Who are the four, let's analyse how high intellect and worthy of my concern it is that I lightened up their day.
If you think back on your life, is there any moment where you realised you were wrong and had to concede the fact gracefully?
Can you write out the issue they find with my logic? Or is laughing at me the depth of it?
I've already done this so I'll draw on what has been said.
You make the claim that "ancap is survival of the fittest, point blank period", and gave an example that "guys built like Huemer would get tossed like rag dolls within the first week of anarchy, left in rags (pun intended) bleeding". So with these statements, we can take the maxim "the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit".
So taking this maxim, we can test it and see if it has been successful in history - is it true that the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit? Well we can use the Vietnam War as a case study. If we look into history, particularly USA occupancy of Vietnam, we can see a power dynamic in which the former can be considered "strong and fit", an the later can be comparatively considered the "weak and unfit". So by your logic, the former must beat the latter - yet, we know that this is not what happened. So the maxim that the strong and fit will always defeat the weak and unfit is simply untrue.
As a counter, you cited how the US had pity for Vietnam, to which I had three responses. First, if they had pity, it doesn't change the fact that your maxim is still faulty - the weak and unfit can illicit pity as a means for winning. Second, it is an ahistorical understanding of the Vietnam War - the USA did not have any pity at all for North Vietnam, because they could be considered an extension of the Soviet Union who I am sure we can agree they hate. Third, the "pity" you site is called "Vietnam syndrome" and came after the loss in the South - it is because of the failure which led to this phenomenon in the 1980's so to use it as an explanation of why the US lost is completely wrong.
You keep asking why I bring up Vietnam - it is an example in history where we can test if your claims are true. If you do not like the Vietnam example, there were several other's which I posed;
- Why didn’t the USA occupy Afghanistan so miserably (they were literally fighting against people living in tents?
- Why doesn’t the USA just take over Mexico and Canada, who are not as “fit” as them?
- Why has Russian failed to occupy Ukraine?
Also as an aside, I it insane that you are bashing on Dr Heumer as unqualified when he is a PHD philosopher with over 80 published articles. Would you mind sharing what qualifications you have?
