Total Posts:94|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fixing politics.

regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 12:43:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
1. People tend to do what they are good at, because it worked before.

2. The politicians in power are good at getting power, obviously.

3. Therefore politicians have a tendency to try to get more power.

4. Which results in removing power from the people to the politicians.

I'm interested in ideas of preventing this process from happening. Preferably reversing it, as politicians have too much power in most countries.

Bwainstohm!
So prove me wrong, then.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 2:05:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 12:43:16 AM, regebro wrote:
1. People tend to do what they are good at, because it worked before.

2. The politicians in power are good at getting power, obviously.

3. Therefore politicians have a tendency to try to get more power.

4. Which results in removing power from the people to the politicians.


I'm interested in ideas of preventing this process from happening. Preferably reversing it, as politicians have too much power in most countries.

Bwainstohm!

If I am understanding you correctly (If I was expressing the idea I think you are referring to, I would use different phrasing) , none of your steps 1-4 are fallacious. They are all valid logical deductions.

How is it possible to prevent politicians from getting too much power in countries? Well, it's not something you can achieve in your lifetime, but you get rid of the system that empowers the politicians.

You get rid of the state.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 2:33:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 2:05:58 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
You get rid of the state.

Well, it's an interesting idea, but I fear it will only make the problem worse. Because there will still be people that are good at getting power. They will just use force to get it instead.

A situation without a state has existed everywhere, in some places many times. But in the end, in each place, what has risen out of that is some sort of kingdom. The reason why statelessness doesn't work are long and complex and may be a good topic for debate, in fact. But for this topic I'll stop at noting that although it works in practice, it assumes that nobody uses force to recreate a state. And since sooner or later somebody will do that, it doesn't work in practice.
So prove me wrong, then.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 2:47:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 2:05:58 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/2/2009 12:43:16 AM, regebro wrote:
1. People tend to do what they are good at, because it worked before.

2. The politicians in power are good at getting power, obviously.

3. Therefore politicians have a tendency to try to get more power.

4. Which results in removing power from the people to the politicians.

none of your steps 1-4 are fallacious. They are all valid logical deductions.

Conclusion 1 (3) non sequitur (more is not in either premise) Premise 1,2 fail; some P are Q(1) if Q therefore P (2), plus appears to be a quaternio terminorum fallacy when you add (4) which also non sequiturs.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 5:12:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 2:47:50 AM, Puck wrote:
At 8/2/2009 2:05:58 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/2/2009 12:43:16 AM, regebro wrote:
1. People tend to do what they are good at, because it worked before.

2. The politicians in power are good at getting power, obviously.

3. Therefore politicians have a tendency to try to get more power.

4. Which results in removing power from the people to the politicians.

none of your steps 1-4 are fallacious. They are all valid logical deductions.

Conclusion 1 (3) non sequitur (more is not in either premise)

Yes it is, even if the word is not there. People who are goot at making money, will make money. That implies more money. People who are good at making cars, will make cars. *more* cars. Getting power, means getting more power. Otherwise the word is *keeping* power.

All of this is in any case irrelevant, because I do not assume the steps and draw the conclusion. Rather the steps are an explanation of what is evident for anybody that is interested in politics: That politicians have a tendency to try to grab power away from the people.
So prove me wrong, then.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 6:24:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
There is nothing necessarily wrong with the system when politicians are getting power. That is the entire point of politicians even being politicians - to have power, because without power, they can't do their job.

A wise man named Bob Rae once said that you need to want two things to enter politics - power and service. You need to want power to propel your ambitions; you need to want to serve the people you represent to create those ambitions. So clearly, politicians gaining power is not always something that needs to be "fixed."

Now, that doesn't necessarily always happen with politicians, as some only come to get power, and they're good at it. But the majority of politicians, at least in my mind, follow that idea.

The problem arises with the system when those politicians that just want power keep getting re-elected because their constituents don't care enough to become active in stopping them. That is the real problem with politics - the lack of attention and activism in the system by the people that enable the system. If you saw more people becoming active in politics (I don't just mean more voter turnout either), then you would see a lot of this power being brought back under the control of politicians that want power because they want to serve - not politicians that want power for themselves only.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 8:12:06 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 5:12:46 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/2/2009 2:47:50 AM, Puck wrote:
At 8/2/2009 2:05:58 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/2/2009 12:43:16 AM, regebro wrote:
1. People tend to do what they are good at, because it worked before.

2. The politicians in power are good at getting power, obviously.

3. Therefore politicians have a tendency to try to get more power.

4. Which results in removing power from the people to the politicians.

none of your steps 1-4 are fallacious. They are all valid logical deductions.

Conclusion 1 (3) non sequitur (more is not in either premise)

Yes it is, even if the word is not there

Nope you used the term 'politician' meaning in your premises power is already held - which doesn't preclude 'keeping' i.e. 'get' does not indicate a preference for continuous advance - if I have money for a new car it does not follow I will always upgrade to a new model.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 8:14:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 5:12:46 AM, regebro wrote:

All of this is in any case irrelevant, because I do not assume the steps and draw the conclusion. Rather the steps are an explanation of what is evident for anybody that is interested in politics: That politicians have a tendency to try to grab power away from the people.

In a democracy politicians are voted in on behalf of voters, with their votes - which is their singular sole power outside of being a politician - the only way to take away this power would be to inhibit voting, forming a party, running for an election etc. How exactly are they taking away relevant power?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 9:16:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
There is no such thing as "the people" anyway. The whole point of politicians is to have power. Either you approve of a specific politician having power or you don't, but your only alternative is some other politician.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 9:18:11 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 6:24:59 AM, Volkov wrote:
There is nothing necessarily wrong with the system when politicians are getting power. That is the entire point of politicians even being politicians - to have power, because without power, they can't do their job.

A wise man named Bob Rae once said that you need to want two things to enter politics - power and service. You need to want power to propel your ambitions; you need to want to serve the people you represent to create those ambitions. So clearly, politicians gaining power is not always something that needs to be "fixed."

I don't agree. More power to politicians mean more centralisation, and that doesn't work. Politicians to not know better than you how to run your life, so you should always have as much power over yourself as possible.

Of course it's possible to have situations where politicians have to little power. This is typically the case in failed states. But in almost all other situations, politicians have too much power.

The problem arises with the system when those politicians that just want power keep getting re-elected because their constituents don't care enough to become active in stopping them. That is the real problem with politics - the lack of attention and activism in the system by the people that enable the system. If you saw more people becoming active in politics (I don't just mean more voter turnout either), then you would see a lot of this power being brought back under the control of politicians that want power because they want to serve - not politicians that want power for themselves only.

That's possible. Any ideas of how to make that happen?
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 9:19:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 8:12:06 AM, Puck wrote:
At 8/2/2009 5:12:46 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/2/2009 2:47:50 AM, Puck wrote:
At 8/2/2009 2:05:58 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/2/2009 12:43:16 AM, regebro wrote:
1. People tend to do what they are good at, because it worked before.

2. The politicians in power are good at getting power, obviously.

3. Therefore politicians have a tendency to try to get more power.

4. Which results in removing power from the people to the politicians.

none of your steps 1-4 are fallacious. They are all valid logical deductions.

Conclusion 1 (3) non sequitur (more is not in either premise)

Yes it is, even if the word is not there

Nope you used the term 'politician' meaning in your premises power is already held - which doesn't preclude 'keeping' i.e. 'get' does not indicate a preference for continuous advance - if I have money for a new car it does not follow I will always upgrade to a new model.

Can you explain what in my explanation was unclear? I must have been, since you ignore all of it.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 9:21:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 9:16:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no such thing as "the people" anyway. The whole point of politicians is to have power. Either you approve of a specific politician having power or you don't, but your only alternative is some other politician.

So in your view there is no difference between, say, a libertarian night watchmen state and Stalinist Russia? Because in both cases there are politicians? You don't recognize that one is preferable to the other, because the politicians has less power in one case?

And if the people doesn't exist, then what are you if you aren't a person, and hence a part of the people? Am I the only one that exists?
So prove me wrong, then.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 9:26:13 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
The answer is that we make a strict constitution to limit the power and potential of government. Pure democracy needs serious checks, as it tends towards socialism and tyranny. So, a Constitution needs to be asserted to limit and prevent tyranny.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 9:30:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 9:21:52 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/2/2009 9:16:52 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
There is no such thing as "the people" anyway. The whole point of politicians is to have power. Either you approve of a specific politician having power or you don't, but your only alternative is some other politician.

So in your view there is no difference between, say, a libertarian night watchmen state and Stalinist Russia?
Incorrect. My point was that you don't reduce the total power held by the class "politician" by shifting from either to either. It takes just as much power to maintain freedom as it does to destroy it, and therefore it is inappropriate to speak of "preventing the process of politicians acquiring power". It is inappropriate to conclude from the fact that the means are comparable that the ends are comparable.


And if the people doesn't exist, then what are you if you aren't a person, and hence a part of the people?
I am an individual human, and hence NOT a part of any entity called "the people." The same with you I assume, unless there is a hive mind I am unaware of.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 9:34:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 2:33:48 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/2/2009 2:05:58 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
You get rid of the state.

Well, it's an interesting idea, but I fear it will only make the problem worse. Because there will still be people that are good at getting power. They will just use force to get it instead.

You amuse me. That's what happens right now.
The state IS force. The state IS violence.

The argument that in an anarchy people will use force to get power is non-unique, as every politician today requires the existence of a system that uses force against every single member of the population. It takes quite a bit of money to run such a massive violent system like this, and EVEN IF people in an anarchy are somehow able to amass an army to try and take over, I'll guarantee you, it won't target as many people as the state - which then means it's not as violent, which then means it's preferable.

A situation without a state has existed everywhere, in some places many times. But in the end, in each place, what has risen out of that is some sort of kingdom. The reason why statelessness doesn't work are long and complex and may be a good topic for debate, in fact. But for this topic I'll stop at noting that although it works in practice, it assumes that nobody uses force to recreate a state. And since sooner or later somebody will do that, it doesn't work in practice.

Heh. Well. Arguing for anarchy takes a bit of work so we can do that another time (in a debate or pm perhaps), but I can assure you it's not that easy to take over a free market anarchy.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 9:45:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You don't need an army in anarchy. You just need a little gang to govern your neighborhood, and then your neighborhood isn't anarchist anymore.

If you have an army, the nation isn't anarchist anymore.

The only means for killing governments is a means otherwise known as being the new government. Even if the only law is "No one but me can be a government." Which certainly isn't preferable to that plus "We also offer the service of getting murderers and thieves off your *** and enforcing contracts."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 9:46:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 9:26:13 AM, wjmelements wrote:
The answer is that we make a strict constitution to limit the power and potential of government. Pure democracy needs serious checks, as it tends towards socialism and tyranny. So, a Constitution needs to be asserted to limit and prevent tyranny.

I think that's a good start at least. But even in the US, with a reasonably strict constitution, the power grabbing is an ongoing problem.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 9:51:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 9:30:39 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Incorrect. My point was that you don't reduce the total power held by the class "politician" by shifting from either to either.

Now you claimed that politicians have the same amount of power in Stalinist Russia as in a night watchmen society. Do you not realize how absolutely absurd that claim is?

It takes just as much power to maintain freedom as it does to destroy it,

A sentence that neither means anythong nor has anything to do with the question. This is about how much power politicians can wield, not how much it takes to maintain or destroy freedom.

and therefore it is inappropriate to speak of "preventing the process of politicians acquiring power".

Non sequitor.

And if the people doesn't exist, then what are you if you aren't a person, and hence a part of the people?

I am an individual human, and hence NOT a part of any entity called "the people."

Yes you are. Just as you are a part of the entity called "human beings" and the entity "all people located in city <wherever you are>", and I'm a part of the entity "people who are currently wearing jeans".

The same with you I assume, unless there is a hive mind I am unaware of.

Now you are just ridicolous.
So prove me wrong, then.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 9:53:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 9:45:37 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You don't need an army in anarchy. You just need a little gang to govern your neighborhood, and then your neighborhood isn't anarchist anymore.

And that won't happen, for the exact same reason an army won't happen.

The only means for killing governments is a means otherwise known as being the new government.

I think you'll learn that there's actually at least one other method if you look at history. Specifically, how the Roman empire fell, how Al-Qaeda fought the USSR in the 1980's, and how Al-Qaeda is fighting the USA right now...
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 9:55:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 9:34:51 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/2/2009 2:33:48 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/2/2009 2:05:58 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
You get rid of the state.

Well, it's an interesting idea, but I fear it will only make the problem worse. Because there will still be people that are good at getting power. They will just use force to get it instead.

You amuse me. That's what happens right now.
The state IS force. The state IS violence.

No, it's the MONOPOLY of violence. Big difference. But, if you don't agree, why don't you move to Somalia? There is no functioning government there. Go ahead.

No? Then you prefer to live where you have a state.
But... this is all moot and off topic.

Heh. Well. Arguing for anarchy takes a bit of work

Heh, yeah, that's an understatement.

Anyway, Ragnar_Rahl explained it pretty neatly above.
So prove me wrong, then.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 9:56:17 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 9:53:47 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
And that won't happen, for the exact same reason an army won't happen.

That's exactly what happens every time. This is not theory, you know.
Anyway, stop this. Start your own thread. :-)
So prove me wrong, then.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 10:00:45 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 9:51:48 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/2/2009 9:30:39 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Incorrect. My point was that you don't reduce the total power held by the class "politician" by shifting from either to either.

Now you claimed that politicians have the same amount of power in Stalinist Russia as in a night watchmen society. Do you not realize how absolutely absurd that claim is?

Actually, I don't. I'd like an explanation as to how they are different.

And if the people doesn't exist, then what are you if you aren't a person, and hence a part of the people?

I am an individual human, and hence NOT a part of any entity called "the people."

Yes you are. Just as you are a part of the entity called "human beings" and the entity "all people located in city <wherever you are>", and I'm a part of the entity "people who are currently wearing jeans".

"people who are currently wearing jeans" is not an entity. It is an aggregate. Aggregates are concepts, and concepts do not exist. To be sure, everything is an aggregate (of atoms), but we don't deal in those terms - we deal in terms of singular visibly physical entities. In this sense, one person is not an aggregate. However, a group of people IS an aggregate. A "person" does exist. A "group of people" do not exist.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 10:00:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 9:51:48 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/2/2009 9:30:39 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Incorrect. My point was that you don't reduce the total power held by the class "politician" by shifting from either to either.

Now you claimed that politicians have the same amount of power in Stalinist Russia as in a night watchmen society. Do you not realize how absolutely absurd that claim is?
Just because you don't ACTUALLY go around stealing doesn't mean you don't have the power to do so. and it takes the power to do so to keep away the Stalinists.


It takes just as much power to maintain freedom as it does to destroy it,

A sentence that neither means anythong nor has anything to do with the question. This is about how much power politicians can wield, not how much it takes to maintain or destroy freedom.
Whose job is it to maintain freedom? The politician in the night watchman society. I'd say how much power he gets is very relevant to how much it takes to maintain freedom.


And if the people doesn't exist, then what are you if you aren't a person, and hence a part of the people?

I am an individual human, and hence NOT a part of any entity called "the people."

Yes you are. Just as you are a part of the entity called "human beings"
and the entity "all people located in city <wherever you are>", and I'm a part of the entity "people who are currently wearing jeans".
You seem to be confusing the terms "Entity" and "Group."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 10:05:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 9:55:17 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/2/2009 9:34:51 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 8/2/2009 2:33:48 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/2/2009 2:05:58 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
You get rid of the state.

Well, it's an interesting idea, but I fear it will only make the problem worse. Because there will still be people that are good at getting power. They will just use force to get it instead.

You amuse me. That's what happens right now.
The state IS force. The state IS violence.

No, it's the MONOPOLY of violence. Big difference. But, if you don't agree, why don't you move to Somalia? There is no functioning government there. Go ahead.

A monopoly of violence is not any better than any individual act of violence. Yes, I don't agree. But why should I have to move over there?

No? Then you prefer to live where you have a state.

If the only thing that was different between Somalia and the US was that the US has a government, then hell mother f*cking yeah, I'll move to Somalia! Obviously, this is not the case. Which also means your argument holds no water at all.

Heh. Well. Arguing for anarchy takes a bit of work

Heh, yeah, that's an understatement.

Anyway, Ragnar_Rahl explained it pretty neatly above.

Yeah, I agree. It's an understatement. One of the most intricate concepts I've ever learned in my life.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 10:09:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 10:00:45 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Now you claimed that politicians have the same amount of power in Stalinist Russia as in a night watchmen society. Do you not realize how absolutely absurd that claim is?

Actually, I don't. I'd like an explanation as to how they are different.

Stalinist Russia: The state is all powerful. The top level of politicians can get people arrested and murdered or sent to Siberia with just a word. Policitiancs decide who manufactures what and in which quantity. They decide to exterminate millions of people by starvation.

In a nigh watchmen society, politicians have virtually no power.

In what way do you NOT see the difference?

"people who are currently wearing jeans" is not an entity. It is an aggregate.

It was not me who used and chose the word "entity" to describe "The People". To me it's obvious from the start the "The people" doesn't have one consciousness, but is made up of individuals.

Everything else would be crazy.
So prove me wrong, then.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 10:11:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 9:56:17 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/2/2009 9:53:47 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
And that won't happen, for the exact same reason an army won't happen.

That's exactly what happens every time. This is not theory, you know.
"An anarchy will be taken over by someone using force". This is one of the most common rebuttals against anarchy. It's not exactly original. To act as if I haven't thought of that question already is more or less telling me I'm completely retarded and oblivious to what the situation really is - which is fine, if I really am wrong. I'll be glad to see your theory and how it's logically impossible that a free market anarchy can exist.

But telling me that it's "not theory" and that it's just self-evident is more or less telling me that I should just take it and shut up with no questions.

Which is fine, of course. It's your thread; all the power to you.

But it gives me a sense of the person you are.
And why you'd like a government.

Anyway, stop this. Start your own thread. :-)
You ask a question, I answer. You tell me I'm wrong, I tell you I'm not. I tell you I can show you the links, you tell me to shut up? Well that's your choice... but don't think for a moment that means that everything I have to say is suddenly invalidated.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 10:13:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 10:09:20 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/2/2009 10:00:45 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Now you claimed that politicians have the same amount of power in Stalinist Russia as in a night watchmen society. Do you not realize how absolutely absurd that claim is?

Actually, I don't. I'd like an explanation as to how they are different.

Stalinist Russia: The state is all powerful. The top level of politicians can get people arrested and murdered or sent to Siberia with just a word. Policitiancs decide who manufactures what and in which quantity. They decide to exterminate millions of people by starvation.

In a nigh watchmen society, politicians have virtually no power.
By that argument Stalinism is inevitable, since the Stalinist politicians have so much power and can simply squash the watchmen politicians.

Fortunately this isn't the case, since the watchmen politicians don't have less power simply because they don't use it in the same ways.


It was not me who used and chose the word "entity" to describe "The People". To me it's obvious from the start the "The people" doesn't have one consciousness, but is made up of individuals.
By stating you wish to "give power back to the people," you implied it was an entity, since groupings of things that differ in their desires are not capable of collectively exercising power.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 10:16:31 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 10:09:20 AM, regebro wrote:
At 8/2/2009 10:00:45 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Now you claimed that politicians have the same amount of power in Stalinist Russia as in a night watchmen society. Do you not realize how absolutely absurd that claim is?

Actually, I don't. I'd like an explanation as to how they are different.

Stalinist Russia: The state is all powerful. The top level of politicians can get people arrested and murdered or sent to Siberia with just a word. Policitiancs decide who manufactures what and in which quantity. They decide to exterminate millions of people by starvation.

In a nigh watchmen society, politicians have virtually no power.

Hum dum dum. Politicians decide who manufature what and in which quality, and they decide to exterminate millions of people by starvation. But they have no power... Nope, I do not understand.

In what way do you NOT see the difference?

They are granted the legal initiation of use of force.


"people who are currently wearing jeans" is not an entity. It is an aggregate.

It was not me who used and chose the word "entity" to describe "The People". To me it's obvious from the start the "The people" doesn't have one consciousness, but is made up of individuals.

Everything else would be crazy.

"The people" exists like "religion" or "forest" exists. They're all groups of things - a religion is the book the believers and the buildings, a forest is the tress the animals and the mushrooms. They're not entities. They're aggregates.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 10:19:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 10:16:31 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Hum dum dum. Politicians decide who manufature what and in which quality, and they decide to exterminate millions of people by starvation. But they have no power... Nope, I do not understand.

Scratch this. I misread.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 10:37:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
They are granted the legal initiation of use of force.
In what way does the government I advocate INITIATE that?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.