Why don't people recognize that, when the founders wrote freedom of press into law, they were clearly only talking about newspapers?

@MickRogers In the abstract, I don't have a problem with ripping up all of our laws, if there's a plan to replace them with something better.

It's the folks who seek to profit from the chaos in the interim or gambling on surviving it and being able to push something worse off for anyone but them that bug me.

Most hardcore Trumpists, imo, seem to fall into the former category, and the fact that they call themselves Conservatives when where they're really trying to do is destroy, really gets to me.

@MistyCee I think the system the Natives and the Germanic People had is a good idea.

Everyone organizes into communities and the people who the communities represent have a democratic process (no, not a liberal democracy) for deciding how the community runs. People would be motivated to work towards bettering the community rather than every individual trying to make as much cash as they possibly can, which means in this society, there wouldn't be capitalism. You'd basically "be paid" for the portion of the labor you give, but your pay would be basic necessities.

Yes, this society would be stateless. But that doesn't mean there'd be nothing but "societal disorder" going on at all times. When people ask "who'd build the roads?" Well... who builds them now? Workers. Not the state. The state just pretends to be the one to employ them. "But what about rapists?" Well... less than 5% of rapists actually see the inside of prison in today's day. I don't really see what would be different from now. "And murderers?"

Well............................. a lot of them happen to wear blue uniforms and badges. When these murders happen, their victims are killed in broad daylight and the cop never happens to have charges laid against them. But I don't see anybody in particular shaking in their boots at the thought of these depraved killers continuing to walk our streets as well as retaining their position of authority. Which isn't something an individual murderer retains, even if they don't go to prison.

The way I see it, laws only affect the poorest of the poor. They're usually enforced against minorities who sell drugs, for instance, and are never enforced against the ones in power. Derek Chauvin was the first cop who actually became prosecuted, and I believe that was only because kneeling on the back of somebody's neck couldn't actually be argued as being part of police procedure. I think if he just shot Mr Floyd instead, he'd have a way bigger chance at getting off like all his colleagues.

@MickRogers Whoa. That's an awful lot to digest. Seems like you want a simplified economic system and Government though, and you seem to distrust laws because they get ignored by elites?

@MickRogers Ok good luck with that.

@QuixoticSoul Hey, youre the one licking the state's boots. Thats not my problem.

@MickRogers 🥱

@dancingtongue

1) The white supremacists that carry around guns aren't "anarchists." I can see you slept through political science class since you can't even get your actual political terms correct. Anarchy is, by definition, against state oppression which is exclusive to what the right wing militias want.

These bootlickers are out in full force today, as evidenced by your comment.

2) The founders never thought that the 2nd would become "irrelevant" once a standing army came to being. If thats what they wanted, they could have just written "we need a standing army" as part of the 2nd amendment instead if they wanted to. Not to mention that the standing army of Britain was the one they were just trying to fight so hard against.

The term "regulated" also didnt mean the same thing as it does today. Back then, the term just meant in working order. A common phrase that was used back then was "that person has a well-regulated kitchen" for example. But that didnt mean they felt the government should be the one regulating how people are allowed to operate their kitchens.

@Graylight Over abundance in both numbers AND modern firepower. The Constitution does come out of a rich and complex history, and -- as someone else pointed out -- was a series of complex compromises in a pragmatic effort to find something that would work and could evolve. Which is why the literal interpretation approach is such a disservice to the men who framed the Constitution.

@MickRogers
First, my comments weren't aimed solely at white supremacists but at the full range of self-described "militias" wandering around out there, the only common thread seeming to be self-entitlement to do whatever they want which includes white supremacists. Second, anarchy is the desire for the absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, not just opposition to state oppression.

@jackjjackson They've done that 27 times out of 11,000 opportunities. The last time was in 1992. So, it's possible.

True. I predict it will be more than 30 years before it happens again. @Diotrephes

@Diotrephes