Republicans are idiots.

xsanguine wrote:

I think the bulk of people could live without these government programs. The fact is, we don't have a choice at this point. They're intertwined in just about every facet of our lives that it's easy to say "you can't live without it"... people aren't as helpless as you make them out to be, Roc.

The government is made up of the same people that would exist if there wasn't a fictitious legal entity called "government", too... they're not some unhuman supernatural force.

Is there a lot of pork in government programs? Sure. If one libertarian could tell me how this hypothetical, throretical, free market utopia would work where we don't get robber barons, I'm all for it, but the truth of the matter is in the history of humanity there's never been a system like this because it doesn't work. The times we've come close (pre new deal America, post communism Russia), its gone exactly like it would always go: economic gains were the only thing that mattered and as rich got richer, everyone else suffered. Environmentally, agriculturally, legally, workers were stomped on. Because what you have to realize about humans is, we just want to live. We will suffer through low wages, crap hours, and dingy living conditions until things get so bad that a "correction" is the only way out. Without WW2 and the new deal, that's where the US was heading in the 30s. So are there bloated government programs? Without a doubt. But there has to be some regulatory structure that limits how badly the workers of this nation can be treated. Libertaiansim values nothing except personal property and the right to do whatever you want unregulated. That's why it sucks.

Although we currently seem to be headig toward an oligarchy anyway, that's the ultimate destination of any real libertarian system. Humans have been around for a million years and there's a reason why no society has ever developed a system like that. The government is supposed to represent all the people. Its supposed to protect the least of us from the abuses of the strongest. It often fails, but the libertarian alternative is ludicrous.

Well, for one thing... there wasn't a representative Democracy before there was a representative Democracy.

If we shun better theories and ideas from existing because they "haven't existed before"... change would be very slow to implement.

Edit: When has it occurred that you know it doesn't work? I'm not aware of any time in history that we've had anything close to what anarchists or even minarchists propose.

Rocinante wrote:

The government is supposed to represent all the people. Its supposed to protect the least of us from the abuses of the strongest.

Heh.... riiiiight. Got it.   

Rocinante wrote:
but the libertarian alternative is ludicrous.

You mean that thing has hasn't ever existed?

It's a very interesting logic.... something that has been tried over and over and over "for a million years"... that has never worked as intended...
But let's not try the thing that hasn't existed cause it might not work; For the same reasons that we know a governmental system doesn't work.

Yeah there's a reason why libertarianism's popularity and the rise of the internet are correlated. The internet fosters the dissemination of novel and stupid ideas.

Rocinante wrote:Yeah there's a reason why libertarianism's popularity and the rise of the internet are correlated. The internet fosters the dissemination of novel and stupid ideas.

Heh... but somehow all the good ideas are sheltered from that, I assume, right?

xsanguine wrote:

I think the bulk of people could live without these government programs. The fact is, we don't have a choice at this point. They're intertwined in just about every facet of our lives that it's easy to say "you can't live without it"... people aren't as helpless as you make them out to be, Roc.

The government is made up of the same people that would exist if there wasn't a fictitious legal entity called "government", too... they're not some unhuman supernatural force.

That's easy to say while you're living a life made much easier by government. You're using the infrastructure, being protected by law enforcement and military, taking advantage of opportunities made possible by a government-supported economy, using products made safer by regulation, etc.

Had you actually lived your life in the no-government land of your fantasies, you'd look around at the shithole you were living in and you'd say, "This sucks."

Instead, you get to bitch about the government on the internet, which was created by...the government.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

That's easy to say while you're living a life made much easier by government.  You're using the infrastructure, being protected by law enforcement and military, taking advantage of opportunities made possible by a government-supported economy, using products made safer by regulation, etc.

Had you actually lived your life in the no-government land of your fantasies, you'd look around at the shithole you were living in and you'd say, "This sucks."

Instead, you get to bitch about the government on the internet, which was created by...the government.

It's easy to say when no one has that choice, nor has anyone ever been given a choice. The state, in its various forms, has ruled over virtually every soul in recorded history.

So yes, of course it's easy to say... because I said it in the only context anyone has ever had to say it in. Just like it's easy for you to say life without government would be a shithole... because it has never existed and no one knows one way or another. It's as easy as just saying it....

Was mentioning either theory suppose to be difficult or something?

xsanguine wrote:

It's easy to say when no one has that choice, nor has anyone ever been given a choice. The state, in its various forms, has ruled over virtually every soul in recorded history.

So yes, of course it's easy to say... because I said it in the only context anyone has ever had to say it in. Just like it's easy for you to say life without government would be a shithole... because it has never existed and no one knows one way or another. It's as easy as just saying it....

Was mentioning either theory suppose to be difficult or something?

Since you want to fantasize about it, share the fantasy. We get rid of every person and every man-made object in Australia. We dump you and twenty million random people there, with absolutely no government. Tell me how it plays out.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Since you want to fantasize about it, share the fantasy.  We get rid of every person and every man-made object in Australia.  We dump you and twenty million random people there, with absolutely no government.  Tell me how it plays out.

How about, instead, we work within the confines of reality and work towards a society that doesn't value violence, control and domination of others as well as valuing personal freedom and allowing individuals to seek their own happiness and liberty as long as it doesn't directly trample on the rights of others?

That way we can keep what progress we've made thus far while trying to improve the society we have...

Rather than playing out the sadistic, madmax strawman scenario you've detailed. The United States Of America didn't start from cavemen in the woods of New England... there was an infrastructure from a previous model already in place. The same way every other society has progressed throughout history, on the backs of a previous one that couldn't stand the test of time.

xsanguine wrote:

How about, instead, we work within the confines of reality and work towards a society that doesn't value violence, control and domination of others as well as valuing personal freedom and allowing individuals to seek their own happiness and liberty as long as it doesn't directly trample on the rights of others?

That way we can keep what progress we've made thus far while trying to improve the society we have...

Rather than playing out the sadistic, madmax strawman scenario you've detailed. The United States Of America didn't start from cavemen in the woods of New England... there was an infrastructure from a previous model already in place. The same way every other society has progressed throughout history, on the backs of a previous one that couldn't stand the test of time.

Are you not allowed to seek happiness? Are you facing violence, domination and control? Please let me know what the confines of your reality are, because my reality doesn't include the things you complain about.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Are you not allowed to seek happiness?  Are you facing violence, domination and control?  Please let me know what the confines of your reality are, because my reality doesn't include the things you complain about.

How many individuals are in jail for non-violent offenses, particularly with regards to narcotics? Do I have any choice with regards to the giving up a percentage of my income to an entity that then does with it what it wants, justifying itself with a "representative" democracy that we all know is just a joke of a team sport? How many people are having their phone calls listened to in secret by a faceless entity who then keeps it all and catalogs them for future use?

There's a myriad of ways government interjects itself where it shouldn't if we're to value personal freedom, personal liberty, and happiness.

Our own monkey brains are programmed to dominate and control those we deem weaker than us... which is the behavior that spawned the lineage to a governing body in the first place.

xsanguine wrote:

How many individuals are in jail for non-violent offenses, particularly with regards to narcotics? Do I have any choice with regards to the giving up a percentage of my income to an entity that then does with it what it wants, justifying itself with a "representative" democracy that we all know is just a joke of a team sport? How many people are having their phone calls listened to in secret by a faceless entity who then keeps it all and catalogs them for future use?

There's a myriad of ways government interjects itself where it shouldn't if we're to value personal freedom, personal liberty, and happiness.

Our own monkey brains are programmed to dominate and control those we deem weaker than us... which is the behavior that spawned the lineage to a governing body in the first place.

The urge to dominate the weak is the reason we need government. Without government, I wouldn't want to be the smartest or the strongest; I'd want to be the most ruthless, because that's who'd thrive in anarchy.

Complaining that you don't have any choice about giving money to the government is ridiculous. You said you wouldn't want to be dumped into a land without the infrastructure government has built. That costs money, and making taxation optional wouldn't get that infrastructure built.

The problem is that you want government to be exactly as you wish it to be...and you don't want to be forced to pay for it. You live in a country with over 300 million people who each have their own ideas about government, and I don't know any who think it's perfect. Tell your representatives what you want, vote accordingly, work at changing the things you don't like, and take what you get. That's what grown-ups do. Your vague complaints and refusal to accept reality aren't helping you.

Rocinante wrote:

Is there a lot of pork in government programs? Sure. If one libertarian could tell me how this hypothetical, throretical, free market utopia would work where we don't get robber barons, I'm all for it, but the truth of the matter is in the history of humanity there's never been a system like this because it doesn't work. The times we've come close (pre new deal America, post communism Russia), its gone exactly like it would always go: economic gains were the only thing that mattered and as rich got richer, everyone else suffered. Environmentally, agriculturally, legally, workers were stomped on. Because what you have to realize about humans is, we just want to live. We will suffer through low wages, crap hours, and dingy living conditions until things get so bad that a "correction" is the only way out. Without WW2 and the new deal, that's where the US was heading in the 30s. So are there bloated government programs? Without a doubt. But there has to be some regulatory structure that limits how badly the workers of this nation can be treated. Libertaiansim values nothing except personal property and the right to do whatever you want unregulated. That's why it sucks.

Although we currently seem to be headig toward an oligarchy anyway, that's the ultimate destination of any real libertarian system. Humans have been around for a million years and there's a reason why no society has ever developed a system like that. The government is supposed to represent all the people. Its supposed to protect the least of us from the abuses of the strongest. It often fails, but the libertarian alternative is ludicrous.

I hadn't read this post before, and it's spot on.

I remember arguing with some young guy in Wells years ago who said that government wasn't necessary to settle grievances. In his system, both parties would simply agree to pay some sort of mediation company and both would accept whatever the judgment was - even though there was no legal obligation to do so, since there was no law. The idea that the more powerful party might just tell the less powerful party to get fucked never occurred to the kid.

Our government, like all other governments, gets a lot of shit wrong. But it gives us a framework to make corrections, and I think that's worth the taxes I pay.

What I fear the most about this government is that it is independent of us. It doesn't represent us. I get that it has to be there, what I don't like it that it doesn't care that I am here...

MasonGuy wrote:What I fear the most about this government is that it is independent of us. It doesn't represent us. I get that it has to be there, what I don't like it that it doesn't care that I am here...

It looks like you want your country back.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

The urge to dominate the weak is the reason we need government.  Without government, I wouldn't want to be the smartest or the strongest; I'd want to be the most ruthless, because that's who'd thrive in anarchy.

Complaining that you don't have any choice about giving money to the government is ridiculous.  You said you wouldn't want to be dumped into a land without the infrastructure government has built.  That costs money, and making taxation optional wouldn't get that infrastructure built.  

The problem is that you want government to be exactly as you wish it to be...and you don't want to be forced to pay for it.  You live in a country with over 300 million people who each have their own ideas about government, and I don't know any who think it's perfect.  Tell your representatives what you want, vote accordingly, work at changing the things you don't like, and take what you get.  That's what grown-ups do.  Your vague complaints and refusal to accept reality aren't helping you.

The government already is that domination. It is an extension of the individual's need to dominate others. It is not independent of anything. It is a fictitious entity. Smartest, strongest, most ruthless...?... who do you think actually runs this government... a collective of benevolent do-gooders just itching to make all our lives better?   

Complaining that an entity that relies on fear and violence to steal money from me is not ridiculous. "Government" didn't build that infrastructure... taxpayers built that infrastructure. Many times, it's private contractors that are hired by the government... all paid by taxpayers. You don't think, in a free market, if a company needs to get goods from point A to point B, if they need lines of communication between point A and point B, if they need to get goods to consumers... everyone is going to sit around and twiddle their thumbs for 5 minutes before saying "whelp... guess we can't get 'em there"? Surely you're not this short-sighted, Pervis.

The problem is I don't want government to exist at all. And no, I don't want to be forced to pay for things I am not going to make use of.

Representatives? Vote? Come on, Pervis... now you're just getting a bit ridiculous. Grown ups look for solutions funded by themselves instead of getting big ol' bad gubment to point guns in people's faces and tell them to fund their projects or else.

This model has already been tried and has shown itself throughout history to be unsustainable. We're beyond the need for religion, Gods, and government. That's how progress works... you use one model until it no longer serves its use and then you work on the next model. The U.S. did that by bidding farewell to monarchism in the 18th century and someone, someday will lead to the way bidding farewell to statism... the only question is when?

xsanguine wrote:

The government already is that domination. It is an extension of the individual's need to dominate others. It is not independent of anything. It is a fictitious entity. Smartest, strongest, most ruthless...?... who do you think actually runs this government... a collective of benevolent do-gooders just itching to make all our lives better?   

Complaining that an entity that relies on fear and violence to steal money from me is not ridiculous. "Government" didn't build that infrastructure... taxpayers built that infrastructure. Many times, it's private contractors that are hired by the government... all paid by taxpayers. You don't think, in a free market, if a company needs to get goods from point A to point B, if they need lines of communication between point A and point B, if they need to get goods to consumers... everyone is going to sit around and twiddle their thumbs for 5 minutes before saying "whelp... guess we can't get 'em there"? Surely you're not this short-sighted, Pervis.

The problem is I don't want government to exist at all. And no, I don't want to be forced to pay for things I am not going to make use of.

Representatives? Vote? Come on, Pervis... now you're just getting a bit ridiculous. Grown ups look for solutions funded by themselves instead of getting big ol' bad gubment to point guns in people's faces and tell them to fund their projects or else.

This model has already been tried and has shown itself throughout history to be unsustainable. We're beyond the need for religion, Gods, and government. That's how progress works... you use one model until it no longer serves its use and then you work on the next model. The U.S. did that by bidding farewell to monarchism in the 18th century and someone, someday will lead to the way bidding farewell to statism... the only question is when?

If you're going to keep typing paragraph after paragraph of anti-government bullshit, I'm going to press you on my hypothetical scenario:

We get rid of every person and every man-made object in Australia. We dump you and twenty million random people there, with absolutely no government. Tell me how it plays out.

You called it "sadistic", but it's exactly what you claim to want. Let me quote you: "I don't want government to exist at all." Those are your words. Now man up and tell me how you'd fare in a no-government situation.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

If you're going to keep typing paragraph after paragraph of anti-government bullshit, I'm going to press you on my hypothetical scenario:

We get rid of every person and every man-made object in Australia.  We dump you and twenty million random people there, with absolutely no government.  Tell me how it plays out.

You called it "sadistic", but it's exactly what you claim to want.  Let me quote you: "I don't want government to exist at all."  Those are your words.  Now man up and tell me how you'd fare in a no-government situation.

We already know how it plays out... it's been done before. That's how. we. got. here. Work within the confines of reality for me, Pervis... within the confines of societal evolution. Like I said before... the United States didn't just spawn from language-less, grunting cavemen with clubs. We have thousands of years of societal evolution already. I'm not sure how these scenarios you're creating out of thin air have anything to do with what we're talking about except to drag a straw man into the conversation. There's no reason to entertain your bad 80's apocalyptic action movie scenario because that's not the way society has ever worked.

No, I do not want government to exist at all. That is the end game. Society needs to evolve in order to meet that end game. Just like they had to evolve in order to get to where we are now in a representative Democracy. Your mad max scenario of turning off the lights, turning them back on and saying there's no government is not going to fare well because that would be a shock to the evolution of society. It's the gradual evolution, learning throughout that societal journey how to raise children, how to treat women, how to treat others. These things have, believe it or not, evolved over thousands of years and we get further and further from a force and violence scenario as time marches on.

xsanguine wrote:

We already know how it plays out... it's been done before. That's how. we. got. here. Work within the confines of reality for me, Pervis... within the confines of societal evolution. Like I said before... the United States didn't just spawn from language-less, grunting cavemen with clubs. We have thousands of years of societal evolution already. I'm not sure how these scenarios you're creating out of thin air have anything to do with what we're talking about except to drag a straw man into the conversation. There's no reason to entertain your bad 80's apocalyptic action movie scenario because that's not the way society has ever worked.

No, I do not want government to exist at all. That is the end game. Society needs to evolve in order to meet that end game. Just like they had to evolve in order to get to where we are now in a representative Democracy. Your mad max scenario of turning off the lights, turning them back on and saying there's no government is not going to fare well because that would be a shock to the evolution of society. It's the gradual evolution, learning throughout that societal journey how to raise children, how to treat women, how to treat others. These things have, believe it or not, evolved over thousands of years and we get further and further from a force and violence scenario as time marches on.

Our evolution away from a force and violence scenario has happened through government laws and government enforcement. But you want to end government to stop the force and violence scenario. But not right now. Maybe in thousands of years from now. And then everything will be perfect.

I'm going to bookmark this thread so I can bump it in the year 39,211.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Our evolution away from a force and violence scenario has happened through government laws and government enforcement.  

Nice contradiction, breh.

xsanguine wrote:

Nice contradiction, breh.

I know - and I'm using your words.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

I'm going to bookmark this thread so I can bump it in the year 39,211.  

Heh.

Let's use history as an indicator; Do you honestly believe this model will be in existence even just 400 years from now, let alone tens of thousands of years from now? What did we have 400 years ago? 800 years ago? 1500 years ago?

It will look nothing like it is now. To ignore this and to think we have "found the holy grail of society" is to ignore history and progress.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

I know - and I'm using your words.  

Are you? Please elaborate.

xsanguine wrote:

Are you? Please elaborate.

You said, "These things have, believe it or not, evolved over thousands of years and we get further and further from a force and violence scenario as time marches on."  Since you've also said, "The state, in its various forms, has ruled over virtually every soul in recorded history," you know that government has existed through the evolution you mentioned.

It's funny to see your "statist" meme, knowing that you wouldn't even dare to think about a purely hypothetical situation that removed government.  Despite the memes and poorly produced cartoons from which you draw your philosophy, you're as much of a statist as anyone else - you just complain more than most.

What I said is that we've been evolving away from force and violence. Not that we've in any way accomplished that. The goal is to accomplish that.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

It's funny to see your "statist" meme, knowing that you wouldn't even dare to think about a purely hypothetical situation that removed government.  Despite the memes and poorly produced cartoons from which you draw your philosophy, you're as much of a statist as anyone else - you just complain more than most.

Yes, I've thought about it. And no, I don't believe in the state as anything more than a legal fiction. The sooner others stop flocking to its banner the quicker we can realize a just society.

xsanguine wrote:What I said is that we've been evolving away from force and violence. Not that we've in any way accomplished that. The goal is to accomplish that.

Absent government, what will stop the people in your future world from taking what they want through force and violence?

xsanguine wrote:

Yes, I've thought about it. And no, I don't believe in the state as anything more than a legal fiction. The sooner others stop flocking to its banner the quicker we can realize a just society.

Explain how our federal government is fiction.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Explain how our federal government is fiction.

Because it is not real, it's like "corporations". Hence why I included the video that explains it far more in depth without being long-winded. But instead of trying to understand the viewpoint you poke fun at the delivery and dismiss it if you had even entertained the thought of watching it at all.

What is government? It's people who invoke the name of the state in order to create this illusory divinity over others thereby subjugating the masses under the rule of a select few. And it is this belief in this new form of divinity that has been re-instituted under a new, secular organization, and this is the real lens that needs to be shattered before there is any equality.

Telling me my premise is faulty because things could be worse is a horrible argument as it simply appeals to fear. You're too focused on the conclusion of my premise rather than the reasoning behind it. Deal with the reasoning behind my premise.

Lastly, let me make it very clear: I grew up in a system that taught me government was necessary insofar as to actually believe that anarchy meant lawlessness. It took many years of discovery before I realized it simply meant statelessness. During that process, I was called an anarchist many times before it even dawned on me what the term actually meant as I used to argue that anarchy could not exist because there was such thing as natural law.

Once I learned it was statelessness and not lawlessness, then it just all clicked for me. So, what is lawlessness?

Lawlessness is simply the absence of governance by sound moral theories. But, if you limit governance to a state or an institution called government, then you have setup a false dilemma whereby a state is necessary in order for there to be governance.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Absent government, what will stop the people in your future world from taking what they want through force and violence?

Do you honestly believe the market for safety would cease to exist absent a government?

For starters, I'm not expecting people to behave benevolently. I'm expecting people to behave according to their interests. And because of that, I recognize that no matter how one structures government the end result is relatively the same; The sovereign powers get consolidated into the hands of a select few, and the recourse for change becomes more-and-more limited as this particular state (i.e. body politic) grows and roots itself deeper into the culture.

What I'm introducing to this dilemma is competition, thus serving as a deterrent against such consolidation of powers. Hence, the importance of freeing up the markets.

All of what I'm advocating here is more power in the hands of the people. Either there is liberty for all or there is liberty for none. And, mind you, these are the two opposing ends of a spectrum. Depending on the governance we choose to abide by will affect our heading. Will our course of action take us towards liberty or towards tyranny?

There is no middle of the road policy here. The moral theories we abide by will affect what society grows into.

So, this whole premise that there are no rules without a state is complete nonsense.

xsanguine wrote:

Do you honestly believe the market for safety would cease to exist absent a government?

For starters, I'm not expecting people to behave benevolently. I'm expecting people to behave according to their interests. And because of that, I recognize that no matter how one structures government the end result is relatively the same; The sovereign powers get consolidated into the hands of a select few, and the recourse for change becomes more-and-more limited as this particular state (i.e. body politic) grows and roots itself deeper into the culture.

What I'm introducing to this dilemma is competition, thus serving as a deterrent against such consolidation of powers. Hence, the importance of freeing up the markets.

All of what I'm advocating here is more power in the hands of the people. Either there is liberty for all or there is liberty for none. And, mind you, these are the two opposing ends of a spectrum. Depending on the governance we choose to abide by will affect our heading. Will our course of action take us towards liberty or towards tyranny?

There is no middle of the road policy here. The moral theories we abide by will affect what society grows into.

So, this whole premise that there are no rules without a state is complete nonsense.

If I own the biggest private army, who's going to stop me from taking your shit?

xsanguine wrote:

Because it is not real, it's like "corporations". Hence why I included the video that explains it far more in depth without being long-winded. But instead of trying to understand the viewpoint you poke fun at the delivery and dismiss it if you had even entertained the thought of watching it at all.

What is government? It's people who invoke the name of the state in order to create this illusory divinity over others thereby subjugating the masses under the rule of a select few. And it is this belief in this new form of divinity that has been re-instituted under a new, secular organization, and this is the real lens that needs to be shattered before there is any equality.

Telling me my premise is faulty because things could be worse is a horrible argument as it simply appeals to fear. You're too focused on the conclusion of my premise rather than the reasoning behind it. Deal with the reasoning behind my premise.

Lastly, let me make it very clear: I grew up in a system that taught me government was necessary insofar as to actually believe that anarchy meant lawlessness. It took many years of discovery before I realized it simply meant statelessness. During that process, I was called an anarchist many times before it even dawned on me what the term actually meant as I used to argue that anarchy could not exist because there was such thing as natural law.

Once I learned it was statelessness and not lawlessness, then it just all clicked for me. So, what is lawlessness?

Lawlessness is simply the absence of governance by sound moral theories. But, if you limit governance to a state or an institution called government, then you have setup a false dilemma whereby a state is necessary in order for there to be governance.

The reasoning behind your premise is faulty, and that's why you don't want to talk about the conclusion. Your no-government idea would have a very bleak result. No cartoon is going to change that.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

If I own the biggest private army, who's going to stop me from taking your shit?

There it is. That is exactly where we are, right now. That is already our place in history. Fueled by a legal entity (the corporation) that has been allowed to amass wealth beyond anyone's dreams due to a lack of competition because of another legal entity's (the government) monopoly of violence and theft. One back scratches the other. You do realize we have never had a free market in human history? We also are not a society that yet abhors violence and in fact make excuses to justify that violence being perpetrated against us for the benefit of the corporation and abroad, again for the exclusive benefit of a small group of individuals.

How are you going to amass this biggest private army in a society that rejects violence and slavery? Our own government couldn't have amassed the wealth it did without kidnapping and enslaving people that at that point in history were foreign and thought of as animals.

Maybe if we just keep... voting in "representatives"... cause, ya know, that has a great track record! Our "founding fathers" (ahh the ever-benevolent religious self-imagery by those same men) were such great guise, noamsayin?

If you amass the biggest army... what is government even going to do about it?

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

The reasoning behind your premise is faulty, and that's why you don't want to talk about the conclusion.  Your no-government idea would have a very bleak result.  No cartoon is going to change that.  

We exist in that bleak result, right now. Do you think the men & women in 800 A.D. envisioned themselves as ruthlessly ruled over? Of course not, they thought... well shit, at least I don't live in 800 B.C., aren't the Danes swell? They have all of our best interests at heart!

steveschneider wrote:

I'm to the point where I think the general public needs to take a big share of the blame. I think apathy is a huge problem.

I'd say the general public is more apoplectic than apathetic.

People DO want change, but they don't want it enough to waste their own time. Most people feel it's an uphill battle that is there to be lost. At least that's how I feel, so it's like ...what can I do to make things better? I would love to be a politician without being a complete ass hat -- which is what most politicians are. Money-hungry ass hats.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

It looks like you want your country back.

If that is how you want to word it, but trying to boil this down to a bumper sticker is disingenuous. Does the government work for you the way you think it should?

xsanguine wrote:

There it is. That is exactly where we are, right now. That is already our place in history. Fueled by a legal entity (the corporation) that has been allowed to amass wealth beyond anyone's dreams due to a lack of competition because of another legal entity's (the government) monopoly of violence and theft. One back scratches the other. You do realize we have never had a free market in human history? We also are not a society that yet abhors violence and in fact make excuses to justify that violence being perpetrated against us for the benefit of the corporation and abroad, again for the exclusive benefit of a small group of individuals.

How are you going to amass this biggest private army in a society that rejects violence and slavery? Our own government couldn't have amassed the wealth it did without kidnapping and enslaving people that at that point in history were foreign and thought of as animals.

Maybe if we just keep... voting in "representatives"... cause, ya know, that has a great track record! Our "founding fathers" (ahh the ever-benevolent religious self-imagery by those same men) were such great guise, noamsayin?

If you amass the biggest army... what is government even going to do about it?

Your flowery no-government bullshit may feel good to you, but it still doesn't answer my question. Do you really think every single person will magically reject violence in the absence of government?

Wanting other people's shit has been a staple of humanity since our existence. That's why two of the Ten Commandments are about coveting. Do you expect people to stop wanting what others have? Do you think being frowned on by society is enough to stop everyone from taking what's not theirs?

Your ideas ignore something very important: reality. Noamsayin?

MasonGuy wrote:

If that is how you want to word it, but trying to boil this down to a bumper sticker is disingenuous. Does the government work for you the way you think it should?

The government doesn't work exactly according to any one person's ideals.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Your flowery no-government bullshit may feel good to you, but it still doesn't answer my question.  Do you really think every single person will magically reject violence in the absence of government?  

Wanting other people's shit has been a staple of humanity since our existence.  That's why two of the Ten Commandments are about coveting.  Do you expect people to stop wanting what others have?  Do you think being frowned on by society is enough to stop everyone from taking what's not theirs?

Your ideas ignore something very important: reality.  Noamsayin?

Nope. I'm well aware bad people will always exist. I'm not aware of you asking that question before. Before you were asking how I felt about you air dropping everyone in the desert of Australia with no food or water and acting like that is somehow related to the conversation we're having about the concept of government. Government exists right now, today, and we have people being shot, stabbed, etc. every day. Having a legal fiction that steals 30% of everyone's income and enslaves people for possessing plant alkaloids has no bearing on the existence of violence. So why have it?

What is keeping me from entering your home and butchering you and your family tonight, Pervis? Do you have government agents perched outside of your house, guarding you every hour of the day? I imagine you don't. There is nothing keeping me from killing everyone in your household and taking off with your belongings. The reason I don't do that and your neighbors don't do that? Because most people are not sociopaths. The existence of government does not affect that.