The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: While I wouldn't call it a

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I can appreciate your picture (see in situ)

While I wouldn't call it a

While I wouldn't call it a series of Nation States; the point is, it very well could end-up that way. Maybe NYC would become a City State -I doubt it due the amount of debt they currently have- or LA. Anything is possible.

I do not believe that we would have ot worry about any single or multiple Nation States attacking a single Nation State -if that is what they decided to create- because why would they and how would they. Most large scale attacks would leave the loot -in most instances- destroyed or in a negative state whereby it would cost more to take it by war and utilize it then then it would have cost to just buy it.

Also, there is a reason that nobody attacks Switzerland; and it has nothing to do with the UN or NATO. What Switzerland has of value would need to be exctracted by people, which meens that there wouldn't be the heavy utilization of bombs. The swiss people are very heavily armed, therefore any land campaign to take Switzerland will neccessarily fail due to this.

The people -as individual, not just as a collective- are going ot have to take responsibility for their lives and their other 'rights.' Even in a limited government scenario, this is going ot have to be a main tennet; the government cannot protect everybody -or even a majority of the people- and still maintain a small size and small tax burden.

I would hope that if there is one thing we could agree on it would be that people do have to start looking to themselves and their family, friends, and neighbors for help rather than the government. The government cannot be all things to all people; so to prevent a conflict from arising, it(government) shouldn't be anything to anybody.