Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Anarchy Thread #7805

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2012 9:36:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hypothetical situation: The United States government is toppled by rioting hoards of dissatisfied citizens and a state of anarchy is declared. Would we not be essentially declaring a state of international bankruptcy? What happens to our debt?

China would logically try to secure its interests.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2012 9:48:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, based on real business cycles, in the short run it would be a disaster, but in the long run, if we assume anarchy is good, it would bring about prosperity.

For example, many nations that went to a more free market system: Russia, Chile, and UK (during Margarat Thatcher) originally had a recession from the reforms, but ended up growing their economy and becoming more prosperous afterwards.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2012 11:31:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Interesting thought.

Well, the debts are in the name of the United States, if we topple the United States then it has disappeared... doesn't the debt go with it?

It'd be like trying to collect money or product from a company out of business. There'd be a sign on the door and no one to answer your calls.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2012 11:46:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/15/2012 11:31:35 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Interesting thought.

Well, the debts are in the name of the United States, if we topple the United States then it has disappeared... doesn't the debt go with it?

It'd be like trying to collect money or product from a company out of business. There'd be a sign on the door and no one to answer your calls.

When a company goes out of business, its assets are liquidated to fulfill any debt obligations. Likewise, anything owned by the US government (buildings, parks, weapons, etc) would be used to pay off the debt. Once all assets are gone, the rest of the debt is then wiped out.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 8:47:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/15/2012 11:31:35 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Interesting thought.

Well, the debts are in the name of the United States, if we topple the United States then it has disappeared... doesn't the debt go with it?

It'd be like trying to collect money or product from a company out of business. There'd be a sign on the door and no one to answer your calls.

When that happens, the creditors take the assets of the bankrupt company.

The country doesn't disappear, but the government and it's military does, and yes, the debts are the country's debts. It seems to me that creditor countries might just see a country rich in natural resources and great land as the assets they are entitled to.

I think the sign on the door would read, "Welcome Conquering Nations"
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 9:28:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 8:47:24 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

I think the sign on the door would read, "Welcome Conquering Nations"

This was my conclusion as well, and I'm very troubled by it. Could America be 2big2fail?

Scenarios I was contemplating:

- China uses its economic and military influence to stop America from reaching anarchy/having a revolution. It can only collect its debt from us if we stay together as a union. USA is too big to fail. Hell, they would probably even bail us out and just increase the debt even further. "Chinese Professor" becomes a reality.

- China invades North America after our revolution/anarchy to secure the resources it feels it is owed. Billions of Chinese logically wouldn't forget about trillions of dollars.

However, it's not like our military would magically disappear if we organized a peaceful revolution. There are enough weapons here at home to use as insurance, to make it very undesirable to try and invade. Also, our successes and freedoms would be shared with the world and citizens from other countries would appreciate what we are doing.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 10:28:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 9:28:30 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/16/2012 8:47:24 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

I think the sign on the door would read, "Welcome Conquering Nations"

This was my conclusion as well, and I'm very troubled by it. Could America be 2big2fail?

Scenarios I was contemplating:

- China uses its economic and military influence to stop America from reaching anarchy/having a revolution. It can only collect its debt from us if we stay together as a union. USA is too big to fail. Hell, they would probably even bail us out and just increase the debt even further. "Chinese Professor" becomes a reality.

- China invades North America after our revolution/anarchy to secure the resources it feels it is owed. Billions of Chinese logically wouldn't forget about trillions of dollars.

However, it's not like our military would magically disappear if we organized a peaceful revolution. There are enough weapons here at home to use as insurance, to make it very undesirable to try and invade. Also, our successes and freedoms would be shared with the world and citizens from other countries would appreciate what we are doing.

I think invading the US would be akin to invading Russia. We have a massive country with a hostile population that would fight to the death to defend it. It would be a slow war of attrition and guerrilla warfare if it really came down to it. It'd be a lot of land to hold.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 10:41:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 10:28:29 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:28:30 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/16/2012 8:47:24 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

I think the sign on the door would read, "Welcome Conquering Nations"

This was my conclusion as well, and I'm very troubled by it. Could America be 2big2fail?

Scenarios I was contemplating:

- China uses its economic and military influence to stop America from reaching anarchy/having a revolution. It can only collect its debt from us if we stay together as a union. USA is too big to fail. Hell, they would probably even bail us out and just increase the debt even further. "Chinese Professor" becomes a reality.

- China invades North America after our revolution/anarchy to secure the resources it feels it is owed. Billions of Chinese logically wouldn't forget about trillions of dollars.

However, it's not like our military would magically disappear if we organized a peaceful revolution. There are enough weapons here at home to use as insurance, to make it very undesirable to try and invade. Also, our successes and freedoms would be shared with the world and citizens from other countries would appreciate what we are doing.

I think invading the US would be akin to invading Russia. We have a massive country with a hostile population that would fight to the death to defend it. It would be a slow war of attrition and guerrilla warfare if it really came down to it. It'd be a lot of land to hold.

I could be wrong, but I kinda doubt that anarchy is a particularly effective command structure for a tactical military response to foreign invasion.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 3:03:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 10:28:29 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:28:30 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/16/2012 8:47:24 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

I think the sign on the door would read, "Welcome Conquering Nations"

This was my conclusion as well, and I'm very troubled by it. Could America be 2big2fail?

Scenarios I was contemplating:

- China uses its economic and military influence to stop America from reaching anarchy/having a revolution. It can only collect its debt from us if we stay together as a union. USA is too big to fail. Hell, they would probably even bail us out and just increase the debt even further. "Chinese Professor" becomes a reality.

- China invades North America after our revolution/anarchy to secure the resources it feels it is owed. Billions of Chinese logically wouldn't forget about trillions of dollars.

However, it's not like our military would magically disappear if we organized a peaceful revolution. There are enough weapons here at home to use as insurance, to make it very undesirable to try and invade. Also, our successes and freedoms would be shared with the world and citizens from other countries would appreciate what we are doing.

I think invading the US would be akin to invading Russia. We have a massive country with a hostile population that would fight to the death to defend it. It would be a slow war of attrition and guerrilla warfare if it really came down to it. It'd be a lot of land to hold.

Russia honestly isn't that hard to take over, its just historically people have underestimated it + its winter. Sadly, I doubt they would underestimate us. :(
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2012 4:08:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If a state of anarchy were declared in the US you could expect rapid Chinese expansion in the Asia Pacific, an acquisition of resources in the South China Sea (highly disputed right now) and the like. US foreign influence would be annihilated, and we could expect trouble in areas such as the Middle East as China would likely not take up an interventionist stance.

As to China recovering it's interests, it would attempt to, and succeed to quite an extent. Without an organised naval force it might be possible to blockade the US substantially and severely reduce it's quality of living.

I could go on, but despite a libertarians desire for no government it'd be ridiculous to actually overthrow the government - it would result in massive problems globally and in the US. Ask the question in 20 years though and the world might not quite care as much though.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 1:13:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 10:28:29 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:28:30 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/16/2012 8:47:24 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

I think the sign on the door would read, "Welcome Conquering Nations"

This was my conclusion as well, and I'm very troubled by it. Could America be 2big2fail?

Scenarios I was contemplating:

- China uses its economic and military influence to stop America from reaching anarchy/having a revolution. It can only collect its debt from us if we stay together as a union. USA is too big to fail. Hell, they would probably even bail us out and just increase the debt even further. "Chinese Professor" becomes a reality.

- China invades North America after our revolution/anarchy to secure the resources it feels it is owed. Billions of Chinese logically wouldn't forget about trillions of dollars.

However, it's not like our military would magically disappear if we organized a peaceful revolution. There are enough weapons here at home to use as insurance, to make it very undesirable to try and invade. Also, our successes and freedoms would be shared with the world and citizens from other countries would appreciate what we are doing.

I think invading the US would be akin to invading Russia. We have a massive country with a hostile population that would fight to the death to defend it. It would be a slow war of attrition and guerrilla warfare if it really came down to it. It'd be a lot of land to hold.

I think there's some truth to that. Our military would not be organized, but they would come home (as in leaving other countries we are occupying) and there would be lots of weapons. Chinese troops would have to contend with nuclear-armed civilian forces and no base would ever be safe.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 1:22:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 10:41:19 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:28:29 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:28:30 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/16/2012 8:47:24 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

I think the sign on the door would read, "Welcome Conquering Nations"

This was my conclusion as well, and I'm very troubled by it. Could America be 2big2fail?

Scenarios I was contemplating:

- China uses its economic and military influence to stop America from reaching anarchy/having a revolution. It can only collect its debt from us if we stay together as a union. USA is too big to fail. Hell, they would probably even bail us out and just increase the debt even further. "Chinese Professor" becomes a reality.

- China invades North America after our revolution/anarchy to secure the resources it feels it is owed. Billions of Chinese logically wouldn't forget about trillions of dollars.

However, it's not like our military would magically disappear if we organized a peaceful revolution. There are enough weapons here at home to use as insurance, to make it very undesirable to try and invade. Also, our successes and freedoms would be shared with the world and citizens from other countries would appreciate what we are doing.

I think invading the US would be akin to invading Russia. We have a massive country with a hostile population that would fight to the death to defend it. It would be a slow war of attrition and guerrilla warfare if it really came down to it. It'd be a lot of land to hold.

I could be wrong, but I kinda doubt that anarchy is a particularly effective command structure for a tactical military response to foreign invasion.

Repelling an invading force isn't necessary if there is no country to defend. The Chinese are welcome to come if they'd like. If they have weapons then we resist them. Our new Mexican friends will bring lots of guns since the drug lords won't need them anymore.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 1:38:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 4:08:00 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
If a state of anarchy were declared in the US you could expect rapid Chinese expansion in the Asia Pacific, an acquisition of resources in the South China Sea (highly disputed right now) and the like. US foreign influence would be annihilated, and we could expect trouble in areas such as the Middle East as China would likely not take up an interventionist stance.

What happens in the East and Middle East is no concern of mine. The only reason they would be a threat is because they are trying to stop us from policing them.

As to China recovering it's interests, it would attempt to, and succeed to quite an extent. Without an organised naval force it might be possible to blockade the US substantially and severely reduce it's quality of living.

That's bogus. There is extremely little that Americans need (if anything) that comes from overseas.

I could go on,

Please do, all hypothetical reasoning is welcome. Consider it brainstorming.

but despite a libertarians desire for no government it'd be ridiculous to actually overthrow the government - it would result in massive problems globally and in the US.

Sounds like what happened in 1776.

Ask the question in 20 years though and the world might not quite care as much though.

Well that's the point - why should they care about us? Is it that Allah commands it? Or is it that we just don't mind our own f*cking business? I'd rather us address the actual impetus that makes us targets. If all we have is natural resources, it's not worth sending a military over here to secure them if they are going to lose significant resources doing it. We don't need a centrally-commanded military force to wage guerrilla warfare.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 3:50:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 10:28:29 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:28:30 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/16/2012 8:47:24 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

I think the sign on the door would read, "Welcome Conquering Nations"

This was my conclusion as well, and I'm very troubled by it. Could America be 2big2fail?

Scenarios I was contemplating:

- China uses its economic and military influence to stop America from reaching anarchy/having a revolution. It can only collect its debt from us if we stay together as a union. USA is too big to fail. Hell, they would probably even bail us out and just increase the debt even further. "Chinese Professor" becomes a reality.

- China invades North America after our revolution/anarchy to secure the resources it feels it is owed. Billions of Chinese logically wouldn't forget about trillions of dollars.

However, it's not like our military would magically disappear if we organized a peaceful revolution. There are enough weapons here at home to use as insurance, to make it very undesirable to try and invade. Also, our successes and freedoms would be shared with the world and citizens from other countries would appreciate what we are doing.

I think invading the US would be akin to invading Russia. We have a massive country with a hostile population that would fight to the death to defend it. It would be a slow war of attrition and guerrilla warfare if it really came down to it. It'd be a lot of land to hold.

The fallacy here is that China wouldn't try to hold USA but instead just go to the East and West Coast and loot all the money (like post-war Germany for a couple years). Any attempt to hold a continent would be a bad idea, certainly, but there wouldn't be that much of a deal.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 3:53:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 1:38:05 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
That's bogus. There is extremely little that Americans need (if anything) that comes from overseas.

Apart from sweet oil (American oil isn't enough and of the right type), copper, iron, and most raw materials, and even then practically all secondary materials as well. Most of American goods come from overseas, undeniably. Your Electronics probably came from Asia, materials for your house South America, even your car has parts from around the world. Almost all businesses would catastrophically start to fail simply because they will not be able to have a massive overhaul of all suppliers.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 4:55:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/16/2012 3:03:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:28:29 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:28:30 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/16/2012 8:47:24 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

I think the sign on the door would read, "Welcome Conquering Nations"

This was my conclusion as well, and I'm very troubled by it. Could America be 2big2fail?

Scenarios I was contemplating:

- China uses its economic and military influence to stop America from reaching anarchy/having a revolution. It can only collect its debt from us if we stay together as a union. USA is too big to fail. Hell, they would probably even bail us out and just increase the debt even further. "Chinese Professor" becomes a reality.

- China invades North America after our revolution/anarchy to secure the resources it feels it is owed. Billions of Chinese logically wouldn't forget about trillions of dollars.

However, it's not like our military would magically disappear if we organized a peaceful revolution. There are enough weapons here at home to use as insurance, to make it very undesirable to try and invade. Also, our successes and freedoms would be shared with the world and citizens from other countries would appreciate what we are doing.

I think invading the US would be akin to invading Russia. We have a massive country with a hostile population that would fight to the death to defend it. It would be a slow war of attrition and guerrilla warfare if it really came down to it. It'd be a lot of land to hold.

Russia honestly isn't that hard to take over, its just historically people have underestimated it + its winter. Sadly, I doubt they would underestimate us. :(

I tend to agree, Russia's winter is a natural built in counter offensive against any invading army. Face it, if a successful invasion were to occur, all the Rusians really have to do is wait for winter to come, after a couple weeks the invaders would realize it's not worth it, declare defeat, and just go back home.

The real problem the invaders would have is in negotiating the acceptable terms of the subsequent retreat, that would be extremely difficult since all the Russians would be insisting that they get to go back home with them.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 10:23:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 3:50:46 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:28:29 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:28:30 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/16/2012 8:47:24 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

I think the sign on the door would read, "Welcome Conquering Nations"

This was my conclusion as well, and I'm very troubled by it. Could America be 2big2fail?

Scenarios I was contemplating:

- China uses its economic and military influence to stop America from reaching anarchy/having a revolution. It can only collect its debt from us if we stay together as a union. USA is too big to fail. Hell, they would probably even bail us out and just increase the debt even further. "Chinese Professor" becomes a reality.

- China invades North America after our revolution/anarchy to secure the resources it feels it is owed. Billions of Chinese logically wouldn't forget about trillions of dollars.

However, it's not like our military would magically disappear if we organized a peaceful revolution. There are enough weapons here at home to use as insurance, to make it very undesirable to try and invade. Also, our successes and freedoms would be shared with the world and citizens from other countries would appreciate what we are doing.

I think invading the US would be akin to invading Russia. We have a massive country with a hostile population that would fight to the death to defend it. It would be a slow war of attrition and guerrilla warfare if it really came down to it. It'd be a lot of land to hold.

The fallacy here is that China wouldn't try to hold USA but instead just go to the East and West Coast and loot all the money (like post-war Germany for a couple years). Any attempt to hold a continent would be a bad idea, certainly, but there wouldn't be that much of a deal.

You're implying that they would profit from the endeavor. We can make sure they would not. Is that so hard to believe? If we notice a Chinese base being constructed, we nuke it. Suicide-bomber style if we have to. The Vietnamese already taught us how to make occupiers uncomfortable enough to leave.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 10:41:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 3:53:41 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:38:05 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
That's bogus. There is extremely little that Americans need (if anything) that comes from overseas.

Apart from sweet oil (American oil isn't enough and of the right type), copper, iron, and most raw materials, and even then practically all secondary materials as well. Most of American goods come from overseas, undeniably. Your Electronics probably came from Asia, materials for your house South America, even your car has parts from around the world. Almost all businesses would catastrophically start to fail simply because they will not be able to have a massive overhaul of all suppliers.

1) All of our goods were happily domestic-made until we started out-sourcing. You seem to be implying that computers and cars would be impossible to make if they didn't get shipped in, which is absolutely ridiculous.

2) We have plenty of raw materials here, and we could recycle lots of the raw materials we are currently using. Repairing and reusing old autos, for example, will become the norm. You won't be able to buy a shiny new SUV, but who cares?

3) We should be weening ourselves off of oil with or without a revolution. Just imagine: America leading by example. We still don't understand the power of that statement, world-wide. All we currently know is that America is the fattest, greediest, most wasting, immoral entity the world has ever known. I'm tired of that title and prepared to sacrifice some luxuries in the interests of sustainability.

4) Businesses would fail, and we would start anew. That's sort of the point. If we know what we're doing, we are going to have much less of business and much more of life. We'll produce what we need instead of what marketing tells us that we want. That will require much less business/industry and most of the menial-labor jobs and polluting activities will be relieved.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 10:43:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/15/2012 9:36:37 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Hypothetical situation: The United States government is toppled by rioting hoards of dissatisfied citizens and a state of anarchy is declared. Would we not be essentially declaring a state of international bankruptcy? What happens to our debt?

China would logically try to secure its interests.:

Hundreds of thousands of people would die with a few weeks, especially the elderly. Factions would form to protect itself against other factions with more nefarious ends in mind. Countries like China, which already has billions in US assets would swoop and declare that they legally own blah blah. The anarchic state wouldn't last long as an oligarchy sets up power. The end.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 10:43:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 4:55:51 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/16/2012 3:03:00 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 11/16/2012 10:28:29 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 11/16/2012 9:28:30 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/16/2012 8:47:24 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

I think the sign on the door would read, "Welcome Conquering Nations"

This was my conclusion as well, and I'm very troubled by it. Could America be 2big2fail?

Scenarios I was contemplating:

- China uses its economic and military influence to stop America from reaching anarchy/having a revolution. It can only collect its debt from us if we stay together as a union. USA is too big to fail. Hell, they would probably even bail us out and just increase the debt even further. "Chinese Professor" becomes a reality.

- China invades North America after our revolution/anarchy to secure the resources it feels it is owed. Billions of Chinese logically wouldn't forget about trillions of dollars.

However, it's not like our military would magically disappear if we organized a peaceful revolution. There are enough weapons here at home to use as insurance, to make it very undesirable to try and invade. Also, our successes and freedoms would be shared with the world and citizens from other countries would appreciate what we are doing.

I think invading the US would be akin to invading Russia. We have a massive country with a hostile population that would fight to the death to defend it. It would be a slow war of attrition and guerrilla warfare if it really came down to it. It'd be a lot of land to hold.

Russia honestly isn't that hard to take over, its just historically people have underestimated it + its winter. Sadly, I doubt they would underestimate us. :(

I tend to agree, Russia's winter is a natural built in counter offensive against any invading army. Face it, if a successful invasion were to occur, all the Rusians really have to do is wait for winter to come, after a couple weeks the invaders would realize it's not worth it, declare defeat, and just go back home.

The real problem the invaders would have is in negotiating the acceptable terms of the subsequent retreat, that would be extremely difficult since all the Russians would be insisting that they get to go back home with them.

What army was it that was dying horrible deaths from freezing while invading Russia? I remember reading about it and thinking that it was more horrible just traveling through there then any armed-conflict could ever be...
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 3:36:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 1:38:05 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/16/2012 4:08:00 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
If a state of anarchy were declared in the US you could expect rapid Chinese expansion in the Asia Pacific, an acquisition of resources in the South China Sea (highly disputed right now) and the like. US foreign influence would be annihilated, and we could expect trouble in areas such as the Middle East as China would likely not take up an interventionist stance.

What happens in the East and Middle East is no concern of mine. The only reason they would be a threat is because they are trying to stop us from policing them.

Okay, within your constraints then global issues might not matter, except for the flow on economic impacts of regional instability (ie. oil) . I'll return to the Asia Pacific point later.

As to China recovering it's interests, it would attempt to, and succeed to quite an extent. Without an organised naval force it might be possible to blockade the US substantially and severely reduce it's quality of living.

That's bogus. There is extremely little that Americans need (if anything) that comes from overseas.

Okay. About 90-95% of rare earth metals are supplied by China. They have recently decided to start restricting exports for a variety of reasons. While China's proven reserves might only be 30% of the world's reserves, other countries lack active mines as they were shut down after being undercut by China in the early 1990s. Furthermore, it doesn't tend to be economically for most countries to run these run (the metals are not terribly plentiful) , despite their high value.

Also, run oil, electronics etc. here. The US might be able to produce some of these resources, but at increased cost and reduced output.

I think you doubt the effective of sanctions by China, combined with potential control of the Asia Pacific by China.


but despite a libertarians desire for no government it'd be ridiculous to actually overthrow the government - it would result in massive problems globally and in the US.

Sounds like what happened in 1776.

The potential for a conquering nation to invade, as per relative proximity, is greater now. Also, global ramifications are far different now to 1776.

If all we have is natural resources, it's not worth sending a military over here to secure them if they are going to lose significant resources doing it. We don't need a centrally-commanded military force to wage guerrilla warfare.

It's not just about natural resources. America has a huge amount of human capital and intellectual property. That's worth an awful lot, especially if this technological dominance is acquired by just one nation (say China) . I don't think that the only way to get their funds back is to launch a military invasion. Not too much benefit from that. Also, I am sceptical that all funds would be recouped if the government fell. Nevertheless, I think you're underestimating the detrimental impacts of anarchy.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 5:00:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 3:36:30 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
At 11/17/2012 1:38:05 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/16/2012 4:08:00 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
If a state of anarchy were declared in the US you could expect rapid Chinese expansion in the Asia Pacific, an acquisition of resources in the South China Sea (highly disputed right now) and the like. US foreign influence would be annihilated, and we could expect trouble in areas such as the Middle East as China would likely not take up an interventionist stance.

What happens in the East and Middle East is no concern of mine. The only reason they would be a threat is because they are trying to stop us from policing them.

Okay, within your constraints then global issues might not matter, except for the flow on economic impacts of regional instability (ie. oil) . I'll return to the Asia Pacific point later.

Global economics should not factor in; we have everything we need here.

As to China recovering it's interests, it would attempt to, and succeed to quite an extent. Without an organised naval force it might be possible to blockade the US substantially and severely reduce it's quality of living.

That's bogus. There is extremely little that Americans need (if anything) that comes from overseas.

Okay. About 90-95% of rare earth metals are supplied by China. They have recently decided to start restricting exports for a variety of reasons. While China's proven reserves might only be 30% of the world's reserves, other countries lack active mines as they were shut down after being undercut by China in the early 1990s. Furthermore, it doesn't tend to be economically for most countries to run these run (the metals are not terribly plentiful), despite their high value.

We have plenty of rare-earth metals here. Recycle them. I would suggest starting with jewelry and junkyards, landfills, etc.

There's nothing preventing us from trading in the future if we were to need things. We do have resources to trade. That wouldn't be until well into the future when our current materials start to dwindle. China can't afford to keep up a blockade forever for many reasons.

Also, run oil, electronics etc. here. The US might be able to produce some of these resources, but at increased cost and reduced output.

Are you using auto-correct or something?

I'm fine with increased cost and reduced output. In fact reducing output is key in stopping and reversing our environmental woes.

I think you doubt the effective of sanctions by China, combined with potential control of the Asia Pacific by China.

Within the paradigm of the status quo you are quite correct. I am assuming that a revolution would reduce our dependence on luxuries, reduce our need to work menial labor (perhaps the best thing of all) and we would adopt a new life based on sustainability. Another way to think of this is localization - containing as many resources, "cradle to grave," as we can within a short radius. Obviously there will be exceptions but hopefully that is all they will be - exceptions to the rule. When resources are globalized, externalities become hidden from the individuals involved in the process. Explain to me what the entire list of effects is when you buy a hamburger at McDonalds or plastic army men at Wal-Mart. I don't think anyone could humanly figure that out and that's a huge problem. Macroeconomics is useless unless these externalities are accounted for.


but despite a libertarians desire for no government it'd be ridiculous to actually overthrow the government - it would result in massive problems globally and in the US.

Sounds like what happened in 1776.

The potential for a conquering nation to invade, as per relative proximity, is greater now. Also, global ramifications are far different now to 1776.

Your answer leaves a very bad taste in my mouth, I will be honest. You are implying America is too big to fail. You are removing faith in our ability to survive without the federal government. You are painting a hopeless picture... spineless. I have to go we will chat later.

If all we have is natural resources, it's not worth sending a military over here to secure them if they are going to lose significant resources doing it. We don't need a centrally-commanded military force to wage guerrilla warfare.

It's not just about natural resources. America has a huge amount of human capital and intellectual property. That's worth an awful lot, especially if this technological dominance is acquired by just one nation (say China) . I don't think that the only way to get their funds back is to launch a military invasion. Not too much benefit from that. Also, I am sceptical that all funds would be recouped if the government fell. Nevertheless, I think you're underestimating the detrimental impacts of anarchy.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 5:57:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm going to avoid copious amounts of quoting, so just figure out where I'm replying to as I go Rob.

Firstly, you state that global economics isn't a factor. That's not the case - the US might be able to produce enough for itself, but at an increased cost. Furthermore, an anarchic social atmosphere isn't conducive to major projects I'd think. Now, I know that you're in favour of a strong reduction in consumption, and I do think there's some merit to that - negative externalities are one of the biggest reasons to support a government's existence in my view. But that doesn't mean that trading doesn't have benefits through comparative advantage.

On rare earth metals, I have to disagree with you. There's a reason many newspapers in Australia have often talked about this issue - it's a pretty serious thing that flies under the radar. We can't get all these resources through recycling. To tell a short story, our geography class watched a panel of people discuss recycling. One of the people mentioned that much recycling is actually horribly cost inefficient - it might take $50 to recycle $10 worth of goods in an extreme example. That's the problem with rare earth metals - they're found in small amounts in a host of products. Now, again, there are negative externalities to be considered by finding additional metals from mining, but I think in the case of rare earth metals specifically that the externalities are outweighed.

I don't quite get where I said that the US is too big to fail, although it's failure would be fairly catastrophic. I think that people can survive without the government (to be fair, the US is to the right of most countries on welfare, although I support reform of the system through re-education and community projects vs. handouts... it's a complex issue though) , but that doesn't mean the government isn't justified in some instances. Note, some of the government's interventions are obviously bad.

I'll let you reply to the rest of my former post as well once you're back. Just to be clear though, I'm not some merciless laissez-faire capitalist - indeed, to subscribe to a complete ideology is to be laden with poison if not careful. Anyway, I'm probably not making too much sense about now, so I'll end on that note.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2012 6:49:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think two thirds of the population would die due to killing each other, starvation, weather and being unable to cope with survival.

Other countries would invade far enough to take what they wanted and then put up a half earnest occupation but would eventually withdraw. The people that survive would be tough and capable of continually attacks and organize enough to make the losses outweigh any benefits of remaining.

I think the country would reform on very conservative base and do away with the mentality that caused the nation to fall. Hard work would once again become the norm and a heavy reliance on God will again be taken by the majority.

Most of the people that want socialism will have died off along with anyone that thinks education is more important than physical work. Most of the bigger cities will be waste lands because they could not support life without modern technology.

It would be a death sentence for two thirds of the people in this nation but I believe a better and stronger nation would arise from the ashes.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Sickk
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2012 6:12:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/15/2012 9:36:37 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Hypothetical situation: The United States government is toppled by rioting hoards of dissatisfied citizens and a state of anarchy is declared. Would we not be essentially declaring a state of international bankruptcy? What happens to our debt?

China would logically try to secure its interests.

Yes, but think of who originally accumulated those debts. Not the citizens, but the government. So the itinerary for government overthrow would go like this:
A.) Overthrow the government.
B.) Hand their asses over to China.
C.) Establish mutual aid. :)
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:52:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/17/2012 5:57:49 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
I'm going to avoid copious amounts of quoting, so just figure out where I'm replying to as I go Rob.

Firstly, you state that global economics isn't a factor. That's not the case - the US might be able to produce enough for itself, but at an increased cost. Furthermore, an anarchic social atmosphere isn't conducive to major projects I'd think. Now, I know that you're in favour of a strong reduction in consumption, and I do think there's some merit to that - negative externalities are one of the biggest reasons to support a government's existence in my view. But that doesn't mean that trading doesn't have benefits through comparative advantage.

Trading natural resources, based on comparative advantage, inherently puts the needs of the individual and the environment to the background. The Tragedy of the Commons is realized.

On rare earth metals, I have to disagree with you. There's a reason many newspapers in Australia have often talked about this issue - it's a pretty serious thing that flies under the radar. We can't get all these resources through recycling. To tell a short story, our geography class watched a panel of people discuss recycling. One of the people mentioned that much recycling is actually horribly cost inefficient - it might take $50 to recycle $10 worth of goods in an extreme example. That's the problem with rare earth metals - they're found in small amounts in a host of products. Now, again, there are negative externalities to be considered by finding additional metals from mining, but I think in the case of rare earth metals specifically that the externalities are outweighed.

I agree with you that recycling is inefficient. Resource use efficiency strictly adheres to the hierarchy:

1) Reduce
2) Reuse
3) Recycle

Reducing consumption is our ticket to success, because of the exponential nature of externalities involved in economic processes. For instance, if you buy a cell-phone, you've just set in motion a series of events that goes well beyond the cost of the phone itself. You've created more demand for the phone, creating a greater need for resources, greater production of waste, greater need for menial labor, greater output of pollution, greater need for transportation infrastructure, greater demand on energy... Multiply this through all the different facets of the business. Phone manufacturing. Packaging. Customer service. Insurance. Administration. Maintenance... These lists are not exhaustive.

Now, once you have dealt with consumption all you can, your next goal is to design products (at a lower volume) that are high-quality and reusable. Does this mean using rare-earth metals? Perhaps, but not at the cost of over-consuming non-sustainable resources.

Recycling is used as a last resort for high-quality items that are reusable but not repairable.

I don't quite get where I said that the US is too big to fail, although it's failure would be fairly catastrophic. I think that people can survive without the government (to be fair, the US is to the right of most countries on welfare, although I support reform of the system through re-education and community projects vs. handouts... it's a complex issue though) , but that doesn't mean the government isn't justified in some instances. Note, some of the government's interventions are obviously bad.

So you believe in "necessary evil?"

I'll let you reply to the rest of my former post as well once you're back. Just to be clear though, I'm not some merciless laissez-faire capitalist - indeed, to subscribe to a complete ideology is to be laden with poison if not careful. Anyway, I'm probably not making too much sense about now, so I'll end on that note.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 11:58:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:52:28 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
At 11/17/2012 5:57:49 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:

Firstly, you state that global economics isn't a factor. That's not the case - the US might be able to produce enough for itself, but at an increased cost. Furthermore, an anarchic social atmosphere isn't conducive to major projects I'd think. Now, I know that you're in favour of a strong reduction in consumption, and I do think there's some merit to that - negative externalities are one of the biggest reasons to support a government's existence in my view. But that doesn't mean that trading doesn't have benefits through comparative advantage.

Trading natural resources, based on comparative advantage, inherently puts the needs of the individual and the environment to the background. The Tragedy of the Commons is realized.

I don't agree with the word 'inherently' . I would agree that expanding one's options tends to result in some form of environmental consequence at some stage. Expanding the market does not necessitate this though, and actually provides the possibility to reduce environmental damage, although such potential is not realised. Anyway, relating to the US and anarchy, there's economic loss, and questionable environmental gains / losses depending on the severity of riots or civil wars.

On rare earth metals... [see earlier thread posts]

I agree with you that recycling is inefficient. Resource use efficiency strictly adheres to the hierarchy:

1) Reduce
2) Reuse
3) Recycle

Reducing consumption is our ticket to success, because of the exponential nature of externalities involved in economic processes. For instance, if you buy a cell-phone, you've just set in motion a series of events that goes well beyond the cost of the phone itself. You've created more demand for the phone, creating a greater need for resources, greater production of waste, greater need for menial labor, greater output of pollution, greater need for transportation infrastructure, greater demand on energy... Multiply this through all the different facets of the business. Phone manufacturing. Packaging. Customer service. Insurance. Administration. Maintenance... These lists are not exhaustive.

Now, once you have dealt with consumption all you can, your next goal is to design products (at a lower volume) that are high-quality and reusable. Does this mean using rare-earth metals? Perhaps, but not at the cost of over-consuming non-sustainable resources.

Recycling is used as a last resort for high-quality items that are reusable but not repairable.

I understand the above, but the near monopoly China has on rare earth metals means reducing material use would have to be drastic indeed. Could the US manage such a shift? Potentially. Is it a desirable shift? I'm an optimist that we'll discover technologies to eliminate severe environmental problems (ie. space mining for resources, a sun shade to counter CO2 emissions or something else etc.) , but also see other, radical solutions to the problem. But aside from these solutions, I'm not so sure that we ought to give up everything. To be sure, there are so, so many trivialities and frivolous things in modern lives, but there's also a lot of great things.

I don't quite get where I said that the US is too big to fail, although it's failure would be fairly catastrophic. I think that people can survive without the government (to be fair, the US is to the right of most countries on welfare, although I support reform of the system through re-education and community projects vs. handouts... it's a complex issue though) , but that doesn't mean the government isn't justified in some instances. Note, some of the government's interventions are obviously bad.

So you believe in "necessary evil?"

To a point - it has it's merits. However, there are times when idealism should take it's course. I also object to having describing the choices as 'evils' . This is a complex issue, although I do make judgements based on a loose consequentialist ideology; no, the ends do not justify the means necessarily.

Also, Rob, with regard to the OP about China securing it's interests, I think human capital and IP are big factors, and both will decline with anarchy in the US. As I said earlier "America has a huge amount of human capital and intellectual property. That's worth an awful lot, especially if this technological dominance is acquired by just one nation (say China)" .
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it