You guys don't agree with this one, do you?

* * *

Clausewitz is right about war and politics, but I think he has it conceptually backwards.

War is the natural state of man. Civil society is a contractual attempt to avoid war. War and civil "politics" serve the same purposes and fundamentally are the same thing -- methods of dispute resolution. But before there were civilized methods of dispute resolution (such as my trade), there was constant war and unpleasantness. You know, the life of man was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short or something like that. :cool:

I'm confused by this statement consular. Exactly which year are you referring to when you assert we were not at war or engaged in unpleasantness business?

TS

I'm speaking in a much broader sense. If I get into a car accident with you, in this country I would be reasonably confident that you would not shoot me and take my money to pay for the damage. You'd use other methods. Without civil government, you would be more likely to take matters into your own hands.

I'm talking about internal civil conflict at all levels, not peace among nations.

I knew what you meant; I was just making it clear that global conflict has yet to be adverted just because we’ve become “civilized.� As far as I know we’ve yet to raise a generation unfamiliar with war.

TS

I don't think so counselor. Conflict may be a natural state of man (other men, the environment) but not war.

Let's take two cavemen fighting over a cavewoman. Being as there was no arbitration, you would be less likely to attempt to take my woman because you know what the result would be and it would be immediate.

I think on a lot of levels, this more civilized method of conflict resolution has actually increased the number of conflicts.

If, as in your example, you did not have that reasonable expectation that I would not shoot you and take your money to fix my car, you would have been more careful not to enter into the conflict in the first place.

That's one of the reasons you very rarely see two SF guys actually fight (although it does happen), the winner will likely be lying in the bed next to the loser. And there is not much chancfe somebody will break it up and "mediate" the conflict. LOL

Fair point.

Distinguish "war" and "conflict," please.

LOL, that was funny.....

Are you running away? LOL

What did you mean when you used those terms?

war - open and stated hostility between security communities, nation states, etc. Involves mobilization of the civilian sector, either through political participation, industrial, etc.

conflict - could be a simple difference of opinion or up to and including used as the catch all for undeclared war.

combat - actually being under or threat of being under enemy fire

fight - conflict between two people (usually) escalated to the level of violence.

argument - conflict between two or more people on a verbal level. One side is usually unwilling to change

discussion - conflict between two or more people on a verbal level and open to change of position.

Oh and feel free to pick it apart. Just off the top of my head and the way I tend to think.:D

OK, I understand now. Sorry, but sometimes I am a bit slow on the uptake.

Interesting point. There are studies showing that when people commonly carry firearms, there are fewer conflicts because of deterrence. I think that's essentially the point you are making, and I agree.

I am not talking about conflicts. I am talking about violence of any kind. War is the ultimate (or at least a very advanced) form of violence. Civil society reduces violence by creating non-violent means of conflict resolution.

To follow your point, it also may result in more conflicts being resolved. If TR is constantly coming to my door with M4 in hand, confiscating my single-barrel bourbon because he can, I might not challenge that conduct if my only remedy is to fight him. (Notice the term is might -- I'd probably try to get him while he is sleeping or something, but perhaps I am dreaming. LOL) In civil society, I have civil and other remedies that allow the conflict to be resolved peaceably. Also, the fact that people outside civil society may not have the ability to do anything about conflicts -- and therefore let them go -- doesn't establish that anarchy is better. Just that an equilibrium might be reached in which many people are very unhappy.

>

The social contract. You give up some of your individual rights for the greater good. Such as the right to settle your conflicts as you see fit, right of the strongest, etc.

I agree anarchy is not good for the average man nor is it good for society. In fact, to me this is the very concept of having a society in the first place.

However, it is an idea, not a reality, for some folks and in some places.

"It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion."
-- William Randolph Inge

I didn't sign the social contract. Every conflict I am involved in has the potential to escalate to violence. If I chose not to do so, then it was because I shose, not because of the social contract. Remember the Standard 7th Group response?

In you scenario involving TR, at the end of the day, you will either continue to give him your whiskey or you will choose another course of action. But it will be your choice.

TR doesn't sleep. Not soundly enough for you to gain an advantage anyway.

roger hijack. Want me to try to split and move to UWOA?

Is it time to repeat the jungle boots thread? LOL

On the social contract issue, you're still bound by it under several different theories of consent. :D

On the choice/violence issue, you're right. But the availability of other remedies changes the equation considerably. The power of the State is at everyone's disposal, and that is a very significant thing.

Nah. I think we're almost done anyway, aren't we?

Doesn't look like it to me:
:munchin

You just want to show off those superMatrix powers. LOL

OK, you've defined the issues, but the ball is still in your court, I think. Or do you want me to explain? :lifter

I am only bound by those elements I choose to allow to bind me. If the state wishes to enforce implied consent on my part, oh for example claiming that there is implied consent because I choose to be a US citizen, then at the end of the day, I could drive the issue to the point that they have to use force in order to gain my compliance. In which case they have proven my point. The only way they can ultimately win is to apply more force than I have available to me.

You are correct. Are we done now? :)

I successfully split it and you surrender on the very next post?
LOL -well, as long as I win....

You didn't win, we agreed. We both won. ;)

Oh not no but HELL NO!:D

You were in 7th Group. See, I'm right.

I win!

No.

LOL - Well, I feel a refresher coming on,:D

you are both pretty. :eek:

I agree with NDD. The state, and implied consent, are tools of the man.

But of course, my mandatory compliance is implied!

Blargh.

Found this elsewhere, posted by someone named "Sneaky SF Dude:"

Nope, that's #2. CRad will tell you.

Tease.

I am trying to be good today.. but DAMN!!!!


A grown man saying " Tease" in some sort of flirty reply to another man.... You friggin MO' !!! LOL :munchin

:eek:

algo en cualquier momento en alguna lúgar

Don't you start speaking in HOMOmanese to me.

Speak English man, what is this Texas or the peoples republic of California? LOL

lu'gar??? no comprendo

Quite a comment on that language. Yes, quite a comment.

You might want to run off and find some patients to torture . . .

LOL!!!! I only have a few minutes online tonight. Quality not quantity... LOL

edited:
OOOoooohhhh... it is Spanish you were speaking. I knew there was something familiar about it. I thought it was some sort of secret language. In that case, I remove my label of MO' language and resubmit it with the following.

" Don't try to buddy up with a specific SF Operator that just happens to love the Spanish language, Latino culture, and people by typing in his language of preference." :lifter

Do you always just look at the surface?

What makes you think I was talking to you anyway?

I just found out the news,
Sacamuelas. You might want to reread your "social contract".

LOL!

:D