Boomer gymnastics

and Bush

and Clinton

and now Trump.

and each time we have gotten a worse deal than the last.

Not at all... Bush was better than Clinton just like Trump is better than Obama. It's a cycle, not all downhill.

hmm .... remind me, which president allowed 9/11 to happen?

clinton or bush?

Clinton set up the failed intelligence system that allowed us to miss the warnings about 9/11. Neither "allowed it to happen" like they knew it was going to happen. Clinton's mishandling of the Middle East and Al Qaeda enabled them to carry off the attack. Common sense.

Yes, it happened DURING Bush's presidency, but the causes go farther back.

so, 9 months into office they had no preparations made to counter this coming attack.

I call bullshit, then Bush lied to the american people and claimed we had to go to war to stop WMD's

The patriot act was established, operation mockingbird went into full swing, and soldiers were sent to die for a false cause.

Yeah. You’re not in the real world. Once you say “Bush lied” you discredit anything else you say. First there were WMD found.

So true!

social contract has been debunked numerous times. Its very basis is literally unusable in modern society.

the social contract is based in the idea that at birth you give consent to be a member of the society you were born in, taking on all responsibilities they wish to enact. this includes military service, taxation,and law abiding.

This however is debunked as

1.children cannot consent to legal activities.

2. children at birth cannot consent at all due to thier intelligence, which makes it impossible to actually have the contract be a legitimate arument

3. the parents can give consent on the kids behalf, but it must be both verbal and written. Last I checked there is no record of my parents signing my rights away.

therefore the social contract is a failed philosophy and has no de jure groundings.

the social contract if you didnt know, was an idea promoted primarily by monarchs during the medieval and later periods of Europe.And was promoted heavily by Thomas Hobbes.

This theory would be used extensively to require obedience by the lower classes to the kingdoms government. Obviously people are still to stupid to think critically even today.

Hence the officials they elect to run that goverment and rule those people, and the Federal one which rules over their State ones which rules over their County ones which ....

bad comparison and argument.

You know something is bad but you give it power over other people, knowing it can and sometimes will hurt innocent people.

This is illogical and immoral.

if something is already broken, and hurts people although it sometimes works like it should, do you keep it, or discard it for a better thing.

But government can easily be replaced by the non-aggression principle.

Power corrupts the otherwise-innocent.

I said “otherwise-innocent” because power keeps one from being innocent. Good morals only need to be enforced by the non-aggression principle.

I like your misanthropy, but here's the problem withyour argument:
Everyone is corrupt. Therefore, someone needs to keep the corrupt at bay. And those who will keep the corrupt at bay also corrupt themselves. And the governors, through power, become more corrupt than the governed. So, in the end, the more corrupt end up ruling the less corrupt.
See the problem?

Well said, Timber. However, there is a problem with all this which can be proven on a practical level.

We can both agree that, during the time of the Founding Fathers, America was the freest country imaginable at the time. It stood for it's ideals: Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness (although it took those of the Natives beforehand, and those of sub-Saharran Africans afterwards, but right now, that's irrelevant).
Look at America today. First they violate your freedoms under the excuse of 'national security' (patriot act, increased police and military power and privileges, increased airport security, attempted gun confiscations, red flag laws etc), and then they violate other countries' freedoms under the excuse of them being terrorists (various military interventions, sabotages, bombing and govt overthrows, oil and gold hoarding, military bases all around the world etc). Modern America is nothing short of a terrorist empire.

So,what happened?
I'll tell you, the government happened. The problem with governments is that they are like parasites. They always grow, no matter how small, and it's always at the expense of the public. And there's really no excuse here. Blame the Left all you want, but the Founding Fathers gave their people the Amendments, the whole "Tree of Liberty must be refreshed with blood of tyrants and patriots" thing and even warned them of the standing military (which the American people largely believe to be heroes). And the American people, much like today, owned firearms at large. How could this happen, then?

Because the government was allowed to exist, even though it was small. It's like treating cancer, for example, and stopping just before completely eradicating it, saying: "It's a small cancer, it can't cause me harm". Then the cancer grows, and the cycle repeats. Same with the government. Except that the government, American or any other, grew to such lenghts where fighting against it is near-impossible, armed public or not.

You may make the same argument with an anarchic society saying that a government will sooner or later be formed and will reach authoritarianism. I just ask: How? An anarchic society is one where nobody has rulership or authority over anyone but themselves (self-ownership, as Larken Rose called it). It's hard to go from no-authority to authority. You can't just say "I have a right to do this and that, I forbid you this, this should be that way etc", unless you're REALLY persuasive.

Reached the limit, tbc

What do you think the solution is, then? What is a legit example of an anarchist country?

The solution? Here it is: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_jUY3DKq-Do

Unless you're really persuasive or have a group of followers willing to obey your every command and apply your will through force. And even then, your 'state' will easily collapse or be dethroned by someone else.

Now, I just want to say that we don't disagree as much as we think we do. We both seek one thing: freedom. The difference is that I advocate anarchy, while you advocate what seems to be direct democracy or libertarianism (both being just borderline anarchy). But you have to realize that freedom and government are incompatible. You cannot be free while there is a group which decides what is and isn't allowed, and has the manpower to enforce their rules upon you. As simple as that.

Actually, minarchy is the borderline to anarchy.

Yes and no.

Minarchy is a state whose only function is to provide police and military services. While that is the most minimalist state imaginable (hence the name "minarchy"), that same police and military are the core problem. Here, if this hour-and-half seminar can't explain it to you, nothing will. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSqBNGxLiAs

Thanks, but I already know that anarchy is better than minarchy is. And I think minarchy also includes firefighters.

*sigh*

I even used the etymology, and you deny even that and use your make-believe definition of anarchy. I bet you think that Antifa are a good example of anarchists. Cowardly communist scumbags who hate freedom of speech and always display their will through violence. It is the exact opposite of anarchy. Until you drop you make-believe definition of anarchy, we have nothing to talk about. I suggest you study the works of Larken Rose and Mark Passio to understand what anarchy REALLY is.

Human nature is an oxymoron (in both contexts). There are as many human natures as there are humans. Some are more egotistic, some more altruistic. Some are more apathic, some more caring. Some are more cowardly, some are more courageous.

This time, it's you who makes a bad assumption. Namely, that I am a humanist. I'm not one of those anarcho-pacifist, New Agey, happy-go-lucky, "Isn't humanity great?", naïve children. Humans are largely ignorant, apathic and cowardly creatures, only concerned about themselves. It is that knowledge that leads me to be the polar opposite of a humanist. A misanthrope. The former is concerned about what humanity can be, while the latter is concerned about what humanity is. Still, authority and rulership will never, ever be legitimate, regardless of the condition of humanity. You may argue that the existence of the state and authoritarianism is the consequence of the humanity's flaws, and you would be correct (Law of Freedom, as Mark Passio called it) But if the people need to be largely flawed for a system to exist, then that should tell you something about that system.

I see. I did say "you advocate what SEEMS to be", since I wasn't sure what ideology do you advocate.

The second paragraph has proven to me that you have no idea what anarchy is. Anarchy is derived from Green "a/an", meaning " no/without", and "arkhos", meaning " ruler/master". It means "No masters". By it's very name and definition, anarchy implies freedom for everyone AND respecting those freedoms, since there are no masters. Violating one's freedoms is the first step to creating archony/rulership, therefore, an anarchist is the one which always respects other people's freedoms. "you want to do what you like, other people be damned" is pure bullshit.
And you've proven to me you don't understand what government is. Government is derived from Latin "guvernare", meaning "to control" (and "mentis" meaning "mind", but that part is currently irrelevant). By it's very name and definition, government is an entity which controls and rules. If it's beneath and answerable to you, then it's not a government. Such government can only exist in one's imagination. As simple as that.

You advocate the Social Contract, despite AncapDeist debunking it. But if his explanation is not enough, here is mine:
One thing is obvious from the Social Contract: that the rulership of the state over the people is self-imposed and voluntary.
Assume the people would one day just want to end the Social Contract, and thus, end the existence of the state. Do you think that would happen just like that? No rebellion, no revolution, not a single bullet fired. The state just vanishes like it never existed. Every cop, every soldier, every govt official becomes an everyday Joe. Do you really think it would go like that? And if you don't think that will happen, then you have agreed that Social Contract is merely a social construct. Just an idea with no basis in reality whatsoever. Because, once the people allow to be governed by a certain group, the governance by that group will remain until rebelled against.

And you advocate the philosophy of the Founding Fathers, despite it being already attempted in the past. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not an American, but I do respect the Founding Fathers for the freedoms they established for the people. But, the very fact that America is the way it is, is a concrete, irrefutable evidence that the philosophy of the Founding Fathers is ultimately an utter FAILURE. And you still wish to apply it in the real world, despite it being and utter failure.