State's rights and sovereignty - the "10th Amendement" movement begins

[LameBull]

Nah...you're not being gross
I would actually pay to see her choke in her own spit.

You're right though, about the shock that would ring throughout the left in this country.
They would riot...But, we have the advantage because we own all the guns.

LMAO:) Yeah, ten-four on the guns:)

[thenotch]

If any of the states would decide to use the 10th Amendment on the current administration, Obama would not have the fortitude to call up troops to "supress" the seceeding states as Lincoln did.

The country wants to compare Obama to Lincoln. They ain't the same... they aren't even on the same field.. heck, they aren't even the same sport! Let me say that I am not a huge Lincoln fan. I think he did some great things, but I think his actions (side-steppinig the Constitution) are the beginnings of the reasons we are in the mess we are in today. BUT... I also believe that he had no other recourse.

If any of the states seceed today the conflict with be with the factions of each state seceeding, not the federal government.

I do believe a revolution is at hand, is warranted, and is needed.

[Covertness]

The country does not compare Obama to Lincoln.  Obama likes to compare himself with Lincoln but I have yet to see any person of significance make that comparison.

And The War of Northern Agression eliminated the sense that we are a Federation of free states and gathered all the power into the Federal government. 

[Talismen]

I find it rather comforting that obama thinks of himself as Lincoln....because it assures me that he truly is bonkers. He's not the silent-crazy type, which can often times be more disturbing and harmful. He's just plan arrogant, out-loud crazy. Narcissistic (did I spell that right?).

I too agree with Notch.
If more states were to use the 10th amendment to remove the federal mandates, we might start resembling the nation we were designed to be.

[Katun]

I find it rather comforting that obama thinks of himself as Lincoln....because it assures me that he truly is bonkers. He's not the silent-crazy type, which can often times be more disturbing and harmful. He's just plan arrogant, out-loud crazy. Narcissistic (did I spell that right?).[/quote]

To be honest, when I first heard him say that I thought he was full of himself as well. However, after I found out about what kind of man the *real* Lincoln was my annoynace turned to disgust. I would say that he certainly has revealed himself so far as close enough to Lincoln to make me nervous. He has little respect for states rights, a huge ego, a thrist for power, a love for strong federal government and a contempt for individual autonomy. All "qualities" which Lincoln shared as well. I just hope that he doesn't turn out to be a second Lincoln. It frankly would be disasterous for this country if he did.

[Talismen]

I find it rather comforting that obama thinks of himself as Lincoln....because it assures me that he truly is bonkers. He's not the silent-crazy type, which can often times be more disturbing and harmful. He's just plan arrogant, out-loud crazy. Narcissistic (did I spell that right?).

To be honest, when I first heard him say that I thought he was full of himself as well. However, after I found out about what kind of man the *real* Lincoln was my annoynace turned to disgust. I would say that he certainly has revealed himself so far as close enough to Lincoln to make me nervous. He has little respect for states rights, a huge ego, a thrist for power, a love for strong federal government and a contempt for individual autonomy. All "qualities" which Lincoln shared as well. I just hope that he doesn't turn out to be a second Lincoln. It frankly would be disasterous for this country if he did.

It all makes sense doesn't it?...When we consider why Lincoln is one of the very few Presidents in our history that dems will also speak highly of?

That should tell us something.

Not that I believe all dems to be of the same frame of mind as Lincoln was on those specific points, but rather that the dems of the past 40 to 50 years seem to be so.

[Talismen]

Here's another question to ponder, on this same topic:

When the federal government threatens any state with yanking federal monies for programs or projects, in order to obtain the state's favor or complicity....Shouldn't this be considered bribery or blackmail, and thus, shouldn't the states then have the right to file suit against the federal government for those actions?

[Shooterman]

A few thoughts and words here, my friends.

First; Rick Perry is an opportunistic bag of wind. In my opinion, he is no better than the other 'slicky boy' pilesofcrapticians in this country.

Secondly, Perry is in a fight with Kay Bailey Hutchison, a RINO extraordinaire to rival Perry. Neither are worth warm spit. KBH ain't been worth anything since Senatah Phil hung it up.

Thirdly, God help this country if we ever have another Uncivil War.

Lincoln was a sumbich extraordinaire; The Nutcase From Illinois we now have in the White House, is no better.

Even though secession is a constitutional and legal action, the FEDS will never acquiesce to any state seceding again.

The majority of people, myself included, could never furnish the necessities for themselves and their families to survive.

The war would not be in the byways and countrysides of the nation, but in the cities and suburbs, laying waste to billions of dollars of infrastructure and millions of dead.

We are about to be f**ked without the use of KY Jelly and it's gonna hurt big time.

[Talismen]

Even though secession is a constitutional and legal action, the FEDS will never acquiesce to any state seceding again.

I don't know...I think I agree with Notch in this case, from his other thread.
I don't think obama has the hutzpah to marshall the military to fire on it's own people. And I don't think very many of them would actually do it, given the political climate we're in today.

The majority of people, myself included, could never furnish the necessities for themselves and their families to survive.

Oh Thomas - why do you doubt so?

True - most folks wouldn't know how to do those things, but many would, and it would be those who are capable of doing so that would be just fine. Myself included.

The war would not be in the byways and countrysides of the nation, but in the cities and suburbs, laying waste to billions of dollars of infrastructure and millions of dead.

So if it ever came to that, we should just lay down for it, and take our lumps?
Seriously?

[Shooterman]

So if it ever came to that, we should just lay down for it, and take our lumps?
Seriously?

Didn't say that. I'm an old man, but I can still get on target. As long as I don't have to move very much, I'll stand my ground if Texas is ever invaded. It is not something, however, I long to see.

The problem I see is two fold; most have not been inculcated with the sense of hearth and home and kith and kin, but have instead been brainwashed with the ideas of a 'Nation State' being the great equalizer of man.

The problems we are experiencing have their roots in the abrogation of the Constitution starting under Lincoln, the raising of the 'Nation State' to prominence under McKinley and Wilson, FDR, Truman, Brown vs Board of Education, LBJ, and just about every criminal to occupy the White House since. That the Sheeple are just now waking up, seems strange to me on the face of it.

Can it be turned around? I'm fearful for my unborn progeny it can not. We'll see with this 'Tea Party' movement. All we can do is be hopeful it doesn't become just another bowel movement.

Remember; Freedom is simply the restraint of government. So far, we haven't done very well.

[Talismen]

Didn't say that. I'm an old man, but I can still get on target. As long as I don't have to move very much, I'll stand my ground if Texas is ever invaded. It is not something, however, I long to see.

Understood

The problem I see is two fold; most have not been inculcated with the sense of hearth and home and kith and kin, but have instead been brainwashed with the ideas of a 'Nation State' being the great equalizer of man.

I agree, but with 1 exception....

Most folks WILL get agitated when they learn their home may be taken by the government, or is being bought out by land developers...etc etc.

I think that inclination alone suggests that people would, if pushed, defened their homes.

The problems we are experiencing have their roots in the abrogation of the Constitution starting under Lincoln, the raising of the 'Nation State' to prominence under McKinley and Wilson, FDR, Truman, Brown vs Board of Education, LBJ, and just about every criminal to occupy the White House since. That the Sheeple are just now waking up, seems strange to me on the face of it.

It was inevitable that folks started paying attention.
Too much is threatening their ways of life. And most of it is rooted in Washington.

Can it be turned around? I'm fearful for my unborn progeny it can not. We'll see with this 'Tea Party' movement. All we can do is be hopeful it doesn't become just another bowel movement.

Remember; Freedom is simply the restraint of government. So far, we haven't done very well.

The degree at which We The People push back is equal to the degree at which our lives, fortunes and sacred honor are being threatened.

If an entire country can muster thousands (maybe probably tens of thousands) of volunteers to military service in the wake of a national threat such as 9/11...What could they do in the wake of the biggest threat from their own government...That being, complete takeover of nearly every facet that touches our lives, including our very own health care?

[neildarkstar]

There is one thing I'm failrly certain of... if we were to have another "Uncivil War" as shooterman puts it, we as Americans would likely never again see the wealth and prosperity we have now. Remember the fall of rome and the dark ages that followed?

You'll be able to tell your grandchildren "I remember when grocery stores sold food, and every town had a MacDonald's..." and their eyes will get wide as they ask "Tell us about MacDonald's again, Grammy!"

The main difference between the Civil War then, and a Civlil War now is simply that the infrastructure of everything from the economy to food production was far simpler then, and geared to a technology that was relatively easy to replicate, and there were clear cut lines of combat that were only rarely urban.

Most people really don't understand our position as it now stands.We are never more than three days from food riots in every major city in the country, and it's been that way since the late 50s.

A civil war today would likely result in 100 million plus dead due to causes such as freezing because during the civil war homes were heated by coal or wood and now they are not, starvation due to the lack of power to produce and transport food to urban centers, plague resulting from a variety of causes from drinking water issues to rotting corpses left untended, and outright starvation. Then there are the straight up casualties of combat.

81% of our population live in the large cities or suburbs where there are little or no native life sustaining resources (other than eating ones neighbor and burning his fat).

To visualize it, you can imagine everyone you know standing in a line, and then shoot every third person in the head...

Would it really be that bad? Maybe not... and maybe it would be worse. Maybe only the 19% of Americans who live in rural areas would survive.Unless they themselves were killed by starving refugees from the cities.

For another illustration, imagine New Orleans during Katrina... with no national guard because they are busy fighting, and no place to go because the whole country is the same.

We would be far worse off than comparable African nations like Somalia, and Nigeria, because they had little infrastructure to start with.

While the fighter in me says that we need to fight for our rights, my heart says we had better consider carefully those we would condemn to death, and find a better way to fight.

As to mustering people to fight the threat of government... It's far easier to enlist in the military to fight when you don't have to try to figure out how to keep your family fed when people are starving. One popular way of answering that situation historically has been for able bodied fighting men to enlist in government forces. Freedom fighters, not so much...

Of course the UN would send troops to support the government as well... Wouldn't Putin love to mount a military "humanitarian mission" to the US?

[Talismen]

As to mustering people to fight the threat of government... It's far easier to enlist in the military to fight when you don't have to try to figure out how to keep your family fed when people are starving. One popular way of answering that situation historically has been for able bodied fighting men to enlist in government forces. Freedom fighters, not so much...

But they did for the Revolution.

In my view...although centuries seperate us from those chaotic times, the inherent nature of Americans to stand up to tyranny (in all forms) is still around.

That very fact alone is what has kept us safe and sound for over 200 years.
It has brought peace to locations all over the world.

I believe in that inherent nature, and I don't expect it to ever die away completely.

[neildarkstar]

But they did for the Revolution.

In my view...although centuries seperate us from those chaotic times, the inherent nature of Americans to stand up to tyranny (in all forms) is still around.

That very fact alone is what has kept us safe and sound for over 200 years.
It has brought peace to locations all over the world.

I believe in that inherent nature, and I don't expect it to ever die away completely.

/quote

Oh, I'm sure that spirit remains as well, and a lot of people would fight... but on both sides. The notion that the freedom fighter would be the popular choice is not a foregone conclusion. Remember that people enlisting in government forces would be fighting for their nation, and many if not most, would consider themselves to be the true patriots and the other side traitors. A reasonable case could be made both ways, and a guarantee of hot food, shelter, and medical care would go a long way towards convincing starving people to join up.

There are also some other very large differences between then and now. For one thing, the Brits were, for all intents and purposes, a foreign occupying power once the war started and that would not be the case in a modern revolution or civil war.

That's not to say Americans won't fight for what they believe, the question is, what is it that they believe? For many inner city people, honor is killing whoever or stealing whatever you want, but never betray the gang...

As a side note, I don't suppose there were Crips and Bloods around during the American Revolution... I wonder who they would have fought for, or if they would have just looted everything in sight...
 
We have the misfortune to live in a time when personal honor is looked on as an anachronism at best, and completely foolish and criminal at worst. We are not allowed to get into even so much as a fistfight over honor without legal prosecution at a felony level.

We are taught from infancy to be politically correct, and a sense of honor is rarely in that category.

[Talismen]

All good points once again Neil

[Katun]

It all makes sense doesn't it?...When we consider why Lincoln is one of the very few Presidents in our history that dems will also speak highly of?

That should tell us something.

Not that I believe all dems to be of the same frame of mind as Lincoln was on those specific points, but rather that the dems of the past 40 to 50 years seem to be so.

I agree, most if not all of the presidents that they laud are rabid statists and authoritarians. It should tell someone something about their state of mind for sure and how they view individual liberty.

[Katun]

There is one thing I'm failrly certain of... if we were to have another "Uncivil War" as shooterman puts it, we as Americans would likely never again see the wealth and prosperity we have now. Remember the fall of rome and the dark ages that followed?

You'll be able to tell your grandchildren "I remember when grocery stores sold food, and every town had a MacDonald's..." and their eyes will get wide as they ask "Tell us about MacDonald's again, Grammy!"

The main difference between the Civil War then, and a Civlil War now is simply that the infrastructure of everything from the economy to food production was far simpler then, and geared to a technology that was relatively easy to replicate, and there were clear cut lines of combat that were only rarely urban.

Most people really don't understand our position as it now stands.We are never more than three days from food riots in every major city in the country, and it's been that way since the late 50s.

A civil war today would likely result in 100 million plus dead due to causes such as freezing because during the civil war homes were heated by coal or wood and now they are not, starvation due to the lack of power to produce and transport food to urban centers, plague resulting from a variety of causes from drinking water issues to rotting corpses left untended, and outright starvation. Then there are the straight up casualties of combat.

81% of our population live in the large cities or suburbs where there are little or no native life sustaining resources (other than eating ones neighbor and burning his fat).

To visualize it, you can imagine everyone you know standing in a line, and then shoot every third person in the head...

Would it really be that bad? Maybe not... and maybe it would be worse. Maybe only the 19% of Americans who live in rural areas would survive.Unless they themselves were killed by starving refugees from the cities.

For another illustration, imagine New Orleans during Katrina... with no national guard because they are busy fighting, and no place to go because the whole country is the same.

We would be far worse off than comparable African nations like Somalia, and Nigeria, because they had little infrastructure to start with.

While the fighter in me says that we need to fight for our rights, my heart says we had better consider carefully those we would condemn to death, and find a better way to fight.

As to mustering people to fight the threat of government... It's far easier to enlist in the military to fight when you don't have to try to figure out how to keep your family fed when people are starving. One popular way of answering that situation historically has been for able bodied fighting men to enlist in government forces. Freedom fighters, not so much...

Of course the UN would send troops to support the government as well... Wouldn't Putin love to mount a military "humanitarian mission" to the US?

Oh most definetly, I agree that force should be the very VERY last resort after all other avenues have been exhausted. This is of course if things keep on their current track and this government continues to undermine our freedoms.

[neildarkstar]

Oh most definetly, I agree that force should be the very VERY last resort after all other avenues have been exhausted. This is of course if things keep on their current track and this government continues to undermine our freedoms.

/quote

The instant that a government is created, it's sole reason for existence to curtail freedoms. People create governments in the name of providing order, and agree to allow that government to control various aspects of their lives in order to gain the advantages inherent in superior numbers combining to offset the strengths of the strong.

When the first law is passed, some of your personal freedom is removed, and each time a law is passed a little more freedom is gone. That is the nature of the beast.

People agree to the curtailing, or undermining if you prefer, of their freedom in the interest of furthering thier own personal security, or wealth, or financial income. I'm sure I;m not saying anything new, so I'll cut this short, I just wanted to get us on the same page so my next statement is easer to follow.

The problem with any negative response to government undermining freedoms, is simply that there will be very different views of what actually is the line where government takes too much freedom away. What  bit of straw actually breaks the camels back, if you will.

Some peple feel that government has gone too far by removing the right of private citizens to own nuclear weapons, while others feel that firearms should be banned entirely, and silverware restricted to chopsticks only.

Somewhere in between those two points of leverage is a balance point, or fulcrum. The problem with deciding when ithe government has gone too far is simply this... you must find a point of leverage where both sides of the issue agree that government action is wrong and action to gain redress is necessary. It's harder than it looks, and it obviously must involve multiple issues.

To say that government is undermining freedoms is obviously true, Unfortunately, the government has been doing this with the approval of a significant portion of the population fo a century or more at least. Those would be the people who want a nanny state, who expect to be taken care of by government, and who demand to be protected from the freedoms of the rest of us.

Violence is not merely the last resort because of the consequences, but also because a majority of people on both sides will have to approve at the action at same time in order for any such thing to accomplish anything more than self destruction.

There is another area left untouched at this point, but I will leave it for another time.

One thing I do want to say is simply this... Shooterman claimed to be at 20 or 30 on my scale of 1 to ten. I didn't bother to argue the point because the distinction was unimportant, but it is relevant to our current conversation. Consider this... ten on my scale is complete anarchy - no government, no laws, strictly survival of the fittest. To go beyond 10, one must rebel against nature herself and do away with the restrictions imposed by nature. That is the lack of freedom to not eat, drink, or sleep. Beyond 10 is only death.

Honestly, we are being pushed to the brink of that precipice, and it is no accident that death is the final solution.

[Talismen]

Somewhere in between those two points of leverage is a balance point, or fulcrum. The problem with deciding when ithe government has gone too far is simply this... you must find a point of leverage where both sides of the issue agree that government action is wrong and action to gain redress is necessary. It's harder than it looks, and it obviously must involve multiple issues.

See...I think we're at that point though.

I don't want to keep harping on the Tea Party movement, but, right now, there is name for what is going on, and it is that one.

People across the political spectrum are engaging in the Tea Party movement.
That alone should tell us that whatever that straw was...It not only broke the camel's back, but nearly killed it.

To say that government is undermining freedoms is obviously true, Unfortunately, the government has been doing this with the approval of a significant portion of the population fo a century or more at least. Those would be the people who want a nanny state, who expect to be taken care of by government, and who demand to be protected from the freedoms of the rest of us.

But wouldn't you attribute this to complacency and a lack of awareness on the part of the people?

It is just as much the people's fault as it is the politicians, for allowing those things to go on, for literally hundreds of years now.

One thing I do want to say is simply this... Shooterman claimed to be at 20 or 30 on my scale of 1 to ten. I didn't bother to argue the point because the distinction was unimportant, but it is relevant to our current conversation. Consider this... ten on my scale is complete anarchy - no government, no laws, strictly survival of the fittest. To go beyond 10, one must rebel against nature herself and do away with the restrictions imposed by nature. That is the lack of freedom to not eat, drink, or sleep. Beyond 10 is only death.

Honestly, we are being pushed to the brink of that precipice, and it is no accident that death is the final solution.

I think I know where you're going with that point but....can you expand on your reasoning for coming to such a conclusion first, before I respond.

[neildarkstar]

To say that government is undermining freedoms is obviously true, Unfortunately, the government has been doing this with the approval of a significant portion of the population fo a century or more at least. Those would be the people who want a nanny state, who expect to be taken care of by government, and who demand to be protected from the freedoms of the rest of us.

But wouldn't you attribute this to complacency and a lack of awareness on the part of the people?

It is just as much the people's fault as it is the politicians, for allowing those things to go on, for literally hundreds of years now.

/quote

While I might agree that complacency and lack of awareness has played some role, it is outright approval of the direction we have traveled that I am talking about.

People who believe that guns are evil and need to be banned, people who promote the welfare state in the name of humanity, people such as those in San Francisco who establish a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens and promote a plethora of far left causes.

These liberal causes do not exist in a vacuum inhabited only by leftist politicians... you must see that a fair number of Americans approve of far left policies, else there would be no such politicians.

And... it is indeed the peple's fault. As Robert Heinlein said, people usually get the government they deserve.

One thing I do want to say is simply this... Shooterman claimed to be at 20 or 30 on my scale of 1 to ten. I didn't bother to argue the point because the distinction was unimportant, but it is relevant to our current conversation. Consider this... ten on my scale is complete anarchy - no government, no laws, strictly survival of the fittest. To go beyond 10, one must rebel against nature herself and do away with the restrictions imposed by nature. That is the lack of freedom to not eat, drink, or sleep. Beyond 10 is only death.

Honestly, we are being pushed to the brink of that precipice, and it is no accident that death is the final solution.

I think I know where you're going with that point but....can you expand on your reasoning for coming to such a conclusion first, before I respond.

/quote

'Way back in the McCarthy era, and no doubt for some time before, the aims of the far left were not only apparent, but well documented. I don't believe that either their goals nor their basic plan has ever changed other than in small ways as issues arose over the years.

They know that under normal circumstances, the pepole of the US will not simply transform the US government from a republic into a socilist or communist form of government. There were a lot of things that had to happen to make such a change possible.

Over the years various socialistic programs have been implemented and all sugar-coated to be acceptable to Americans, and this is according to plan. The next step is to preciptiate a crisis, because it is only during a crisis that basic foundations of government can be manipulated on a grand scale.

Right now we have the tip of the ice berg in the form of the financial crisis (which is far from being resolved, and will no doubt worsen in the near future). The next crisis will one of control. How to put this is the problem for me, so bear with me as I stumble about for a bit.

If states are pushed to the point of secession, and common sense citizens are calling for everything from Tea Party style political change to out and out rebellion, then there is a tinder box waiting to be ignited.

When the final match is struck, dissenting opinions and dissenters themselves can be openly put down on a permanent basis creating a period of chaos from which a new form of government will arise. ... and all in the name of answering the crisis.

The far left not only wants the middle and right to rebel, but it is necessary in order for them to attain their goals. Maybe I own 143 copies of "Catcher in the Rye", and maybe I'm just another conspiracy nut, but I can see no other purpose to their actions. We are being pushed into a position where we can be eliminated.

Now I'm gonna go put my tin foil hat on and sit in the microwave for a while to clear my thought waves, but think about it for a bit. Everything I'm saying was detailed in a manifesto which I first saw in the 60s, and has been updated numerous times since then with few real changes.

And Obama was disciple of the very people like Ayers who adamantly and often violently furthered that agenda.

[Talismen]

The far left not only wants the middle and right to rebel, but it is necessary in order for them to attain their goals. Maybe I own 143 copies of "Catcher in the Rye", and maybe I'm just another conspiracy nut, but I can see no other purpose to their actions. We are being pushed into a position where we can be eliminated.

But I don't think it's just the middle and right that will rebel.
Politicians LOVE power, and the dem party loves it more than their own country. But, there are many "likely voters" out there who are either registered dem, or who traditionally vote dem most of the time, who have simply had enough. This is NOT the "hope and change" they bargained for. This is something their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents warned them about, with tales of the 2 world war's and the cold war, in an era when card-carrying communists and marxists met in secret, because the knew they'd be found out if they talked too loudly, or too often, in public.

IMO, the only people who truly like the idea of marxism, socialism and communism are those who already share that same mind-set. We're talking about CodePink, MoveOn, and the other like-minded nitwits, not to mention the men and women the "president" surrounds himself with, and employs at his side.

[Katun]

The instant that a government is created, it's sole reason for existence to curtail freedoms.

Completley agree. The very nature of the state is oppresing and coercive.

 

People create governments in the name of providing order, and agree to allow that government to control various aspects of their lives in order to gain the advantages inherent in superior numbers combining to offset the strengths of the strong.

I agree with this as well. States arose because of peoples inner most doubts and insecurities. The states then took that doubt and exasperbated it and magnified it untill were where we are at today.

When the first law is passed, some of your personal freedom is removed, and each time a law is passed a little more freedom is gone. That is the nature of the beast.

Yep, all legislation(laws) are state sanctioned violence.

Violence is not merely the last resort because of the consequences, but also because a majority of people on both sides will have to approve at the action at same time in order for any such thing to accomplish anything more than self destruction.

Oh most definetly, if any rebellion is to be succesful against the united states then it would take a hell of alot of collaboration just to be able to muster enough resources to stand a chance. I honestly don't have much hope or optimism for a victory if it were to come to that, sad as that is to admit.

One thing I do want to say is simply this... Shooterman claimed to be at 20 or 30 on my scale of 1 to ten. I didn't bother to argue the point because the distinction was unimportant, but it is relevant to our current conversation. Consider this... ten on my scale is complete anarchy - no government, no laws, strictly survival of the fittest.

Woot the very best type of goverment there is.

 

To go beyond 10, one must rebel against nature herself and do away with the restrictions imposed by nature. That is the lack of freedom to not eat, drink, or sleep. Beyond 10 is only death.

Um eh? I would disagree that anarchy is a rebellion against nature. Anarchy is natural. Its the most natural state of man there can be and it was our first form of orginization. If anything, I would argue that we've gotten away from those principles of anarchy and that is the reason we have the problems we have now. I don't quite understand that last part.... if you maybe wouldn't mind clarifying?

[neildarkstar]

Um eh? I would disagree that anarchy is a rebellion against nature. Anarchy is natural. Its the most natural state of man there can be and it was our first form of orginization. If anything, I would argue that we've gotten away from those principles of anarchy and that is the reason we have the problems we have now. I don't quite understand that last part.... if you maybe wouldn't mind clarifying?

/quote

It was set as a very simple scale... 10 represents complete anarchy as noted above.

Bear in mind that complete anarchy removes all forms of rule, thus there are neither social nor family rules or responsibilites either.
So a 9.5 on the scale might believe in the rule of family or social obligation, and would hold family ties as binding, while holding no respect for organized government per se.

However, even with complete anarchy, one is ruled by the needs mandated by nature... You must eat, drink, breathe, and eliminate wastes or you suffer consequences. The only way to avoid those consequences is to die, eh?

Therefore the only freedom more complete than complete anarchy is death which brings freedom from those necessities. Paradoxically, death is a complete loss of self control and freedom... and so we come full circle as one might ecpect.

[Talismen]

I love discussions about anarchy, because there are so many instances in our lives and society where there IS order, but order we just aren't aware of. It can get really "deep" if we think about it

Carry on