Am I The Only One Around Here

Liberal much?

Anarchist

I see. You don't believe in laws as conscience suffice, correct?

I honestly believe we should get rid of the government altogether

Let me ask you a question. Let's say that in the country of Denmark. you and your party achieved Anarchy where no government exists. If a neighboring state like France wanted to take your land, how will you be able to defend your land in a long war?

People are capable of fighting for themselves. Why should we let a government do all the fighting?

Of course, they are, but then only the government is capable of sustaining a large standing army. If you do not have a government then you're fighting as a city-state with no standardized training and doctrines.

You can, of course, get all the city-states together, and train their armies with the agreed upon standard, but then you have the problem of resources and individual state interests. You will be as divided as pre-unification Germany with some 300 individual states. The enemy can easily use the strategy of Divide and Conquer against your people.

At best you can all unite as the Greeks did in the 1st and 2nd Peloponnesian wars, but ultimately their group interests will override defensive/offensive considerations.

At the Battle of Thermopolae, the Spartan ally guarding a certain pass that protected the Spartan rear, left. They believed that if they do not, then their state would be in danger. So without consulting the Spartans, and because they left, the Persians were able to surround the Spartans and annihilated them.

You don't need training in order to fight, besides, there have been multiple cases throughout history where the Average Joe rallies a group of people into fighting for a particular cause.

If you're living in a town, you can get the resources from anywhere, and just because you COULD become divided, doesn't mean you WOULD become divided. Also, the Divide and Conquer strategy isn't always successful.

Who's to say that'd ALWAYS be the case?

You forgot that the Persians didn't defeat the Spartans until 2 to 3 days into the stand. If that's not a long time to stand your ground, I don't know what is.

Ben, I think you're missing the point. It is because of the skill of the Spartans the Persian army was not able to advance for 2-3 days despite having a much larger army. Had their allies not left them, then the Spartans could have held them for much longer (and to be accurate, they also has allies with them; 300 + 7,000).

Skill alone is not an absolute guarantee as another factor needed is leadership, will, supply, logistic,etc. But let's say you have two armies of equal numbers. Assume that both are confined to a narrow pass where maneuver is an impossibility and both are well supplied and equally motivated to win without moral scruples. If Side "A" has better shooters then that side will always win.

Now yes, the strategy of Divide and Conquer doesn't always work but the greater the divide, the greater the chance of that strategy to work. As I said before, the Greek are a great example of this as while they were fighting amongst themselves, against the Persian Empire, they put their difference aside and was able to beat them twice. Nevertheless, the battle of Thermopolae demonstrates how the division can cause disaster for the other because they had their own interests.

As far as supply goes, you must always assume that resources are always scarce. With that in mind, with all the states who get to decide what goes where? If one unit is short on ammunition, they're going to have to send runners to every nearby unit in asking them if they have enough to spare. That takes a lot of time and a lot of people that that unit can ill-afford to spare. But if you have a command and control system in place that only a large standing army can have, then the unit can just send one runner. The C&C can send their own runners to other units. Each unit commander will reply, and the supply needed will reach the unit in need.

But you can't have a large standing army without a government that collects taxes and allocates funds to what entity needs it the most. And without government, you risk a Stag Theory in which you have hungry Stags but short on food. And some Stags might be more hungry or greedy... than the others so, unfortunately... not all will be distributed equally. And if the food was distributed equally, then the hungriest of them will die, and the least hungry will have the amount they did not need.

Wow, that really says alot about you.

I believed in God once, until I began seeing the bullshit religion puts out.

What religion was yours in before you left?

They do need to know how to fight, that doesn't require a qualification.

That's why you learn from one particular source, and then pass the knowledge gained from it onto other people.

See my previous comment

If they know enough about fighting, they should be good to go. A fighter only needs to know how to fight to survive in a conflict.

There was actually a moment in history where an army conquered an enemy without a leader: the 1527 Sack of Rome. They lost their leader early on, and they easily took out the defenses and entered the city slaying everything in their path. You don't need a government to lead people.

Oh, and by the way, do you know how America became a country: By revolting against the government

Then with respect, you don't know anything about warfare except playing CoD.
.
One can gain knowledge from other people but you will learn it only from their bloody trials and tragic errors.
.
In 1527, Rome was sacked, their leader was killed, but you're only assuming that they had no replacement. Be that as it may, an enraged army needn't a leader to become a mob intent on sacking. With a very small force against them, tactical leadership on the field is not needed.
.
And while the US did rebel against the government, it had its own government, the Continental Congress. It did use militias but it also raised a large standing army called the Continental Army which soon became a professional army after being trained by a Prussian Officer. After the war, the government elected its first President and the rest is history.
.
All the war colleges and civil governances were made based on the lessons of the past but you refuse to see that because you'd rather heed your fanciful ideology than facts. Then you teach others, your ideology, not caring whether it can realistically work. And if ever your notions come to pass, you will learn almost quickly how order could spiral down to the wrong kind of anarchy. That or you'll see just how easily your government-less states fail or fall in the time of war.
.
Now I don't see government as altogether good; it is, after all, staffed by fallible human beings (Romans 5:12-16). I know that government can radically change from an enlightened or godly democracy (Parliamentary or Republican) to a despotic totalitarianism within a century. There will always be corruptions and scandals and instances of governmental abuses.
.
However, I also know that to secure a state effectively and efficiently needs a central government with a large standing army. And while government can do much harm but it can also do great good; as with its power can stop evil from within and without (Romans 13:1-4).
.
With that said, there is only one truly good government which can only be established by Him who will soon come (Revelation 19:11-16).
.
Until He comes, we have flawed governances today but let not that reality come to hinder you from rejecting it. The government, whether you believe Him or not, is instituted by God Himself for the good of all, not bad. And the government is only good as the people who made it. Therefore, if the people are highly ethical then leaders will emerge with the same quality (Proverbs 14:34, 16:12, & 29:14).

....

I was a Christian for the first thirteen years of my life.

And what were your reasons for giving your life to Christ?

I was taught it by my grandma.

And what did he tell you?

Actually, politics isn't involved in every little decision the military makes.

Well as mentioned earlier, politics wasn't involved in what those groups did, and they came out on top. See, politics isn't necessary for decisions like that.

Who said weapons had to be provided by a government? Manufacturers don't rely on the government to get their work done. Besides, why would we need a government to make the weapons and food? Also, I never said you had to stay in the town to get what you needed. Also, there's another tactic that can be deployed when all else fails: retreating to fight another day. Also, nobody would be dumb enough to leave their supplies within the vision field of the enemy. Obviously, they'd be hidden, also, when you have weapons, you can defend the defenseless.

Like I said, who said ALL the resources had to come from the same place?

Well you don't need a government to train people to fight. You just need the skills of a fighter. Also, like I said, if worst comes to worst, you can retreat and regroup. Also, 10000 is a pretty high number. It's not the highest, but it's pretty high. In the stone age, the government didn't exist, and the cavemen survived for a long time. The cavemen didn't need a government to discover agriculture. I never said you had to have one single leader, you can have partners who aid in the leading of the army. Also, armies don't require "law and order", only a drive and will to fight. An army doesn't require a government either. It's not a government if you don't have politics, elections, authority, or a presidency and/or monarchy. If you have a non-political society, you just have a group of people who live together and protect one another.

"Actually, politics isn't involved in every little decision the military makes."

Me - I didn't say that; please re-read what I said.

"Well as mentioned earlier, politics wasn't involved in what those groups did, and they came out on top. See, politics isn't necessary for decisions like that."

You seemed to be confusing bad or popular politics or RealPolitik with policy. That, however, I share in the fault. When I used the word Politics in context with deciding who to pick without the basis of merit.

"Who said weapons had to be provided by a government? ...."

I didn't say that, but what I did say is that the government is needed to fund... not produce, but give the military funding in order for it to buy what it needs.

".... Also, I never said you had to stay in the town to get what you needed."

You didn't but that's the likely scenario that you will have. A guerrilla unit typically and preferably likes to operate on grounds they're familiar with (that's the advantage guerillas always have against foreign invaders). They can send for supplies from another state but that increases the chance of capture.

"Also, there's another tactic that can be deployed when all else fails: retreating to fight another day. Also, nobody would be dumb enough to leave their supplies within the vision field of the enemy. Obviously, they'd be hidden, also, when you have weapons, you can defend the defenseless."

Yes, but the longer you wait, the more supplies you consume until eventually you must act or you wither.

"Like I said, who said ALL the resources had to come from the same place?"

No, but I do want to show you how hard it can be without a central government.

"Well you don't need a government to train people to fight. You just need the skills of a fighter."

One good fighter to some may be seen as amateurs to others.

"Also, 10000 is a pretty high number. It's not the highest, but it's pretty high. In the stone age, the government didn't exist, and the cavemen survived for a long time."

You're missing the point. It is one thing to have just a leader of a group of hunter-gatherers, but it is another when you begin to rule over more and more people. That, in turn, requires helpers to keep track over areas that need to be maintained. Thus, you have a government.

Why would you need a government to ensure nobody unqualified leads? And by the way, you don't need to be qualified for anything. "Qualification" is just a word used by narcissists to further their agendas.

Who says everybody HAS to trust them? If they don't like the leader they've got, they can find another.

Well it's easy to know who's leading a person when said leader and person have known eachother a long time.

Oh, and by the way, I also meant for an entire country to be governmentless.

With all due respect, do you really think this is as simple as "Braveheart"? That all a unit needs is someone to go ahead of them, yelling "CHARGE"?
.
First, if you have 30 states and there is not a single school, then you may
have 30 differing theories on leadership with different levels of competency.

2nd, let's say you want a new CO because your previous one was killed, How will you be able to know that he is the right one? Do you have time to test him on every subject he needs to know? This can take all day; you might have as many as 30 other applicants, and until you find one, the unit won't have a commander to lead them.
"
If there's a major battle being fought and everyone is needed, guess what, the unit won't be able to go into battle without a leader to lead them.

You can send them to be integrated into another unit but then that's more men the commander and his sergeants can handle. You can divide them evenly and send them to every other unit but that's one less piece on a chess board. That missing piece could have made the difference between winning and losing battles.

Finally, it is not as simple as electing from their number, a leader for themselves because there are just some things leaders know that the subordinates do not. Leading a division is not as easy as leading a battalion... a company, and a squad. The higher up you go, the more responsibility you have, and the more knowledge and skills you need to lead.

Therefore, wouldn't it be much faster to just have the school give the graduate a certificate which certifies that they've passed all the necessary classes to be fully qualified to lead?
.
This is a perfect representation of how simplistic you see things. Your government-less worldview is not backed by anything other than only possibilities. In the meanwhile, you had no idea how complex military leadership really is, until now.

How does not thinking you need a qualification to fight make me not know anything about warfare?

I never said conflicts weren't gonna have bloodshed.

They still conquered Rome without their leader.

Well it technically wasn't a full government until after the war.

But you don't need to go to college or school to learn how to fight. What are you not getting? You can fight a war without a government, you can fight in general without a government.

That's another thing, you don't need a deity to run things either. And by the way, my point is, when you get rid of government, you get rid of political corruption, because there's no politics.

You don't need a government to head an army. As I said before, the cavemen got around just fine without a government.

Again, you don't need a deity to run things. Do you know what a country that's run by religion is called: A theocracy, and you can see how well that's turned out....

The government is NOT instituted by a deity. God doesn't exist, and like I said in the previous response, a country run by religion is called a theocracy. And by the way, the Abrahamic god isn't really worth worshiping, considering what he's done in the Bible.

You haven't been really listening. To be sure, you've read my words, but just enough to prove but not understand it. What is interesting is that some of your points you kept repeating, even after I've told you to re-read my points on it. It makes me wonder if you're simply drawing me to a useless debate for your fun.

If you were sincere, then the only way you could understand, at least with regard to war, is to study historical battles and how they're won. With government, you would have to how it functions in order to understand why governments exists in the first place.

To you, the government can only produce corrupt politics but that is as simplistic as the view that if we rid society of alcoholic beverages we'll no longer have drunkards. While it is true that beer and wine drinking can make one drunk, drinking such beverages doesn't guarantee drunkenness. It is only when one drinks in excess... can one become drunk.

This is my last reply to you.

Methodist

At what age did you accept Christ as your savior and what was your reason for doing so?

Why would the government be needed to fund production? Funds can be provided by the people.

Guerillas don't operate in a single town, though. A whole area, maybe, but not one measly town.

What's so hard about it? You can get resources from anywhere, and it doesn't have to come from a government.

There have been multiple battles throughout history where one man fought off an entire army or team on his own.

Well you wouldn't necessarily need a government to help lead people, just some friends to help lead the people you're around. Like, you could lead one group of those people, and your partners can lead other groups, thus, aiding the efforts.

"Why would the government be needed to fund production? Funds can be provided by the people."

I didn't say that either. Again, re-read my post.

"Guerillas don't operate in a single town, though. A whole area, maybe, but not one measly town."

Neither hasI said that.

"What's so hard about it? You can get resources from anywhere, and it doesn't have to come from a government."

Again please re-read my post.

"There have been multiple battles throughout history where one man fought off an entire army or team on his own."

"Well you wouldn't necessarily need a government to help lead people, just some friends to help lead the people you're around. Like, you could lead one group of those people, and your partners can lead other groups, thus, aiding the efforts."

No, but they can grant certifications to students in military schools of leadership such as one in Germany (Fuhrungsakademie Der Bundeswehr), Royal Military Academy in Sandhurst, UK, and Westpoint academy in the US.

You don't need a certificate to lead people or fight.

Of course not; anyone can fight when there's motivation to do so. However, with the government, as said before, training can be standardized to where every unit has a leader lacking nothing in necessary instructions on how to lead.

Now anyone can lead, but not all are good at it to the necessary level that builds trust and confidence between leader and subordinates, nor encourage, motivate, and push subordinates to do their very best.

At it is one thing to lead a football team, but it is another to ask one of your soldiers (generally speaking) to risk his life. That soldier needs to know what kind of a leader he's following.

Christianity, obviously. How else would I know about what the God of the Bible does?

OK, what type of church were you in?

Well obviously, somebody would lead the battle. It doesn't have to be a political leader. In war, there are sergeants and captains who lead soldiers into battle, and they don't use politics to do it.

Who's to say that'd be the case as well? I mean, there have been a few times when people were divided, and took out the enemy at the same time. Also, the Spartans weren't really "divided", they were in one spot for those 2 to 3 days.

Um, towns have stores, stores, might I add, that have tools that can be used as weapons. Besides, another thing a fighter can have is stealth, and stealth is as important as the other things you listed.

You don't need a standing army to fight a battle, you just need AN army, and an army doesn't require a government, I mean, just look at the cavemen, they didn't have a government, and they got around just fine. Also, food companies weren't founded by the government, they were founded by the people. Also, who's to say the government is an equal and fair system, because it's not.

Unfortunately, politics are also involved in the army if it is corrupted or flawed. Rather than base their decision on merits alone, they can pick one based on likeability, favors gained, image or class. And that's another difficulty you must account for. The human factor. Not only each state has their own interests but who leads those states? Not Angels but fallible human beings.

I'm sure there were cases of people-groups that did band together and defeated a much stronger foe in terms of size, weapons employed, training, etc, but again, the greater the division the greater the chance of the aforementioned strategy to work.

On weapons that can be had and the use of stealth, that can only take you so far. Waging a "Long War" against a stronger enemy can be done with any weapon but while it is taxing on the enemy, it is also taxing on you. The reality of Guerilla Warfare is that you will almost always be low on weapons and supplies (unless you have a backer in a form of a rival state like France). If you have a source of food and weapons, then guess what, that can be destroyed. If you're entirely dependant on your hometown for everything, then you will lose everything when the enemy slaughters the entire population.

And if you remember and understand the Stag Theory, you should know that not all towns and cities have the same resources and amount of it you need.

And with that, the size of an army in your case is utterly dependent on the size of your city and hometown. If the training is not standardized then your alliance will be a mix of iron and miry clay. If it is standardized, then well... you still have a weakness which is the size of an army according to the population density. You have can have armies that numbers as high as 10,000 to just 30. And using the caveman is a bad example. In the stone age, the population is low so large armies are an unknown notion then. However, when mankind "discovered" agriculture, the population grew. Now instead of having only a handful of people with 5-10 families, you have 50. That is too big for one man to lead. He must delegate authority to other people in order to not only disseminate his message but preserve law and order. Thus born the government we know of today. And yet, if you have a collection of people led by a single man or a counsel, you already have a government. The bigger the population, the bigger the government must be.

I'm just saying that government is unnecessary for combat training.

I'm actually wondering if YOU were reading MY points. Like the 1527 Sack of Rome, the Revolutionary War, and the cavemen.

Now that's a broad assumption. But the thing is, the government has done more harm than alcohol has.

Fine.

I'm sorry, let me add this to address your other point:

"Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain."
- Psalm 127:1

You may not believe Him, but when you die, you will stand before Him in judgment and it will be too late.

Have you repented of your sins and accepted Jesus as your savior (John 5:24)? If you have then you will live with Him for an eternity. If you have not, you will end up paying for your sins for an eternity in Hell (Revelation 20:11-15).

If you want to talk more about salvation, let me know. If not I'll leave you with only this.

I'm sorry, a nearby state.

Whatever....