Ben Carson and the Holocaust

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's everyone's position that our government could get away with an internal holocaust and not meet with an armed resistance?

My position is knowing the amount of weaponry in the hands of the American people, it definitely would give a tyrant pause.

That's as it should be.

Armed resistance is useless without social organization, networking, and control of institutions. In fact, they matter far more than weapons. Helen Fein in Accounting for Genocide argued that it was the nations with independent institutions that did not support the Holocaust that were less likely to cooperate with the Nazi efforts to send Jews to the camp.

+1,000,000

Nowhere in history did a couple dozen untrained, obese, right wing ridgerunners with guns ever prevent an invasion or prevent governmental tyranny or oppression.

If anything, libertarianism and your desire to be independent, armed loners is far more likely to be your undoing if anything bad were ever to come to be.

Any yet, it worked for Bundy

LOL! Are you sure? Many of his supporters and two of his sons (Ryan and Cliven Lance) have since been facing various legal charges, arrests, guilty pleas et cetera for things like making terroristic threats (a felony under Nevada law as well as in many other jurisdictions - and oops, that means you can no longer legally own a gun in most jurisdictions as well) and various other lawless behaviors on their part, and meanwhile, ole Cliven's original cattle trespassing case is still working its way through the court system where he will end up having a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and which ends up costing him more and more money every day.

See, where you are confused is you are thinking wild west. The government doesn't typically operate wild west style - nor do they have to. That's what they have lawyers for. If your fictionalized fantasy version of the world, where the government wanted an armed showdown were actually true, the government would have sent a different set of resources in, as opposed to sending a half dozen lightly armed (and some unarmed) BLM guys and a couple car loads of local yokel sherrifs (which is all there was at the big standoff).

Instead, the government is working the long game, using the legal system, which at this point has its teeth sunk deep into Bundy like a bulldog, causing him pain every single time he so much as wiggles, and at this point, the more Bundy tries to fight, the weaker he will get, until finally he drops from exhaustion. At this point the best thing that could happen to him is he keels over from a heart attack before getting his court date.

I don't doubt the government is coming down on Bundy hard.

The funny thing? Is you don't even see the problem with the bolded, never mind the rest of your statement. Imagine this is you and the IRS. Sound like fun to you? And before you go all "I pay my taxes", consider how many times the IRS has been wrong and people have had their bank accounts locked, checks garnished, livelihoods destroyed, etc. If that's the government you want, you are a lost soul.

Spare us the bullshit. It's crystal clear (and the courts have already agreed) that Cliven Bundy has been screwing American taxpayers for two decades, ever since he decided to stop paying grazing fees and ever since he then started trespassing on land he didn't own to graze his cattle for profit at the expense of others. You want to talk about "livelihood" how would you like it if I routinely came to your store and shoplifted from it and then resold the goods on Ebay for my own financial benefit? That's basically what Bundy has been doing for 20 years, by allowing his cattle to graze for free on land he doesn't own, whereas other ranchers pay their fees without issue. And it's not even as though grazing fees are even that exorbitant, it's a mere $1.69 per month per cow and calf - far far cheaper than owning and maintaining your own land and paying the county property taxes on it, far far cheaper than leasing land from a private landowner neighbor and for damn sure far cheaper than buying feed. It's a hell of a good deal, yet Bundy wants to screw taxpayers even out of that paltry amount - and has been doing it for over 20 years. Enough is enough.

As for his bullshit claim that "he was there first" - I suggest you read up on history - the reason he's on that land at all goes back to the Mexican-American War, where the Mexico-Texas conflict escalated to the point where the US Army marched all the way to Mexico City and captured it, forcing the Mexican government to surrender and capitulate, and part of the terms of surrender included giving up lands which included what is now Nevada in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. At that point, all of the former Mexican Government owned lands that fell under terms of surrender, with the exception of lands that had already been specifically privately deeded became US land in the ownership of the Federal Government - the US federal government has owned the land that Bundy is grazing for long before anyone named Bundy even lived in Nevada, and those federal lands are under the purview of the BLM. Nowhere ever in history did anyone in Bundy's family ever hold any legal claim to the actual land itself.

See Venezuela. How's that working out?

You love your idea of libertarianism where we don't need any government, just guys with guns - see Somalia, how's that working out?

Limitarian - limited government. Somalia is corrupt.

LMAO! Somalia is corrupt *because* they have limited government. Their government is so small, weak and ineffectual that criminals, pirates and all other sorts of opportunists were able to take over.

I don't know, pp, the person you're replying to seems pretty convinced that libertarians could never be corrupt. Guess they're just morally superior to the rest of us.

Anyone can be corrupt. To claim Somalia's issues is lack of government control is idiocy.

LMAO! That's got to be one of the most idiotic statements I've heard on DCUM in a very very long time.

To someone who thinks government control is the answer to everything, i can see why. Somalia's issue is a corrupt government, as it is with most banana republics.

Just like y'all think Bernie Sanders is the bomb. What you've never considered is that those who produce will stop producing when their product is confiscated for the people. Do you really think Apple will keep producing if they make no money off of their product? Anyone with real wealth will shelter the money or simply leave the country. All those Hollywood types calling for socialism have already sheltered their money to the hilt. What on earth do you think those production companies are about?

Thanks yet again for demonstrating you totally do not understand the situation in Somalia, along demonstrating that you have no fucking clue what Sanders is about.

Somalia's government is virtually nonexistent. They have zero power to enforce or regulate, which is why pirates, criminals and warlords run the country. Libertarianism in its most extreme form is nothing but anarchy - and that's exactly what Somalia has.

As for Sanders, he's a democratic socialist, which means a model like Sweden. In "socialist" Sweden, it's all about private industry and they most certainly didn't stop producing - unless you've never heard of Sweden's entrepreneurs, innovators and global leading brands like Ikea, Volvo, Saab, Sandvik, H&M, Spotify, nor will it turn the rich into paupers, given Sweden's many billionaires like Ingvar Kamprad, the Persson family and many more... Sweden has one of the highest standards of living in the world - higher than in the US.

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. On ANY topic, apparently.

Honestly, it's like Glenn Beck says - arguing with idiots:

http://fortheargument.com/2014/02/17/no-somalia-is-not-a-libertarian-paradise/

As always, liberals are simple...

LMAO! Glenn Beck??? SERIOUSLY? Talk about a lying spin monger.

And as for "simple" - Libertarianism relies on a massively simplistic notion that all it takes is "good guys" and completely IGNORES ALL OF HISTORY AND EVERYTHING ABOUT HUMAN NATURE.

Can you name for me even ONE libertarian society in all of modern history that turned out hunky dory? The idea's been around for centuries, yet there isn't one single shining example out there that ever worked. You've been sold a bill of goods by folks like the Cato Institute - who in turn works for.... guess who? The Koch Brothers, who helped found them. Sure, they want massive deregulation - they want the government out of the way so that they can rule as plutocrats, dipstick. That second part is the one you are woefully unaware of. But as always, follow the money. The money trail behind EVERY libertarian "think tank" out there leads back to greedy corporatist plutocrats.

Sure, there are compounding factors which Glenn Beck cites, but ultimately YES, Somalia's anarchy is COMPLETELY due to the lack of law enforcement, lack of regulation, lack of infrastructure. They have NOTHING BUT "guys with guns" and what ends up happening is that the "good guys with guns" were the first to get shot and killed.

IDIOCY. PURE AND COMPLETE IDIOCY.

[Anonymous]

There has been no functional state, no functional government, and no functional legal system in most of Somalia since 1991 - yet the so-called "libertarians" still want to somehow blame "corrupt government" for Somalia's problems.

Unbelievable.

No, sorry, folks - virtually all of Somalia's problems are due to the collapse of government.

[Anonymous]

^^^ You didn't read the article did you? Glenn Beck DID NOT WRITE IT! LOLOLOL. My reference was to a book he wrote titled "Arguing with Idiots".

By the way? I'm not a libertarian. I'm a Constitutional Conservative, if anything, more of a 'limitarian', i.e. limited government.

The point you are missing is that Somalia IS NOT LIBERTARIAN. And no progressive rant is complete until it includes something about the Koch Brothers. You missed a trick and forgot to mention Dick Cheney....

I know the Daily Kos is all over this, but they are (again) wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There has been no functional state, no functional government, and no functional legal system in most of Somalia since 1991 - yet the so-called "libertarians" still want to somehow blame "corrupt government" for Somalia's problems.

Unbelievable.

No, sorry, folks - virtually all of Somalia's problems are due to the collapse of government.

Why did that occur...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There has been no functional state, no functional government, and no functional legal system in most of Somalia since 1991 - yet the so-called "libertarians" still want to somehow blame "corrupt government" for Somalia's problems.

Unbelievable.

No, sorry, folks - virtually all of Somalia's problems are due to the collapse of government.

Why did that occur...

Civil war. Their government prior to the civil war was corrupt, but ultimately they are far worse off now than they were even with the corrupt government. They went from the frying pan into the fire.

[Anonymous]

A little history:

It's true that Somalia doesn't have "a" government only because it has many of governments.

In 1991 the Somali government officially recognized by other ruling class governments was run out of business following a civil war. It had been a vicious military dictatorship controlled by the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party. (Sorry socialism lovers, Somalia is a failed socialist state.)

The wannabe United Nations World Government tried twice to forcibly impose ruling class governments on Somalia, first in 2000 and again in 2012. The first failed miserably and the second is still failing.

During that entire time Somalia has been run by the "unrecognized" break-away nation of Somaliland and by "More than 20 separate new ministates," clan enclaves and cantons.

Whether "unrecognized" or run by warlords, these governments operate just as every other government in the world operates; they exist by collecting money through coercion, intimidation and fraud.

They differ only in style.

Some set up roadblocks and charge tolls, just like small towns in America that support themselves with speed traps on major highways.

Some hijack ships and turn the plunder and kidnapped crews into ransom cash, much as DEA SWAT teams seize innocent people's houses, cars, boats and cash under ruling class "confiscation laws."

There are other de facto governments in Somalia.

Still other warlord governments received weapons and money from the CIA to "fight al-Qaida," just like so many other "recognized" governments.

In other words, Somalia is crawling with governments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ You didn't read the article did you? Glenn Beck DID NOT WRITE IT! LOLOLOL. My reference was to a book he wrote titled "Arguing with Idiots".

By the way? I'm not a libertarian. I'm a Constitutional Conservative, if anything, more of a 'limitarian', i.e. limited government.

The point you are missing is that Somalia IS NOT LIBERTARIAN. And no progressive rant is complete until it includes something about the Koch Brothers. You missed a trick and forgot to mention Dick Cheney....

I know the Daily Kos is all over this, but they are (again) wrong.

Somalia isn't "libertarian" in the sense of not comporting with whatever naive, fantastical vision the delusional libertarians have, where everyone is a good person, and if only we get evil government out of the way we will all suddenly have free ponies and rainbow ice cream. But Somalia absolutely IS libertarian in the sense of not having any government in the way, and everyone there is free to do whatever they want to do without any taxes, laws or regulations of any kind of red tape to get in their way. That is EXACTLY what Somalia is. Somalia is the inconvenient reality of libertarianism.

Look, you can trot out all the opinion pieces you like, but until you can actually demonstrate a successful libertarian nation, you got nothing. Somalia IS the ground truth.

And, you "limitarians" are not much freaking better. Chop the legs out from federal government and all you have left is states becoming a loose balkanized jumble of small backwater countries that could barely compete on the world stage. Between China and Russia any American world presence would evaporate in a heartbeat. And "Constitutional Conservative" is a misnomer, by the way, given how you guys want to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you find valid. For example, you'd throw away clauses which have long been upheld in the courts, like "interstate commerce" and "necessary and proper" and "general welfare" in a heartbeat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A little history:

It's true that Somalia doesn't have "a" government only because it has many of governments.

In 1991 the Somali government officially recognized by other ruling class governments was run out of business following a civil war. It had been a vicious military dictatorship controlled by the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party. (Sorry socialism lovers, Somalia is a failed socialist state.)

The wannabe United Nations World Government tried twice to forcibly impose ruling class governments on Somalia, first in 2000 and again in 2012. The first failed miserably and the second is still failing.

During that entire time Somalia has been run by the "unrecognized" break-away nation of Somaliland and by "More than 20 separate new ministates," clan enclaves and cantons.

Whether "unrecognized" or run by warlords, these governments operate just as every other government in the world operates; they exist by collecting money through coercion, intimidation and fraud.

They differ only in style.

Some set up roadblocks and charge tolls, just like small towns in America that support themselves with speed traps on major highways.

Some hijack ships and turn the plunder and kidnapped crews into ransom cash, much as DEA SWAT teams seize innocent people's houses, cars, boats and cash under ruling class "confiscation laws."

There are other de facto governments in Somalia.

Still other warlord governments received weapons and money from the CIA to "fight al-Qaida," just like so many other "recognized" governments.

In other words, Somalia is crawling with governments.

That's EXACTLY what would happen if we got rid of, or severely scaled back all official government in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A little history:

It's true that Somalia doesn't have "a" government only because it has many of governments.

In 1991 the Somali government officially recognized by other ruling class governments was run out of business following a civil war. It had been a vicious military dictatorship controlled by the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party. (Sorry socialism lovers, Somalia is a failed socialist state.)

The wannabe United Nations World Government tried twice to forcibly impose ruling class governments on Somalia, first in 2000 and again in 2012. The first failed miserably and the second is still failing.

During that entire time Somalia has been run by the "unrecognized" break-away nation of Somaliland and by "More than 20 separate new ministates," clan enclaves and cantons.

Whether "unrecognized" or run by warlords, these governments operate just as every other government in the world operates; they exist by collecting money through coercion, intimidation and fraud.

They differ only in style.

Some set up roadblocks and charge tolls, just like small towns in America that support themselves with speed traps on major highways.

Some hijack ships and turn the plunder and kidnapped crews into ransom cash, much as DEA SWAT teams seize innocent people's houses, cars, boats and cash under ruling class "confiscation laws."

There are other de facto governments in Somalia.

Still other warlord governments received weapons and money from the CIA to "fight al-Qaida," just like so many other "recognized" governments.

In other words, Somalia is crawling with governments.

LMAO! Since when are pirate crews and roving gangs of criminals "governments?" Only in the world of libertarian delusion does anyone refer to them as "governments" Only in the world of libertarian delusion does one refer to piracy on the high seas and armed robbery as "government taxation."

Sorry, but that is such a bunch of ludicrous spin... Laughing my ass off. Surely you must be trolling at this point because you CANNOT be serious!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ You didn't read the article did you? Glenn Beck DID NOT WRITE IT! LOLOLOL. My reference was to a book he wrote titled "Arguing with Idiots".

By the way? I'm not a libertarian. I'm a Constitutional Conservative, if anything, more of a 'limitarian', i.e. limited government.

The point you are missing is that Somalia IS NOT LIBERTARIAN. And no progressive rant is complete until it includes something about the Koch Brothers. You missed a trick and forgot to mention Dick Cheney....

I know the Daily Kos is all over this, but they are (again) wrong.

Somalia isn't "libertarian" in the sense of not comporting with whatever naive, fantastical vision the delusional libertarians have, where everyone is a good person, and if only we get evil government out of the way we will all suddenly have free ponies and rainbow ice cream. But Somalia absolutely IS libertarian in the sense of not having any government in the way, and everyone there is free to do whatever they want to do without any taxes, laws or regulations of any kind of red tape to get in their way. That is EXACTLY what Somalia is. Somalia is the inconvenient reality of libertarianism.

Look, you can trot out all the opinion pieces you like, but until you can actually demonstrate a successful libertarian nation, you got nothing. Somalia IS the ground truth.

And, you "limitarians" are not much freaking better. Chop the legs out from federal government and all you have left is states becoming a loose balkanized jumble of small backwater countries that could barely compete on the world stage. Between China and Russia any American world presence would evaporate in a heartbeat. And "Constitutional Conservative" is a misnomer, by the way, given how you guys want to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you find valid. For example, you'd throw away clauses which have long been upheld in the courts, like "interstate commerce" and "necessary and proper" and "general welfare" in a heartbeat.

Again, you are incorrect. I am not 'trotting out blogs'. I am giving you the history of the country. Sorry it doesn't fit your narrative.

The Constitution limits the federal government. All that's not there falls to the states and locals. It's really, really simple. One can also amend the Constitution - one of the gifts our forefathers gave us, recognizing a changing future world. Amending the Constitution is not supposed to be easy, because your really want to be careful how much power you give to the Feds - they are simply too far from the people to govern effectively.

Let's say Sanders gets into office. How is he going to force the elite to pay up? How is he going to force them to produce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little history:

It's true that Somalia doesn't have "a" government only because it has many of governments.

In 1991 the Somali government officially recognized by other ruling class governments was run out of business following a civil war. It had been a vicious military dictatorship controlled by the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party. (Sorry socialism lovers, Somalia is a failed socialist state.)

The wannabe United Nations World Government tried twice to forcibly impose ruling class governments on Somalia, first in 2000 and again in 2012. The first failed miserably and the second is still failing.

During that entire time Somalia has been run by the "unrecognized" break-away nation of Somaliland and by "More than 20 separate new ministates," clan enclaves and cantons.

Whether "unrecognized" or run by warlords, these governments operate just as every other government in the world operates; they exist by collecting money through coercion, intimidation and fraud.

They differ only in style.

Some set up roadblocks and charge tolls, just like small towns in America that support themselves with speed traps on major highways.

Some hijack ships and turn the plunder and kidnapped crews into ransom cash, much as DEA SWAT teams seize innocent people's houses, cars, boats and cash under ruling class "confiscation laws."

There are other de facto governments in Somalia.

Still other warlord governments received weapons and money from the CIA to "fight al-Qaida," just like so many other "recognized" governments.

In other words, Somalia is crawling with governments.

LMAO! Since when are pirate crews and roving gangs of criminals "governments?" Only in the world of libertarian delusion does anyone refer to them as "governments" Only in the world of libertarian delusion does one refer to piracy on the high seas and armed robbery as "government taxation."

Sorry, but that is such a bunch of ludicrous spin... Laughing my ass off. Surely you must be trolling at this point because you CANNOT be serious!

Note the bolded. How are taxes collected by government here? At the point of a sword. Don't pay? Jail-time, leins, confiscation of property. How do you think "The Bern" will enforce his grand taxation plans?

Obamacare? Sold to the people on an admitted lie.

Coercion. Intimidation. Fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little history:

It's true that Somalia doesn't have "a" government only because it has many of governments.

In 1991 the Somali government officially recognized by other ruling class governments was run out of business following a civil war. It had been a vicious military dictatorship controlled by the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party. (Sorry socialism lovers, Somalia is a failed socialist state.)

The wannabe United Nations World Government tried twice to forcibly impose ruling class governments on Somalia, first in 2000 and again in 2012. The first failed miserably and the second is still failing.

During that entire time Somalia has been run by the "unrecognized" break-away nation of Somaliland and by "More than 20 separate new ministates," clan enclaves and cantons.

Whether "unrecognized" or run by warlords, these governments operate just as every other government in the world operates; they exist by collecting money through coercion, intimidation and fraud.

They differ only in style.

Some set up roadblocks and charge tolls, just like small towns in America that support themselves with speed traps on major highways.

Some hijack ships and turn the plunder and kidnapped crews into ransom cash, much as DEA SWAT teams seize innocent people's houses, cars, boats and cash under ruling class "confiscation laws."

There are other de facto governments in Somalia.

Still other warlord governments received weapons and money from the CIA to "fight al-Qaida," just like so many other "recognized" governments.

In other words, Somalia is crawling with governments.

That's EXACTLY what would happen if we got rid of, or severely scaled back all official government in the US.

Already happening - brought to you via government:

Try this out:

Don't pay your taxes
Don't send your kids to school
Don't get a driver's license and drive anyway
Don't register your car
Practice law without a license.

Ad Nauseum

[Anonymous]

Again, find me even ONE example in history of a nation that worked without any government.

Just one.

PROVE to me that you're right.

Again, THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF HISTORY, HUMAN NATURE, COMMON SENSE and CRITICAL THINKING all prove that I am the one who is right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^^ You didn't read the article did you? Glenn Beck DID NOT WRITE IT! LOLOLOL. My reference was to a book he wrote titled "Arguing with Idiots".

By the way? I'm not a libertarian. I'm a Constitutional Conservative, if anything, more of a 'limitarian', i.e. limited government.

The point you are missing is that Somalia IS NOT LIBERTARIAN. And no progressive rant is complete until it includes something about the Koch Brothers. You missed a trick and forgot to mention Dick Cheney....

I know the Daily Kos is all over this, but they are (again) wrong.

Somalia isn't "libertarian" in the sense of not comporting with whatever naive, fantastical vision the delusional libertarians have, where everyone is a good person, and if only we get evil government out of the way we will all suddenly have free ponies and rainbow ice cream. But Somalia absolutely IS libertarian in the sense of not having any government in the way, and everyone there is free to do whatever they want to do without any taxes, laws or regulations of any kind of red tape to get in their way. That is EXACTLY what Somalia is. Somalia is the inconvenient reality of libertarianism.

Look, you can trot out all the opinion pieces you like, but until you can actually demonstrate a successful libertarian nation, you got nothing. Somalia IS the ground truth.

And, you "limitarians" are not much freaking better. Chop the legs out from federal government and all you have left is states becoming a loose balkanized jumble of small backwater countries that could barely compete on the world stage. Between China and Russia any American world presence would evaporate in a heartbeat. And "Constitutional Conservative" is a misnomer, by the way, given how you guys want to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you find valid. For example, you'd throw away clauses which have long been upheld in the courts, like "interstate commerce" and "necessary and proper" and "general welfare" in a heartbeat.

Again, you are incorrect. I am not 'trotting out blogs'. I am giving you the history of the country. Sorry it doesn't fit your narrative.

The Constitution limits the federal government. All that's not there falls to the states and locals. It's really, really simple. One can also amend the Constitution - one of the gifts our forefathers gave us, recognizing a changing future world. Amending the Constitution is not supposed to be easy, because your really want to be careful how much power you give to the Feds - they are simply too far from the people to govern effectively.

Let's say Sanders gets into office. How is he going to force the elite to pay up? How is he going to force them to produce?

Again, this "the elite and businessmen won't want to produce" crap of yours is a total red herring. "Socialist" Sweden has an even higher per-capita GDP than the US. They produce just fine.

As for "being careful of how much power you give to the feds" you gloss over the potential issue of how much power you give to states and to local governments - which in many cases have been far more abusive, more corrupt, and less transparent than federal government. Womp, womp. And if you think you have more power to do something about it, good luck with that because you really don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little history:

It's true that Somalia doesn't have "a" government only because it has many of governments.

In 1991 the Somali government officially recognized by other ruling class governments was run out of business following a civil war. It had been a vicious military dictatorship controlled by the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party. (Sorry socialism lovers, Somalia is a failed socialist state.)

The wannabe United Nations World Government tried twice to forcibly impose ruling class governments on Somalia, first in 2000 and again in 2012. The first failed miserably and the second is still failing.

During that entire time Somalia has been run by the "unrecognized" break-away nation of Somaliland and by "More than 20 separate new ministates," clan enclaves and cantons.

Whether "unrecognized" or run by warlords, these governments operate just as every other government in the world operates; they exist by collecting money through coercion, intimidation and fraud.

They differ only in style.

Some set up roadblocks and charge tolls, just like small towns in America that support themselves with speed traps on major highways.

Some hijack ships and turn the plunder and kidnapped crews into ransom cash, much as DEA SWAT teams seize innocent people's houses, cars, boats and cash under ruling class "confiscation laws."

There are other de facto governments in Somalia.

Still other warlord governments received weapons and money from the CIA to "fight al-Qaida," just like so many other "recognized" governments.

In other words, Somalia is crawling with governments.

LMAO! Since when are pirate crews and roving gangs of criminals "governments?" Only in the world of libertarian delusion does anyone refer to them as "governments" Only in the world of libertarian delusion does one refer to piracy on the high seas and armed robbery as "government taxation."

Sorry, but that is such a bunch of ludicrous spin... Laughing my ass off. Surely you must be trolling at this point because you CANNOT be serious!

Note the bolded. How are taxes collected by government here? At the point of a sword. Don't pay? Jail-time, leins, confiscation of property. How do you think "The Bern" will enforce his grand taxation plans?

Obamacare? Sold to the people on an admitted lie.

Coercion. Intimidation. Fraud.

LMAO again. The so-called "Constitutional Conservative" shows what a complete fraud he is by wanting to throw away that inconvenient little "taxing and spending" clause in the Constitution that gives the federal government legal power and authority to collect taxes.

Dude, have you actually ever even READ the Constitution?