to Count Potato for his contribution to general merriment!
I guess I’ll tow the lion as well. Thanks alot also.
Thanks for that. I was trying to figure out how to work it in.
Opinions are like alsos?
Every one has one and everyone else’s stinks.
Contrary to what you hear, you opinions are NOT like alsos.
You cant cram your dick in an also.
Quality journalism. First paragraph. Essentially the only thing that isn’t a cut and paste of the press release.
A Patek Philippe watch owned by Aisin-Gioro Puyi—the last emperor of China’s Qing dynasty—sold for $5.1 million hammer at an auction Tuesday, more than 85 years after it was first made by the German manufacturer.
German or Swiss what’s the difference?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2023/05/23/heres-chinas-last-emperors-watch-which-sold-for-5-million/
At the time, China didnt have the ability to steal IP and reverse-engineer quality watches. So he bought from abroad.
You can know buy an identical timepiece on Ali Baba.
Well, Germany owned the Swiss, also.
That’s the New Libertarian Man Utopianism that makes anarcho-capitalism as silly as communism, IMO. “It would work if everyone could agree to this set of principles, to which virtually no one in reality actually agrees.” Well, yes, of course. Tautologies are like that. The problem is that if everyone already agreed with your proposition the state would not have been constructed and grown such as it has in the first place.