Governments = Useless? Always?

[jonas33h]

Guerilla: the Constitution states what the government can't do and defers the rest to the states. by this I was directly thinking

First Amendment: government CAN NOT prohibit free speech.

Second: Government CAN NOT strip you of your guns.

Third: Prohibits soldiers from taking quarter in your home.

Fourth: Government CAN NOT search and seize without a warrant.

Fifth: Double Jeopardy... in otherwards government CAN NOT try you twice for the same crime

Sixth: quick and speedy trial.

Seventh: the right to trial by jury,

Eighth: Government CAN NOT impose excessive bail...

Nineth: Protects against federal infringement of unenumerated rights

Tenth: Defers the other rights to the states

"Actually, the US Constitution states only what the federal government CAN do, and leaves the balance to the states."-----Have you read the bill of rights ?

As for the Katrina thing-- let me give an alternative example: If I am out in the country and I start destroying public property chances are no one else will join-in in fear of being caught. But if a crowd at a Lakers game gets pissed off about losing a game and a large group of people start destroying property others will see this as an opportunity to steal, destroy, and do whatever else happens when a riot ensue because they sense less chances of police catching them.

Proof? I guess the proof is in the pudding all civilizations have some sort of order, even tribes in the amazon have some system of government? What is your proof that no government would create peace and prosperity?

Proof? where is your proof for you theories?

 

[jonas33h]

LUKEP: I was researching to argue against you only to agree with you instead. LOL i think that's twice now...FML. that's all I gotta say about fire departments.

 

[kingofsp]

 

[guerilla]

Guerilla: the Constitution states what the government can't do and defers the rest to the states. by this I was directly thinking

Those are amendments (the Bill of Rights), not the Constitution as originally drafted.

First Amendment: government CAN NOT prohibit free speech.

But they do.

Second: Government CAN NOT strip you of your guns.

But they do, and so on and so forth. The paper doesn't matter if the people don't hold their government accountable, and looking at the USG, ain't no one been holding them accountable to the Constitution.

Government exists by consent. Regardless what some old dudes wrote 200+ years ago, government will do whatever the people consent to. Tax, borrow, make war, violate rights, commit murder, steal etc.

As HL Mencken is famous for saying, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

The current USG is a reflection of the values of the American people. Because if it isn't, then logically, the government is not representing the people, and that begins to make my case that government doesn't work as intended.

Proof? I guess the proof is in the pudding all civilizations have some sort of order, even tribes in the amazon have some system of government?

I would say they have a system of order. Order != government. They aren't the same thing, although a public school education tries like hell to convince people to the contrary.

We (humanity) used to understand that private property was a "natural order". You own yourself, and I own myself. Somewhere along the line, we started to believe that you owned an opinion on how I used my land, and what I smoked, and what school my children went to, and I owned an opinion on how much money you should earn, who you could marry, and how much others can take from you.

What is your proof that no government would create peace and prosperity?

Just simple logic. Logic is about resolving, or avoiding contradictions. Like 1 + 1 = 2 means that 1 + 1 can't be = 3.

The only way to have peace and prosperity (if those words are to mean anything substantive) is to allow people to interact freely and without aggression.

If you don't do what the government says with regards to raw milk, or marijuana, or a military draft, or paying your taxes, they get plenty aggressive with you. If your government is aggressive, how can it create peace? If your government takes your property from you, how can it create prosperity?

Again, it is just simple logic. 1 + 1 isn't 3.

 

[jonas33h]

Those are amendments (the Bill of Rights), not the Constitution as originally drafted.


But they do.


But they do, and so on and so forth. The paper doesn't matter if the people don't hold their government accountable, and looking at the USG, ain't no one been holding them accountable to the Constitution.

Government exists by consent. Regardless what some old dudes wrote 200+ years ago, government will do whatever the people consent to. Tax, borrow, make war, violate rights, commit murder, steal etc.

As HL Mencken is famous for saying, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

The current USG is a reflection of the values of the American people. Because if it isn't, then logically, the government is not representing the people, and that begins to make my case that government doesn't work as intended.


I would say they have a system of order. Order != government. They aren't the same thing, although a public school education tries like hell to convince people to the contrary.

We (humanity) used to understand that private property was a "natural order". You own yourself, and I own myself. Somewhere along the line, we started to believe that you owned an opinion on how I used my land, and what I smoked, and what school my children went to, and I owned an opinion on how much money you should earn, who you could marry, and how much others can take from you.


Just simple logic. Logic is about resolving, or avoiding contradictions. Like 1 + 1 = 2 means that 1 + 1 can't be = 3.

The only way to have peace and prosperity (if those words are to mean anything substantive) is to allow people to interact freely and without aggression.

If you don't do what the government says with regards to raw milk, or marijuana, or a military draft, or paying your taxes, they get plenty aggressive with you. If your government is aggressive, how can it create peace? If your government takes your property from you, how can it create prosperity?

Again, it is just simple logic. 1 + 1 isn't 3.

Again, it's simple logic if your system was so great then it would exist. Just like communism sounds good on paper but isn't possible.

I never said anything about government needing to intrude on people individual right's. government needs to exist as to not allow other's to trample on others individual right's.

Government is inevitable.... you start free then develop a system of checks and balances ( thought I would rephrase this so you don't manipulate my wording of "order") after certain events happen to prevent them from happening again all societies have gone through this stage.

You are truly a moron if you think man hasn't tried this since the dawn of time. But someone always comes along and fucks things up and then a government is established.

you have changed your stance from you don't need government to government isn't perfect (which it's not, again, your dumb if you think that was my argument).

Riddle me this padre, in a society without rules what would a society do with a man who murders one man? He breaks no rules since they do not exist and no punishment exist. Your logic is anything but.

 

[jonas33h]

I am done arguing and will leave you with these to quotes from Thomas Jefferson,

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

"
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."


good day. no hard feelings. just forum banter peace.

 

[guerilla]

Again, it's simple logic if your system was so great then it would exist.

Think about this. Really, really think about this.

If that was true, then we would already have the perfect system.

If that was true, then everything we don't know, can't exist.

If that was true, you have just invalidated evolution.

Just saying, it is a logical fallacy to confuse the absence of proof with proof of absence.

 

[guerilla]

I never said anything about government needing to intrude on people individual right's. government needs to exist as to not allow other's to trample on others individual right's.

Think about this one too. You're saying government needs to exist to not allow the trampling of rights, but doesn't government trample rights?

If a state takes my land or my income, are you trampling on my rights?

You are truly a moron if you think man hasn't tried this since the dawn of time. But someone always comes along and fucks things up and then a government is established.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me a moron. It is inappropriate, and I haven't treated you that way. You claim to be for a civil society, but you're not behaving with much civility when you attack me personally.

you have changed your stance from you don't need government to government isn't perfect (which it's not, again, your dumb if you think that was my argument).

We don't need government. In order to make that point with people who assert without facts, I have to establish some facts, and so I look for common ground.

If you agree that government is broken, then maybe we can start to move towards asking if government has ever worked.

Riddle me this padre, in a society without rules what would a society do with a man who murders one man? He breaks no rules since they do not exist and no punishment exist. Your logic is anything but.

Who said I am for a society without rules? I already explained above that government is not the same as order, and law comes from the market, not the state.

I am done arguing and will leave you with these to quotes from Thomas Jefferson,

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

"
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

You're making my argument with that quote.

You're the one claiming that we need a government to protect us from one murderer. TJ is saying that he would rather be exposed to such a risk than to compromise his liberty.

Also, TJ was pretty good on natural rights. No one has a right to commit aggression, including the government. The government has no "right" according to TJ to take your liberty (aka property) from you. Yet you probably support taxes, right? Well, taxes are enforced with aggression, not hugs and kisses.

good day. no hard feelings. just forum banter peace.

Yeah, except calling me a moron and insinuating I may be dumb, you're a very polite debater.

 

[jonas33h]

1. I don't support eminent domain so mute point. And if I could evade paying taxes knowing 100% i would not get caught I would. Taxes is as much a thief as Robin Hood(although i enjoy the story, the lesson conveyed is wrong).

2. Who said I am for a society without rules? I already explained above that government is not the same as order, and law comes from the market, not the state.

3. and if there is no state then who will enforce this "order''?

4. free speech....

5. The question is not has government worked (because it has not 100% but yes it works that why even without communication ancient history shows systems of government existing the world, one can only assume that each separate civilization concluded that government worked BEST.) but why has non-government failed.

6. you are blinded by his words of coarse I would rather take more liberty than freedom, but I find a great understanding of needing law and order (which is only provided by an establishment e.i: government) I'm libertarian dude hate taxes just thought I would repeat that because i fucking hate taxes.

7. you claimed i like taxes that's essentially calling me a moron, we're even now.

 

[guerilla]

1. I don't support eminent domain so mute point.

I think you mean moot point.

And if I could evade paying taxes knowing 100% i would not get caught I would. Taxes is as much a thief as Robin Hood(although i enjoy the story, the lesson conveyed is wrong).

So you believe taxes are theft. Good. You're nearly an anarchist now.

2. Who said I am for a society without rules? I already explained above that government is not the same as order, and law comes from the market, not the state.

3. and if there is no state then who will enforce this "order''?

Property owners will enforce order over their property.

4. free speech....

No idea what that means.

5. The question is not has government worked (because it has not 100% but yes it works that why even without communication ancient history shows systems of government existing the world, one can only assume that each separate civilization concluded that government worked BEST.) but why has non-government failed.

I think non-government has failed because many people are (purposefully or accidentally) ignorant, and the smartest members of society have figured out how to emotionally manipulate them while controlling education and the official histories.

Look at how reflexively I get attacked for supporting peace and prosperity! I am arguing for a society based on voluntary relationships and respect for property rights. It boggles my mind that anyone would argue against that, and yet here we are. Folks in this thread are insisting we need someone to boss us around and take our stuff, because that is supposedly the best society we can aim for.

But yes, the question is whether government has worked, and I am pleased to see you agree with me that it has not.

6. you are blinded by his words of coarse I would rather take more liberty than freedom, but I find a great understanding of needing law and order (which is only provided by an establishment e.i: government)

I'm not blinded by his words as much as I understand them, having been a big fan of Jefferson's at one time.

We can have law and order, but it has to come from the market. It cannot come from the fist, or it is not lawful or orderly at all.

7. you claimed i like taxes that's essentially calling me a moron, we're even now.

How else will you fund your government? Every form of government income is a tax unless you want to run it on donations.

I had no idea you were anti-tax and pro-government, so it was no insult, and we're not even.

 

[lincolndsp]

the majority of people prefer to live in the world jonas33h supports is because they don't know any other and the government is good at hardwiring its agendas since everyone starts go to school (lies, manipulated history, all non-math subjects actuall skewed towards serving agendas)and let the brainwash begin!

 

[Suspect Device]

^100x

Anyway, did you know that even in USA there are few self-governing societies?

Largest one is Brentwood, New York. With over than 50k population. No police, no government, no laws.

It was established on March 21, 1851, well done people. This colony, so to speak, is a prime example of how self governing people can prosper. I bet that you haven't heard it once on Media, do you?

Oh, and about Somalia:

In a recent study I compared Somali welfare under anarchy to welfare under government using all key development indicators for which data allowed comparison.[15] According to the data, of the eighteen development indicators, fourteen show unambiguous improvement under anarchy. Life expectancy is higher today than was in the last years of government’s existence; infant mortality has improved twenty-four percent; maternal mortality has fallen over thirty percent; infants with low birth weight has fallen more than fifteen percentage points; access to health facilities has increased more than twenty-five percentage points; access to sanitation has risen eight percentage points; extreme poverty has plummeted nearly twenty percentage points; one year olds fully immunized for TB has grown nearly twenty percentage points, and for measles has increased ten; fatalities due to measles have dropped thirty percent; and the prevalence of TVs, radios, and telephones has jumped between three and twenty-five times.

Source:Anarchy Unbound, or: Why Self-Governance Works Better than You Think | Peter T. Leeson | Cato Unbound

 

[lincolndsp]

^^ you are right. not heard

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Anyway, did you know that even in USA there are few self-governing societies?

Largest one is Brentwood, New York. With over than 50k population. No police, no government, no laws.

It was established on March 21, 1851, well done people. This colony, so to speak, is a prime example of how self governing people can prosper. I bet that you haven't heard it once on Media, do you?

That it hasn't been self-governing since the 19th century might have something to do with it...

Also, from the Freetown Christiania entry:

The people in Christiania have developed their own set of rules, independent of the Danish government. The rules forbid stealing, violence, guns, knives, bulletproof vests, hard drugs and bikers' colors.

So this isn't a situation where each individual is entirely free to do whatever they want (within the constraints of the NAP, of course); there's very much a governing set of rules in effect.


Anyway, WRT to the topic, there are a few areas where some form of government seems necessary:

1. Regulation, particularly of collective behavior, but also of individual behavior. Anything that has a likelihood of being harmful to other beings is a potential candidate for regulation. Legal recourse is not adequate because a.) it's reactive, rather than proactive b.) way too many things are impossible to prove c.) not everything that can be harmed can sue, which leads me to...

2. Protection of animals/the environment. They need it. Case in point: the Chinese bear bile-milking story from last week. That's only one example, but there are so, so many more, and it happens everywhere, all the time. I hope one day enough of us wake up to put a stop to it. Go watch Earthlings if you never have.

3. Legal fairness. In the US one has the right to a fair trial, regardless of one's ability to understand the law or afford a lawyer. This is absolutely important in a just society.

4. Anticipating, monitoring, preparing for and managing large-scale events, e.g., natural or man-made disasters, pandemics, war, WMD-type attacks, etc. Also things like controlling who has access to nuclear materials. Really, you don't want just anyone getting their hands on that stuff.


I can probably think of more, but that'll do for now.

 

[pfgannon]

2. Protection of animals/the environment. They need it. Case in point: the Chinese bear bile-milking story from last week. That's only one example, but there are so, so many more, and it happens everywhere, all the time. I hope one day enough of us wake up to put a stop to it. Go watch Earthlings if you never have.

If you want to preserve some wetlands, you should just buy them and then protect them to your heart’s content. If you need to buy up an entire river basin to do that, too bad. Maybe you can contract with all of the basin’s landowners to do something. But you’ll have to pay them enough to get their agreement, and you’ll have to spend your own money.

Will check out that video though.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Originally Posted by acmeqa.wordpress.com
If you want to preserve some wetlands, you should just buy them and then protect them to your heart’s content. If you need to buy up an entire river basin to do that, too bad. Maybe you can contract with all of the basin’s landowners to do something. But you’ll have to pay them enough to get their agreement, and you’ll have to spend your own money.

That attitude is incredibly myopic and destructive. Environmental degradation has the potential to affect everyone.

 

[guerilla]

That attitude is incredibly myopic and destructive. Environmental degradation has the potential to affect everyone.

It's not myopic. The reason why those lands are being destroyed are because

(1) they are a commons

or

(2) people are willing to pay more to wreck them than you are to save them

There are plenty of organizations now that buy up land to protect it. It works great. Of course, property always works great when it is acquired through homesteading (first use) or voluntary exchange.

Like it or not, your ability to peacefully influence the world is tied to either your good looks and charisma, or your purchasing power.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

It's not myopic. The reason why those lands are being destroyed are because

(1) they are a commons

or

(2) people are willing to pay more to wreck them than you are to save them

So if I have more money than everyone else combined, I could buy up huge chunks of the world and wreck it all if I wanted? That'd be alright by you?

 

[jacky8]

The fear of laws and rules is what stops a stronger one from harming you. True that the government does a lot of bad shit too and there is scope for betterment but if you say you are better without the government you are totally taking the goodness around you for granted. Call me brainwashed if you want to, but then I can also say you are brainwashed by some master theorist.

 

[kingscotty38]

I think it depends.

I'm pretty certain a society can absolutely exist without government if we're talking a 10k-20k population, but when things get unnatural and you have MILLIONS of human beings squashed into a tiny area (see any capital city) then I think government is the way to go in terms of the advancement of industry, technology etc. for the human race.

People are set up to be in small tribes of about 200-300 people. It wouldn't have even been a few hundred years ago when our ancestors were living like this, so genetically we aren't much different to them at all. But I think if the world was still living like this, sure it would be cool and we would probably be way happier, but we wouldn't have cool shit like the internet, open heart surgery or bullet trains.

The human race has jumped in leaps and bounds in terms of technology, culture and communication. Think about how fucking crazy it would have been just 20 years ago that you can snap a 1080p video of something on your mobile device, and then uploading it to YouTube for billions to watch around the world instantaneously whilst stalking the girl you like on Facebook on another tab, all without wires.

I think it's the collaboration between hundreds of thousands of people in a small area which makes such feats of technology possible. To quote Fear Factor's Joe Rogan, "if you go into the woods with a hatchet, how long before you could send me an e-mail?"

I don't think Apple for example would have such a stronghold on the world's technology if they were founded and run in a small town with a population 30k.

I think if you try to abolish government in places which were built on the premise and culture of government (think LA, NY, Tokyo, Paris, London etc.) I don't think it would work, but what I personally think is that we should be striving for a balance between our existing government system and a system for a localized community to govern themselves more freely. How? No idea, as I have limited understanding on how government works but I think we as a local community should have a bigger say on issues which directly effect us.