Governments = Useless? Always?
- Thread starter charlie.simm
- Start date
It was in the first paragraph of the article.
It's customary law. It is practiced in many rural parts of the world where there is no effective government.
I can't speak for guerilla, but here's my take...
I don't get offended. But if someone calls me a fucking moron, douchebag, idiot, etc., I write 'em off. After all, like everyone, I have friends and loved ones with whom I want to spend time. I need to get my work done in order to do that.
Why on earth would I waste my limited time having a conversation with someone who dismisses me as a fucking moron, douchebag, idiot, etc.? It's a poor use of my time, which would be better spent with those I love.
guerilla displays far more patience. Oddly, he seems to attract even more animosity because of it.
It's surreal. lol
I'll have to apologize for this - wasn't a cool way of expressing that I had different views.
But you can't ignore this reality even when just hypothetically putting your theories into practice.
It was simply an analogy.
Again, bad move on my part. I was just trying to emphasize the potential for the enormous social chaos that might result from trying to implement such a change if it didn't go perfectly as planned (assuming there was a perfect plan) - the cost (in many senses of the word) might just be too great.
Unfortunately pretty much every corner of the Earth has been colonized, which means no-one has much of a choice. As you said, it's damn near impossible to become stateless.
Remove it and the next biggest organized crime syndicate will grow into its place and legitimize itself. There are certain evils that you have to simply accept as being a permanent part of the world. Just as many see elections as "choosing the lesser of two evils", i.e. compromise, a stable central government still involves less chaos than a bunch of tribes.
It's common sense given the presence of organized crime - they WILL take control when there's anarchy. Doesn't matter if all households are notified years in advance and everyone has guns at home - there will always be a gang with bigger guns.
Laws are worthless without enforcement, and to "enforce" something requires force - more force than the next-strongest guy. Of course this then brings up the issue of abuse of power, but doing our best to keep this powerful central authority in check while ensuring they don't lose power is the compromise.
I don't think it is outrageous that I would like to have a discussion that is based on facts and ideas, not on personal attacks an ad hoc opinions.
Then just set me to ignore. No one is forcing you to read my posts. Exercise some self-discipline!
And cue more avoiding discussing ideas, and more attacking style. Very substantive!
You know, when I first got into economics (thanks to Ron Paul) I had the same attitude towards libertarian philosophers that you have to me. True story, I openly mocked one of the more well known libertarian professors of philosophy as an egghead.
But then I realized something. He actually knew a lot of interesting stuff, and I didn't like that I didn't have a better argument than being a child, name calling and attacking him personally.
So I tried to learn more.
Here we are today, and I suppose this is my comeuppance. I am attacked by people who like me, wouldn't make a logical argument, and who prefer to attack people personally rather than intelligently defend a point of view.
I really don't care who calls me a troll, the sincerity and accuracy of what I post is what is here for judgment. If you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine. I've been here for 5 years and haven't changed my posts or position.
The following is why I show patience. I got this by PM the other day. I'm not trying to convince people in this thread who are not interested in new ideas. I am setting the discussion forth for people who are interested in new ideas, or thinking differently than we have all been collectively educated.
You know the sort of person I am talking about.
^ you have yet to prove your idea works yet you always fire with
Do you have proof of that?
lame provide proof that anarchy works...
and no showing that some town village or society that used anarchy for a little bit then ends up with government doesn't count...because if it was successful why would they have changed to a government lead society that strips their rights away?
Do you have proof of that?
lame provide proof that anarchy works...
and no showing that some town village or society that used anarchy for a little bit then ends up with government doesn't count...because if it was successful why would they have changed to a government lead society that strips their rights away?
I am not arguing that anarchy "works" because everyone has a different value scale for what "works" means. I am also not into empirical arguments. We can argue history and statistics all day long.
My claim is that government is irrational. I have explained this to you numerous times, and you have not responded to those specific arguments.
You continue to ask me to prove something while not accepting any of the proofs, logical or empirical presented. You have also argued, yet again, that an absence of proof, is a proof. I have demonstrated to you how this is a logical fallacy.
What do you want from me? Let's start at the beginning. Let's find one thing we can agree upon. Like, you don't like taxes. I don't either. Why don't you like them? Why don't you feel you should have to pay them?
Ultimately, my ability to be persuasive with people who do not approach things from an economic perspective is going to be limited. I understand this. If there is nothing else to take from this thread, please get interested in economics. The world makes a lot of sense very quickly when we take cause and effect into account.
Bloody hell that clip is depressing!
I agree with it wholeheartedly, of course, but the moral in the end makes me want to go and cry... Can't we come up with anything better than "To see the cage you're in is the closest you'll get to freedom" ???
This problem, more than any other, is what is causing people to argue for governments. They can't face this truth. Ignorance is Bliss.
The Denial Express.
In your opinion Guerilla, is this what you 'are trying to solve' with your explorations into anarchy? A way of happily existing outside of that cage?
Yes, the ill-informed and hyper-emotional folks on here don't seem to have anyone else that will argue with them.
My purpose in being here in STS is to learn. Not just about the world, but about myself. That's why I keep coming back and taking abuse from dimwits from time to time, it's the price I pay for learning something worth knowing. (Sadly public schools can't give you that knowledge. I bet Jon didn't know he's sitting on a school system far more useful than any US school!)
Anyway, I've disagreed with Guerilla in the past (population density & global warming issues) but every thread he's posted on he's left some gold. And he puts up with more shit than anyone here just to be able to leave it, too... Making himself a target to every nutjob who is ill-informed on the subject du jour. You'd do well to start recognizing his efforts and learning from his style and perseverance, if not from the subject matter he's speaking of itself.
All smart people sound like that to stupid people. Fact of life, brah.
Don't worry, it'll get easier to take as you get smarter yourself.
I would certainly have given up on them long ago.
Sometimes I suspect that G's main purpose in STS is to direct conversations into making content for his websites somewhere...
(Gotta admit, it's more fun than simply writing it!)
Yeah economically speaking it's advantageous, but my whole argument was not based on economics it was based on social behaviors that can not be ignored.
Adam Smith even acknowledged the importance of government in the economy... so what's your point about looking at it economically?
I don't like taxes because it goes towards things that I do not support (abortions, keeping people in prison[we should just kill killer imo], welfare, social security, NPR, obamacare, just to name a few).
Circling back you are not persuasive because of the approach, it's because you have nothing to support your opinion. I have never seen a society that exist today without a governing body, anarchy is a utopia that sounds awesome but the harsh reality is you need some sort of government in place.
whether the government is the entire people of a community voting on crimes committed or a democracy or republic, or having your judge being appointed at birth. What ever you choose to keep the calm would be the government body pick your choice of words but it will be there.
Just food for thought.
Humans have biases, me, you everyone, and we all are biased towards our own lifestyles, cultures and past decisions. That's very hard to overcome without reason and self-awareness.
I already ethically exist as far outside the cage as I can, and I am going to go after making the last 15% a possibility in the next couple years.
I am more happy today than any other day in the past, and that bodes well for my future.
So, um, you're buying a remote Island?
Wow, DFB is more profitable than I thought! :1bluewinky:
Guerilla, would you care to address this for me? Let's say the following:
I own the world. Every square inch. Under your system of property rights, this is a logical possibility. Anyone anywhere on the world is violating my property rights, and I can ask them to leave, and if they don't, it's my right to kill them. Or I could offer some people a contract that says, you can be on my property, but you must do everything I say and all the output of your work belongs to me. So the choice is either, in effect, death or slavery.
Back to me, here, now. Why would I, knowing that the likelihood of me being that guy is virtually zero, in my own self interest, support a system that allows for that logical possibility?
I own the world. Every square inch. Under your system of property rights, this is a logical possibility. Anyone anywhere on the world is violating my property rights, and I can ask them to leave, and if they don't, it's my right to kill them. Or I could offer some people a contract that says, you can be on my property, but you must do everything I say and all the output of your work belongs to me. So the choice is either, in effect, death or slavery.
Back to me, here, now. Why would I, knowing that the likelihood of me being that guy is virtually zero, in my own self interest, support a system that allows for that logical possibility?
That is a fantastical situation that likely wouldn't happen. Heres why:
1) How does this person gain ownership? He can't homestead all of it, so his only choice is to purchase it. As the supply of real estate for sale drops, the cost increases for a given demand, so as long as people were demanding real estate, the cost would rise high enough to make such a plan for world domination impossible. You can see examples of this happening when people in a neighborhood get word that a large corporation is trying to buy up all of the properties in the area.
2) Lets say that a person was wealthy enough to be able to purchase all of the earth on the planet. Do you really think anyone would sell to him without contractual protection for themselves and all of their descendents?
So you acknowledge that it's a possibility, regardless of how likely you think it is.
Yeah, it is likely like an army of aliens from planet Pop-Tart invading Poland in in search of an award winning cheese helmet.
He gave you the boundaries that would have to be overcome for such an event to happen. Do you think it is likely they could be overcome? Do you think that everyone, everywhere in the world would voluntarily choose slavery, including yourself?
Is it relevant what I think is likely?
Is it relevant what you think is likely?
Just because you believe some boundaries cannot be overcome, does that mean they cannot?
Yeah, I'd say it is relevant. How else can progress be made if action can't be taken based on highly unlikely scenarios?
Police are also just people with guns. A forced collection of money is not required for their existence.
Harrison County Deputy Sheriffs Association
We are a non profit organization that is entirely funded by donations from local businesses and citizens of Harrison County...
The donations that we receive are used to maintain the organization in as much as paying bills and maintaining our firing range which we allow other local Law Enforcement to train on as well as the citizens of Harrison County. But that is just a small part of it. The rest of the donations that we receive are used to help the children of Harrison County as well as those in need. The Harrison County Deputy Sheriff’s Association provides funds to local youth sports teams, local schools, and other local youth organizations such as the Civil Air Patrol. We also provide funds to those who suddenly find themselves in need. We donate money to those who have suffered a sudden tragedy such as a fire or serious medical emergency.
I'm not from West Virginia, but I assume they also have state and other types of police. The people also of course pay a variety of other taxes. Despite this, at least one Sheriff's
unit is able to operate entirely on donations, and even have money left over to spread to other causes.
Pinkerton National Detective Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At its height, the Pinkerton National Detective Agency employed more agents than there were members of the standing army of the United States of America... Pinkerton was the largest private law enforcement organization in the world at the height of its power.