Aha, so you admit that you are threatened by the idea of a free society!
Governments = Useless? Always?
- Thread starter charlie.simm
- Start date
Aha, so you admit that you are threatened by the idea of a free society!
LOL "formal logic" strikes again. Let's not "shoot the shit" and actually talk with each other as human beings like we're debating at the bar. We can argue logic til the cows come home, but the burden is STILL on you guys. I've still got all my books and papers from my Philosophy courses, sounds fun. Take me back to the LSATs yayyy.
Just because something doesn't exist, doesn't mean it wouldn't work. I think we can all agree with that and try to move on to the "meat" if you will. Now, back to the reality that deals with the collective BILLIONS of humans on this earth. When Libertarians/anarchists/etc are able to build up a collective society using their personal/moral/economical/social/political/etc beliefs and it it is successful in MODERN DAY TIMES, you will probably win us all over...so don't worry.
This is one of the very few arguments where people actually are arrogant enough to declare that their idea is BEST for humanity (best is arguable, so please lets not sidetrack with that whole spiel), yet it has never existed in our lifetimes or been witnessed by any of us. Yet we somehow can't say that you guys are really "reaching" on this one? What other daily basic decisions do you guys make based upon your arrogance regarding the success of ONE "IDEAL" that has never existed before in humanity? Because it seems to me that most people would laugh at your arrogance if it was regarding just about anything else but being a Libertararin and if it was anywhere else except Wickedfire.
You may as well tell us Santa is real and he provides the "best" government for humanity as a whole, because that is what your logic is telling me...You've never seen it at work in modern day times, BUT it is FOR SURE better than any form of government currently in existence? Correct? All logical fallacies I may have committed in this post aside, this is the idea you are still wanting to propogate? I just want to be clear.
Just because something doesn't exist, doesn't mean it wouldn't work. I think we can all agree with that and try to move on to the "meat" if you will. Now, back to the reality that deals with the collective BILLIONS of humans on this earth. When Libertarians/anarchists/etc are able to build up a collective society using their personal/moral/economical/social/political/etc beliefs and it it is successful in MODERN DAY TIMES, you will probably win us all over...so don't worry.
This is one of the very few arguments where people actually are arrogant enough to declare that their idea is BEST for humanity (best is arguable, so please lets not sidetrack with that whole spiel), yet it has never existed in our lifetimes or been witnessed by any of us. Yet we somehow can't say that you guys are really "reaching" on this one? What other daily basic decisions do you guys make based upon your arrogance regarding the success of ONE "IDEAL" that has never existed before in humanity? Because it seems to me that most people would laugh at your arrogance if it was regarding just about anything else but being a Libertararin and if it was anywhere else except Wickedfire.
You may as well tell us Santa is real and he provides the "best" government for humanity as a whole, because that is what your logic is telling me...You've never seen it at work in modern day times, BUT it is FOR SURE better than any form of government currently in existence? Correct? All logical fallacies I may have committed in this post aside, this is the idea you are still wanting to propogate? I just want to be clear.
Governments were created to serve the people, now the people serve the governments. Also modern democracy is a fallacy, democracy isn't voting for someone to vote on your behalf. We elect people into positions of power, we don't actually make any decisions.
On the face of things and in an ideal world, governments are vital for communities but it's just too problematic, especially when you have huge, centralised governments controlling vast amounts of land and vast amounts of other people's land.
On the face of things and in an ideal world, governments are vital for communities but it's just too problematic, especially when you have huge, centralised governments controlling vast amounts of land and vast amounts of other people's land.
Lots of things can be declared fallacies (some easily on a whim with no need to study them, and some that have existed since the beginning of man that are just now being seen for what they truly are), but sometimes it is MORE important to recognize that human nature tends to trump logic. So what do you do in this case?
How can I win a debate with people who won't tackle issues of logic?
If cognitive dissonance is the standard, there is no hope for a debate to be resolved through argumentation.
I post clear arguments, rebuttals and criticisms to demonstrate the doublethink inherent in pro-government arguments.
If YOU want to challenge those responses, I suggest you focus on them, and not me, and some aspect of my posting style, supposed agenda or personal choices.
Or you can continue to talk about me and not ideas. Your choice. It's your nickel, and you're helping me to illustrate what bad argument looks like.
1. I wasn't talking about economics
2. I never claimed that. Source it.
I never claimed that. Source it.
I never claimed this. Source it, or admit you're making it up.
How so?
I don't think you know anything about my record, and I don't think you have made any substantive points but to attack me personally.
Is that a fair assessment? Have you challenged my opinions or ideas directly? If so, which and when?
You've been here how long, and now you're judging others as well?
Do you think that is prudent? Can you seriously say your opinions as stated are well informed?
YAWN. More personal attacks.
And more personal attacks...
The question is why? Why am I free, but not free?
Why is the situation whether I like it or not?
First of all, reality is indeed real. That is, there are facts. Humans may choose to act differently in the face of these, or even ignorant of these facts, but that doesn't change the facts.
No one is denying that humans do not always behave rationally with objective reality, but they do behave rationally with their incomplete and limited perception of reality (praxeology).
That said, logical consistency is simply something many people choose to ignore. Your side in this argument has chosen to ignore it several times. That doesn't mean you aren't entitled to an opinion, but in many cases your opinion is invalid simply because it is contradictory. That's a choice you make. You could choose to make logical arguments, but for whatever reason, your perception of reality leads you to rationalize that it isn't important to make an argument which is consistent.
No one is denying humans are flawed. People who insist that a system of government by humans somehow improves the people involved in said government is a denial of human nature, incentives and basic human action.
Again, no one is denying humans are flawed. If you had read this thread diligently, you would already see that admitted several times. Apparently, you did not.
I am an Austrian when it comes to economics and AE does have the most complete social science oriented theory of human action that I am aware of. Your claims that I am interpreting things in a certain mechanistic manner betray your ignorance of my argument.
I don't believe I have sourced any textbooks. Are you going to continue to make false claims and insist you have read this thread before responding?
Two logical fallacies.
1. Non sequitur. You're asserting facts again.
2. Appeal to history. Normative and predictive.
Here is where we finish this round up.
You still can't articulate my position, and continue to strawman it (another logical fallacy). My suggestion is to go back and read this thread again.
quoting from one of the things that JakeStratham linked to :
"...if we posit that government is inevitable, then we must do so for crime, slavery, rape, murder, etc. However, this will not and should not stop us from making the case that crime, slavery, rape, murder, are illegitimate, and should be stopped.
Given the human condition, a temporary absence of crime, slavery, rape, murder, cannot be “self-sustaining” (Holcombe n.d., p. 6). So what. These activities are still illicit, and, had we the power to do so, we should stop them.
I certainly agree with Hummel (2001) and Leeson and Stringham (2005) that once established, an anarcho-capitalist society would thereby be strengthened. Does that mean there will never again be any crime? No revisiting of criminal government? Not at all. The human condition will probably always rear its ugly head in such a manner."
^ Social contracts are an imaginary concept. What is real are imposed laws and other rules that cannot be escaped. Even if one astronaut murdered another on the moon, I imagine they would be prosecuted just as if it happened on an American boat in international waters.
Governments along with majorities of their populations have supported slavery. Was slavery ok in those cases, but not now?
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :rainfro:
Governments along with majorities of their populations have supported slavery. Was slavery ok in those cases, but not now?
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :rainfro:
They're not real if you go by the dictionary definition of "contract."
Genocides, slavery, denying people the right vote, and many other things have all been part of "social contracts." So saying one is in place does not automatically equate with morality or voluntary agreement.
According to your line of thinking, Native Americans who had grown up in one type of society, ended up completely accepting the new government - all because the natives couldn't snap their fingers and magically be transported to another planet.
People can't escape "social contracts", even on the moon.
Your post I replied to was not talking about government being necessary and inevitable :
What is the point in saying those things, if not to use them for justification for having governments?
Thank you. This is so hard sometimes to get people to understand.
No Treason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I thought we never had anarchy.
Can you specifically cite which grand scale atrocities were committed prior to government?
There should be different committees supervising each other. Unity between these committees would kill the proper development.
An agreement among the members of an organized society...
(Philosophy) (in the theories of...
an implicit agreement among people
It's a theoretical, implied concept, in which everyone has agreed to something. Has such a thing ever really existed in a state above a certain population?
That's true, but you were first theorizing about violence under anarchy. A natural counterpoint to that is to bring up actual examples of violence under government.
What you haven't really addressed is what is the value of government? I'm talking about the overall concept. There are mafia groups that donate to charities and do other good things, but most would agree that the mafia overall provides a net loss to society.
The question would be what is the government of Switzerland creating that the people there could not create on their own?
Sung to the tune of "Song that never ends:"
This is the thread that never ends,
Keeps going on and on my friends...
Some noobie challenged Guerilla cause he didn't know who G was,
But he'll continue taking shit forever just because...
Couldn't resist
This is the thread that never ends,
Keeps going on and on my friends...
Some noobie challenged Guerilla cause he didn't know who G was,
But he'll continue taking shit forever just because...
Couldn't resistOk, so good argument against government!
But really, all human action is profit driven. That's basic economics, rational individualism, etc. Man acts for profit, whether it is love, or comfort or whatever. Opportunity costs, tradeoffs etcand so on, all relate to profit.
Profit is a psychological, not monetary phenomenon.
Yep. War is very expensive. It costs money. It costs lives. And it makes us miss Survivor. There's no profit motive for normal folks.
Those who do profit (like this guy) do so because they're part of the state. As they say, membership has its privileges. That includes private contractors, who would be unlikely to make war if they had to do it without the state lavishing cash on them.
With all these demands for proof, I would swear we're debating on the existence of a god. As far as I know, no one here has stated that the theories and ideas presented by the pro-anarchy side have actually been implemented. We are simply stating that all those grand things that people have been indoctrinated to believe can only come from the government can actually be provided by private enterprise equally well, if not better.
If it did not get created, the only reason would be because they choose not to. They're the same exact people with the same exact capabilities and resources. They can still create it if they want. If they would rather spend the money on beer and video games, then that would be their choice, and they would reap what they sow.