Would it not be asier to say that the guy with the biggest gun & kill count wins? that seems to be what this is boiling down to.
we had both of those in nam and still lost
Would it not be asier to say that the guy with the biggest gun & kill count wins? that seems to be what this is boiling down to.
Reasonable but the modern interpretation of the followers of Weber leads to some extremely stupid places.Would it not be asier to say that the guy with the biggest gun & kill count wins? that seems to be what this is boiling down to.
Reasonable but the modern interpretation of the followers of Weber leads to some extremely stupid places.
Like arguing that Mexico's Drug Cartels need to be recognized as the actual government because they have a monopoly on force in some areas, which under Weber's theory automatically makes them the legitimate government.
Or that the US needs to either pass more gun control or else be considered a failed state due to not having a monopoly on force anymore if civilians have firearms, and comparing a hunting weapon to deploying the military.
I like this bit:
On the whole, though, no state worthy of the name can permit exceptions to its monopoly on legitimate deployment of armed force like those in Michigan or North Carolina. Surely no sensible interpretation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms would say a state must tolerate them.
Like arguing that Mexico's Drug Cartels need to be recognized as the actual government because they have a monopoly on force in some areas
Or that the US needs to either pass more gun control or else be considered a failed state due to not having a monopoly on force anymore if civilians have firearms, and comparing a hunting weapon to deploying the military.
Latter argument basically argues that US should be authoritharian / totalitarian state. Because force is necessary to have authority, and if legitimacy is connected to force (which in real terms it is), then taking guns away from citizens means moving away from democracy. So why those people don't come out and say that they want a tyranny (be it in Greek or modern sense)?
I think the answer to that depends on what you're calling "apparatus" because I've yet to see news of the Drug Cartels building roads, minting currency, or establishing embassies. But I'd like to know what you're referring to and what the apparatus is in your description.But is it not true that the Cartels are not so slowly replacing the previously established state apparatus in Mexico?
I think the answer to that depends on what you're calling "apparatus" because I've yet to see news of the Drug Cartels building roads, minting currency, or establishing embassies. But I'd like to know what you're referring to and what the apparatus is in your description.
I think the answer to that depends on what you're calling "apparatus" because I've yet to see news of the Drug Cartels building roads, minting currency, or establishing embassies. But I'd like to know what you're referring to and what the apparatus is in your description.
No they don't build this stuff they just bribe people to do it for them
Collecting taxes and providing justice/vengeance and security. Rulership at is most basic level. Putting on my COIN hat, the cartels are fighting both an insurgency, currently at early stage three (developing standing uniformed forces and collecting revolutionary taxes) and a civil war with each other, which is the only reason the State as it is currently constituted under the 'constitution' of 1917 has survived at all.
Isn't that what all, or at least most, states do?
It's things like this that essentially undermine his argument. Because, if you look at history, there would be no "states" to speak of then. If you looked at Athens or Persia you would see a vast plurality of violence, as minor groups enforced their will beyond the ability or care of the ruler to moderate. Today that might be considered a failed state, but mainly just because of the newfangled idea that is "The State" as the corporation of government whose sole goal is controlling the reigns of power.Or that the US needs to either pass more gun control or else be considered a failed state due to not having a monopoly on force anymore if civilians have firearms, and comparing a hunting weapon to deploying the military.
I think he was far too erratic and reckless. France could afford de Gaulle to be like that because France, or the Free French anyway, had damned all power to do anything much combat wise for most of the war. Churchill, while he wasn't the only one, made too many rash moves and overstretched what resources Britain and its allies had.
However in summer 1940 he was, briefly, probably the best option simply because no one else was likely to be willing to fight on. [In theory making peace if suitable terms could be achieved, then regrouping to resume the war against the Nazis at a more suitable time would have been far better for Britain but that would have relied on a hell of a lot going right.]
He freed around 3 million people from slavery what have you done?
History is an ever evolving and contraversial subject as it seeks to understand the past and not just to chronicle events but to explain as well.
With that said what are some of your more “Contraversial” takes on history?
If you have a strong stomach, look up "necklacing". It was popularized by Mandela's second wife Winnie Mandela and basically bread and butter for their activities. You can probably also look at the kinds and methods of crimes being performed today in South Africa and make the assumption that similar things were happening then. And since South Africa has been near the top of the global list for overall crimes for a long time now.These days, as much as I despise apartheid as a policy (equality before the law is how a society should be run), I'm beginning to wonder if the situation in South Africa was quite as cut and dry and is made out. Whilst the Black population had genuine grievance, perhaps the Whites had good reason to be fearful?
Resuming the war later on might have been a challenge. I've heard that the war machine isn't exactly easy to turn back on again after it has been shut down, especially if it has been recently shut down. Going to war, getting industrial production ready for this, building up one's military, et cetera all require an extremely giant effort. It's certainly not easy to do once again once you demolish all of it.
He was a recognized terrorist by most developed countries, till it was more expedient to call him a hero.People tend to forget Mandela was a soviet trained and funded terrorist
Not an area of history I know a whole lot about. What I have heard though is that the actual trigger for the Civil War was the election of Lincoln, because the southern states knew that he was so against them that he would break the careful political compromises and balances of power just to spite them.I think Abraham Lincoln was a war criminal and a dictator who should have been impeached, tried and executed the moment the 13th and 14th amendments were ratified.
So first, southern slavery wasn't dying out. It was thriving. Second, Lincoln was the first Republican president, and he was elected because he didn't like slavery. The only way to stop slavery peacefully was to elect people against slavery. And of course, the second this happened, the south revolted.Not an area of history I know a whole lot about. What I have heard though is that the actual trigger for the Civil War was the election of Lincoln, because the southern states knew that he was so against them that he would break the careful political compromises and balances of power just to spite them.
If that's true, then a very poor choice of president. A lot of people see southern slavery as something that was already dying out at the time. So, he would have crippled the country for basically no reason other than spite.
Aparthied isn't what you think it was. It wasn't because they were black. It was because they immigrated into South Africa without becoming citizens. Its what the Democrats are creating with illegal immigrationThese days, as much as I despise apartheid as a policy (equality before the law is how a society should be run), I'm beginning to wonder if the situation in South Africa was quite as cut and dry and is made out. Whilst the Black population had genuine grievance, perhaps the Whites had good reason to be fearful?
People tend to forget Mandela was a soviet trained and funded terrorist and the anti apartheid movement was much about genocide against Khoisians as it was against the Beors.