OWS protestors Oakland CA Amazingly Ignorant

[JG55]

[Guest pfries]

The young lady that states "yes fewer classes" in the interview sounds like she could use a few.

[mav]

Although I think Beck tends go off the deep end from time to time, I agree with him that this type of crap is only the begining.

I think my last signature line sums it up nicely.

[Fivestring63]

OMG, I think these started out with good intentions. But now are getting out of control being taken over by modern hippies.

[East_TN_Patriot]

A couple of things need to be said about the Occupy movement. First, the right is treating this movement much like the left treated the Tea Party movement. It's a bit disingenuous for "Tea Party Television" to do the same thing as left-wing media outlets do by cherry picking people from the movement and portray it as representative of the entire movement. The Tea Party has attracted some very ignorant people, people who don't really understand politics or government, radical right-wing fringe calling for revolution, racists, anti-Semitic people, and others that those who support the Tea Party wish weren't part of it. The same is happening with the Occupy movement. I know people who support the Occupy movement and they are very intelligent rational folks. They just have a different perspective than I do, but they are hardly radical fringe who support Communism or anarchy. In fact, many in the Occupy movement have some of the same complaints that the Tea Party does regarding corruption in government and crony capitalism.

Second, Marx was not just a political activist, but was also a social theorist and a historian. He was examining European society as it was going through the growing pains associated with the rapid changes in society associated with shifting from an agrarian society to a free-market industrial society. This transition was not pleasant and the division between the wealthy "bourgeoisie" and the "proletariat" labor class was very stark and dramatic. The conditions for the labor class of Marx's day was nothing like it is today, thus fueling his perspectives on capitalism. He saw it as a system that forced common people to literally sell their very lives to work under terrible conditions to provide a wealthy capitalist with profits that funded a comfortable life while their workers were treated very poorly. Marx's critiques of the corruptive nature of totally unrestricted capitalism are not particularly off-base. In fact, if you like your 40 hour work week, being paid for your overtime, having vacation time, sick leave, etc., you can thank the critical perspectives that Marx's ideas influenced.

It is clear that those with the money have the power. In our country, the wealthy corporations and individuals have a tremendous amount of influence over politics, law, and policy. Clearly, they will use this influence to have policies created in their own favor. There is a reason that white-collar crime, corporate misconduct, and similar types of "elite deviance" are punished far less severely and less frequently than "street crime" even though we know that the harm associated with these types of crimes cause far more harm financially and physically than street crime. There is a reason that our country has tried to regulate political donations.

During the past 25 years, the gap between the richest and the poorest in society has, in fact, been growing. The richest people in society have been getting richer while the rest of society has not only seen their earnings stagnate, but has actually seen an actual decrease in the standard of living due to cost increases in food, fuel, and other expenditures. The richest made much of their money by exploiting loopholes in the system, loopholes that were made through their influence over the political system coupled with attempts to "regulate" the markets conceived by politicians and bureaucrats. The more complex you make law and policy, the easier it is to locate loopholes and exploit them, especially if you have the money to pay lawyers and accountants to figure out how to do it. When the questionable financial practices finally led to an economic collapse, the rich folks who created the problem got bailed out while the rest of society was left to fend for itself. The "stimulus" money went to the same corporations and financial institutions who cause the problem with no strings attached and no accountability. To this point, nobody has been criminally charged nor have any politicians lost their jobs.

Although I don't agree at all with Marx on the political direction he thought was necessary to solve the problems inherent with capitalism, many of his critiques are legitimate. We know that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and in capitalist society, money equals power. Capitalism is an "ideal" that we strive to achieve, but because it is an imperfect system created and utilized by imperfect people, it has problems. It is a vast improvement over the feudal system that existed previously because people have incentive to achieve and innovate, plus it affords the opportunity for people to change their social position. However, not all of us start off on equal footing, not all of us have the same opportunities as others to maximize our ability to achieve our goals, if you can move up you can also move down, and if there is a top there must be a bottom. This is the source of the frustration many people in our society feel when we look at the way our economic system is working today. Capitalism has been corrupted by collusion between politicians and unethical rich folks at the expense of the rest of us. For capitalism to work properly, it assumes that each individual will make rational informed decisions who freely engage in a transaction that provides mutual benefit for all parties involved. This is simply not a reasonable assumption based on the complex nature of our society and the ability of powerful business interests to shape our "knowledge" through advertising, media, and influences over culture in general. The best we can hope for is to make a reasonably informed decision and hope for the best. If popular interests really had all that much influence over business as Adam Smith and other purists would argue, then products wouldn't be made to break in a short period of time or be made in China. Instead, society generally has a very limited understanding of the economy and business, and their desires have very little influence over bigger economic decisions.

Now, to most of us on TGO (based on my impressions of the political leanings of most I have read posts from), the interpretations and proposed solutions put forth by many in the Occupy movement seem radical and bizarre. They believe in their views as strongly as we do about ours, which is why they think we are radical and bizarre. It is a fundamental disagreement on the source of our problems and how to fix these problems. We tend to believe that "a rising tide raises all ships" and they believe that the only real solution is for government to forcefully extract wealth from the haves to give to the have-nots. This is an ideological debate that is not easy to win.

[TMF]

What these people want is total anarchy. In some ways I want them to get their wish because they would be the first to go, because people like me would kill them for their resources.

[East_TN_Patriot]

What these people want is total anarchy. In some ways I want them to get their wish because they would be the first to go, because people like me would kill them for their resources.

That's a great way to back up your political views. No responsible law-abiding gun owner should even joke about killing people we don't agree with politically. It's irresponsible and exactly the sort of rhetoric that draws negative attention to gun owners.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Please point out some of those ignorant fools

that can be compared to the "Occupy" nuts.

If you have already decided the "Occupy"

crowd is legitimate, you are missing something.

They are nothing more than a mob being incited

by Soros and his kind. Did you not see Van Jones

stoking the crowd in NY? Those degenerates are

only for anarchy.

Mr. Marx really contributed well to society, also.

That mob's only reason to exist is to steal

the fire away from the Tea Party movement

and I'm sorry you fell for it.

There used to be something in life called

Right and Wrong. It was what was used to

dispel communism. I wish I could see it come

back to normalcy. Ain't anything normal or

just with anything Marx wrote, and the same goes

for his modern day mob.

I'm really surprised you can't tell the difference

between the "Occupy" fools and the Tea Party.

At the very least, one group is civilized.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest PapaB]

East_TN_Patriot wrote "In our country, the wealthy corporations and individuals have a tremendous amount of influence over politics, law, and policy".

Don't forget, in our country anyone can choose to achieve wealth and become influential. This is what makes America great. You can reach any level you choose, from the bottom of the barrel to the most influential and it doesn't matter where you start in life. This concept has Marx spinning in his grave.

[JG55]

A couple of things need to be said about the Occupy movement. First, the right is treating this movement much like the left treated the Tea Party movement. It's a bit disingenuous for "Tea Party Television" to do the same thing as left-wing media outlets do by cherry picking people from the movement and portray it as representative of the entire movement. The Tea Party has attracted some very ignorant people, people who don't really understand politics or government, radical right-wing fringe calling for revolution, racists, anti-Semitic people, and others that those who support the Tea Party wish weren't part of it. The same is happening with the Occupy movement. I know people who support the Occupy movement and they are very intelligent rational folks. They just have a different perspective than I do, but they are hardly radical fringe who support Communism or anarchy. In fact, many in the Occupy movement have some of the same complaints that the Tea Party does regarding corruption in government and crony capitalism.

Second, Marx was not just a political activist, but was also a social theorist and a historian. He was examining European society as it was going through the growing pains associated with the rapid changes in society associated with shifting from an agrarian society to a free-market industrial society. This transition was not pleasant and the division between the wealthy "bourgeoisie" and the "proletariat" labor class was very stark and dramatic. The conditions for the labor class of Marx's day was nothing like it is today, thus fueling his perspectives on capitalism. He saw it as a system that forced common people to literally sell their very lives to work under terrible conditions to provide a wealthy capitalist with profits that funded a comfortable life while their workers were treated very poorly. Marx's critiques of the corruptive nature of totally unrestricted capitalism are not particularly off-base. In fact, if you like your 40 hour work week, being paid for your overtime, having vacation time, sick leave, etc., you can thank the critical perspectives that Marx's ideas influenced.

It is clear that those with the money have the power. In our country, the wealthy corporations and individuals have a tremendous amount of influence over politics, law, and policy. Clearly, they will use this influence to have policies created in their own favor. There is a reason that white-collar crime, corporate misconduct, and similar types of "elite deviance" are punished far less severely and less frequently than "street crime" even though we know that the harm associated with these types of crimes cause far more harm financially and physically than street crime. There is a reason that our country has tried to regulate political donations.

During the past 25 years, the gap between the richest and the poorest in society has, in fact, been growing. The richest people in society have been getting richer while the rest of society has not only seen their earnings stagnate, but has actually seen an actual decrease in the standard of living due to cost increases in food, fuel, and other expenditures. The richest made much of their money by exploiting loopholes in the system, loopholes that were made through their influence over the political system coupled with attempts to "regulate" the markets conceived by politicians and bureaucrats. The more complex you make law and policy, the easier it is to locate loopholes and exploit them, especially if you have the money to pay lawyers and accountants to figure out how to do it. When the questionable financial practices finally led to an economic collapse, the rich folks who created the problem got bailed out while the rest of society was left to fend for itself. The "stimulus" money went to the same corporations and financial institutions who cause the problem with no strings attached and no accountability. To this point, nobody has been criminally charged nor have any politicians lost their jobs.

Although I don't agree at all with Marx on the political direction he thought was necessary to solve the problems inherent with capitalism, many of his critiques are legitimate. We know that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and in capitalist society, money equals power. Capitalism is an "ideal" that we strive to achieve, but because it is an imperfect system created and utilized by imperfect people, it has problems. It is a vast improvement over the feudal system that existed previously because people have incentive to achieve and innovate, plus it affords the opportunity for people to change their social position. However, not all of us start off on equal footing, not all of us have the same opportunities as others to maximize our ability to achieve our goals, if you can move up you can also move down, and if there is a top there must be a bottom. This is the source of the frustration many people in our society feel when we look at the way our economic system is working today. Capitalism has been corrupted by collusion between politicians and unethical rich folks at the expense of the rest of us. For capitalism to work properly, it assumes that each individual will make rational informed decisions who freely engage in a transaction that provides mutual benefit for all parties involved. This is simply not a reasonable assumption based on the complex nature of our society and the ability of powerful business interests to shape our "knowledge" through advertising, media, and influences over culture in general. The best we can hope for is to make a reasonably informed decision and hope for the best. If popular interests really had all that much influence over business as Adam Smith and other purists would argue, then products wouldn't be made to break in a short period of time or be made in China. Instead, society generally has a very limited understanding of the economy and business, and their desires have very little influence over bigger economic decisions.

Now, to most of us on TGO (based on my impressions of the political leanings of most I have read posts from), the interpretations and proposed solutions put forth by many in the Occupy movement seem radical and bizarre. They believe in their views as strongly as we do about ours, which is why they think we are radical and bizarre. It is a fundamental disagreement on the source of our problems and how to fix these problems. We tend to believe that "a rising tide raises all ships" and they believe that the only real solution is for government to forcefully extract wealth from the haves to give to the have-nots. This is an ideological debate that is not easy to win.

OWS / Democratic Socialist/Marxist Party talking points put out by the organizers. Heard this, read this countless times.

[Defender]

I could almost give a pass to the youth who have gotten caught up in this so called movement...often, when you are young you tend to be idealistic and so convinced that the old ways are bad...antiestablishment...etc....but eventually most people grow up...I'm reminded of something that Winston Churchill said many years ago. At the risk of offending some on here, I'll quote it: “Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” I know that makes some unfair generalizations, but think about it...much truth there, lol.

If you compare the people the media has interviewed in these OWS demonstrations with the people in the Tea Party demonstrations, you will notice a distinct lack of opinion based on reality or common sense on the the OWS part...

I'll close this with another Winnie quote, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”

[JG55]

Geraldo says:

[TMF]

That's a great way to back up your political views. No responsible law-abiding gun owner should even joke about killing people we don't agree with politically. It's irresponsible and exactly the sort of rhetoric that draws negative attention to gun owners.

Yeah gotcha, I was merely pointing out that in an anarchist society the weak are the first to go and the strong control everything. If you need an example look at Somalia. Not to many hippie protests of the dominant powers there, huh? It's not a statement of killing someone with different views, its a statement of the natural order of things once society devolves into total anarchy. Lighten up.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Yeah gotcha, I was merely pointing out that in an anarchist society the weak are the first to go and the strong control everything. If you need an example look at Somalia. Not to many hippie protests of the dominant powers there, huh? It's not a statement of killing someone with different views, its a statement of the natural order of things once society devolves into total anarchy. Lighten up.

No, I won't "lighten up" on that. We don't joke about wanting to kill people. It's not funny, it's not productive, and it's not the right way to act, especially when gun owners are constantly under the microscope by the gun-grabbers who want to portray us as violent and overly-eager to use our 2nd Amendment rights to kill people for no reason.

[TMF]

No, I won't "lighten up" on that. We don't joke about wanting to kill people. It's not funny, it's not productive, and it's not the right way to act, especially when gun owners are constantly under the microscope by the gun-grabbers who want to portray us as violent and overly-eager to use our 2nd Amendment rights to kill people for no reason.

It was two sentences so I don't think it was to hard to understand, but I'll restate it for you differently. It wasn't meant to be a joke. These people want anarchy. In the event of anarchy these are the first people to get killed off. In the event of anarchy there is no government and therefore no Constitution and no 2nd amendment rights to protect. People like me have nothing to worry about because I know what to expect in the absence of a government. I've seen it myself. These weak sheep haven't and wouldn't be prepared to handle the chaos they seek. I think it would be ironic for them to get their wish.

[Guest uzzi]

OWS people crack me up when they march up and down Wall Street and in Times Square protesting capitalism while wearing their designer clothing and talking on their iPhones.

If they had a clue, they would be protesting our Federal government since they are the only force that has the power by law and at the point of a gun to make you poorer and take away your freedom. Wall Street does not. The more money they take and the more regulations they create, they poorer and less free you are. But someone how government is not to blame for the inequity of wealth?

"Free Market" has to be regulated to a degree, just like a freeway has rules as well. What we have is some that seem to have access to no speed limit special lane and when they screw up and run out of gas or crash their car, the rest of the drivers have to pay for it. That is the issue created by government, not Wall Street.

Edited October 18, 2011 by uzzi

[Guest uofmeet]

OWS people crack me up when they march up and down Wall Street and in Times Square protesting capitalism while wearing their designer clothing and talking on their iPhones.

If they had a clue, they would be protesting our Federal government since they are the only force that has the power by law and at the point of a gun to make you poorer and take away your freedom. Wall Street does not. The more money they take and the more regulations they create, they poorer and less free you are. But someone how government is not to blame for the inequity of wealth?

"Free Market" has to be regulated to a degree, just like a freeway has rules as well. What we have is some that seem to have access to no speed limit special lane and when they screw up and run out of gas or crash their car, the rest of the drivers have to pay for it. That is the issue created by government, not Wall Street.

X2....but they need the government to give them the wealth they do not want to work for.

I loved how the girl with the iPhone went straight into defensive mode when the person asked her about it. She NEEDS it.......

[East_TN_Patriot]

OWS / Democratic Socialist/Marxist Party talking points put out by the organizers. Heard this, read this countless times.

Unfortunately, those aren't "talking points," but my own original words compiled from several years of reading, studying, and teaching about social theory and crime. I am a strong Libertarian who used to be a die-hard Republican. I worked in law enforcement, would have joined the military had it not been for a childhood head injury that kept me from pursuing the job path I wanted to follow, a Christian, and own a sole-proprietorship. I have read so many different perspectives on social issues, politics, crime, and social structure, it would likely make your head spin. If you choose to ignore my own critiques of our economic and political situation, fine, but please don't think I am regurgitating "talking points" of any kind.

[East_TN_Patriot]

It was two sentences so I don't think it was to hard to understand, but I'll restate it for you differently. It wasn't meant to be a joke. These people want anarchy. In the event of anarchy these are the first people to get killed off. In the event of anarchy there is no government and therefore no Constitution and no 2nd amendment rights to protect. People like me have nothing to worry about because I know what to expect in the absence of a government. I've seen it myself. These weak sheep haven't and wouldn't be prepared to handle the chaos they seek. I think it would be ironic for them to get their wish.

OK then, that makes my criticism more serious. You are now saying that in the event of anarchy, you would like the opportunity to kill people you disagree with politically. That's fantastic. You clearly don't agree with the idea that all people have natural rights, including the right to their own ideas and right to protest. I, on the other hand, would use my weapons to protect my family, protect the innocent, and try to restore order, not execute people I don't agree with.

[East_TN_Patriot]

East_TN_Patriot wrote "In our country, the wealthy corporations and individuals have a tremendous amount of influence over politics, law, and policy".

Don't forget, in our country anyone can choose to achieve wealth and become influential. This is what makes America great. You can reach any level you choose, from the bottom of the barrel to the most influential and it doesn't matter where you start in life. This concept has Marx spinning in his grave.

Yes, which is a point I specifically made. Again, Marx was critiquing a very specific set of social and economic conditions during his time that simply don't exist in our current time. This doesn't change the reality, however, that those with money have power and they use that to influence policy and law in many cases. Take Solyndra for instance.

[Guest tommy62]

I think "THE MAN" is behind it all.

[Guest tommy62]

What a bunch of dip****s.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Please point out some of those ignorant fools

that can be compared to the "Occupy" nuts.

OK, here is a brief sample of examples from a quick Google search:

[/img]

San Francisco Tea Party for 9/11 Truth

WARNING AMERICA CHRISLAM IS COMING - Tea Party Nation

http://ladylibertyslamp.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/rand-paul-throws-a-play-soldier-dress-up-party-for-obese-white-men/

Blah, blah, blah... it goes on and on.

If you have already decided the "Occupy"

crowd is legitimate, you are missing something.

They are nothing more than a mob being incited

by Soros and his kind. Did you not see Van Jones

stoking the crowd in NY?

Any form of non-violent political dissent is legitimate in my mind, and the First Amendment of the US Constitution backs me up. Indeed, the left has said virtually the same thing about the Tea Party movement, except their description basically reads:

"They are nothing more than a mob being incited by Rupert Murdoch, the Koch brothers, and their kind. Did you not see Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin stoking the crowd in DC?"

The only difference is you agree with the views of the Tea Party over the views of OWS. Nothing more.

Those degenerates are only for anarchy.

Yes, some are, most are not. Just like in the Tea Party, some are for violent revolution and/or secession while most are not.

Mr. Marx really contributed well to society, also.

Well, he did not personally, but some of his ideas did. His ideas spawned the calls for improved labor laws and better working conditions, public education, and very insightful methods for examining society. People reduce his ideas as only being reflected in the Communist Manifesto, which was a reflection of his political activism. He wrote literally thousands of pages evaluating and discussing European history and society. He pioneered the concept of dialectics that stresses examining society from a very complex and multi-level perspective. I have made it clear that I strongly disagree with Marx's political ideas, many of which I think are criminal and vile, but this doesn't mean his other contributions lack any usefulness.

That mob's only reason to exist is to steal

the fire away from the Tea Party movement

and I'm sorry you fell for it.

Interesting... many of the OWS supporters I have talked to in my area actually want to team up with the Tea Party and join forces to deal with the issues both movements agree on. Take this statement pulled from a website:

The real root problem with this country’s politics right now is the power of the wealthy few to exert an undue amount of influence on our political process. The Supreme Court didn’t help this situation at all by ruling that Corporations can spend huge amounts of money to run ads and influence politics. You can see this every day on TV with ads run by “The Center for Americans Who Really Love the USA and Everything America,” which translates to, “a handful of corporations that want to influence politics.” Every day, decisions are made on Capitol Hill which are meant to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the many, simply because they donate and you do not. The Middle Class does not have a lobbyist.

The most shameless example of this was the Great Mortgage Crisis, which lead to a meltdown of the financial system. Instead of letting all of those greedy bastards live with the consequences, we bailed them out and let them go back to business as usual. If ever there was proof that the free market system is not fool-proof, that was it. The free market system only works when you assume that there are enough people with perfect information to make perfect choices. Once the system is so complex that only an elite few understand how it works, the result is the financial crisis.

After reading that, tell me, are these OWS "talking points" as one other post here suggests? No, they are from the home page of the Knoxville Tea Party website. Read that again, and go back and re-read my original post. Do my words sound like Marxist BS? Or is it maybe that both sides of this issue are onto something here? If you don't believe me, here is the link:

The Unofficial Website of the Knoxville Tea Party | Tea and Crumpets Anyone?

There used to be something in life called

Right and Wrong. It was what was used to

dispel communism. I wish I could see it come

back to normalcy. Ain't anything normal or

just with anything Marx wrote, and the same goes

for his modern day mob.

"Right" and "wrong" are relative. In the good ol' days, it was considered "right" to own slaves, "right" to beat your wife and children, or "right" to force Native Americans from their land at gunpoint. It was "wrong" to let women vote or own property, "wrong" to let black people drink from the same drinking fountain as whites, and "wrong" to socialize with people not like you. Am I saying that all issues of morality are social constructions and totally abstract? No, not at all. I believe there are very fundamental values of right and wrong, one of which includes respecting the right of people to freely express their political and social ideas, ESPECIALLY the ones I don't agree with.

As far as being normal or just about what Marx wrote, ask yourself if you have ever actually read anything he wrote at all. Most people haven't even read the Communist Manifesto, much less any of his thousands of pages of writing. Until you have read a broad sample of his work, you can't make that judgement of his ideas as a whole.

I'm really surprised you can't tell the difference

between the "Occupy" fools and the Tea Party.

At the very least, one group is civilized.

I can tell the difference between the two groups; many of the differences are obvious and I made that clear in my first post. They disagree with Tea Party on HOW TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Many of their complaints are very similar. We just tend to disagree on the solutions in pretty dramatic ways. You, and many others, seem to be wrapping their value as human beings and American citizens with their political ideas, which is a very un-American idea. We are a society based on tolerance, free thought, and liberty to live our lives as we choose as long as we are not doing direct harm to someone else. Last time I checked, dressing like a hippy, putting your hair in dreds, soaking yourself in patchouli oil, and protesting in a park for a month isn't inherently illegal or a violation of my rights. We have a Constitution and a political process to deal with the issues, and that is where the arguments will end up.

Edited October 18, 2011 by East_TN_Patriot

[TMF]

OK then, that makes my criticism more serious. You are now saying that in the event of anarchy, you would like the opportunity to kill people you disagree with politically. That's fantastic. You clearly don't agree with the idea that all people have natural rights, including the right to their own ideas and right to protest. I, on the other hand, would use my weapons to protect my family, protect the innocent, and try to restore order, not execute people I don't agree with.

Read it again. At any time did I say that I'm going to kill people because I disagree with their political opinions? Did I? Pull the quote where I said those words. And yes, in the event of anarchy there are no such things as "natural rights". Go anywhere in the world where there is anarchy and tell me where you see people freely able to exercise natural rights. In theory I think such a place would be great, however, for every person that fantasizes about a utopia where we all get along and are good to one another there is another person wishing to exploit such a place; guess who wins. If you need examples I can start rattling off countries where this is self evident. Now, I agree in dire times we should come together as friends, families and neighbors to protect and look after one another. In the event of anarchy this doesn't happen. It's nothing more than the strongest individuals willing to do the most violence in order to procure what they need to survive. I'm simply saying that these people would be the first to go because there are people like me who understand what really happens in total anarchy.

Now, I'm not trying to hijack this thread into a internet slap-fight, but I will defend my comments and not have words put in my mouth. It's pretty bold for you to assume you know the intentions of my words better than I do. I know exactly what I mean when I say it and it's been said. You are simply jumping to conclusions to support your own theories.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Read it again. At any time did I say that I'm going to kill people because I disagree with their political opinions? Did I? Pull the quote where I said those words. And yes, in the event of anarchy there are no such things as "natural rights". Go anywhere in the world where there is anarchy and tell me where you see people freely able to exercise natural rights. In theory I think such a place would be great, however, for every person that fantasizes about a utopia where we all get along and are good to one another there is another person wishing to exploit such a place; guess who wins. If you need examples I can start rattling off countries where this is self evident. Now, I agree in dire times we should come together as friends, families and neighbors to protect and look after one another. In the event of anarchy this doesn't happen. It's nothing more than the strongest individuals willing to do the most violence in order to procure what they need to survive. I'm simply saying that these people would be the first to go because there are people like me who understand what really happens in total anarchy.

Now, I'm not trying to hijack this thread into a internet slap-fight, but I will defend my comments and not have words put in my mouth. It's pretty bold for you to assume you know the intentions of my words better than I do. I know exactly what I mean when I say it and it's been said. You are simply jumping to conclusions to support your own theories.

Fine, I will accept that you didn't mean it to sound the way I took it, but I still think that it's pretty easy to interpret your words...

What these people want is total anarchy. In some ways I want them to get their wish because they would be the first to go, because people like me would kill them for their resources.

... to mean that you would like to see anarchy so "people like you" could kill "these people" you don't agree with. If you didn't mean it that way, I can only take your word for it, but I still think it is bad form to even remotely tie together the idea of killing anyone at all with the criticism of people we don't agree with, especially in a public forum related to gun ownership. It sends a bad message, and if a pro-gun conservative Libertarian can interpret it that way, I am very certain anti-gun liberals would as well.