Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How Government Betrays Itself

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 7:56:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I feel like government, by relying on the use or threat of force/violence to enforce its legislation, is making an admission that if everyone could really choose, we would not adhere to its legislation. If what the state offers is necessary or beneficial, would it really have to point a gun at everyone's head to get us to do it? Why wouldn't we be able to figure out that beneficial thing without the state? It's not like just because government has the guns and the power, their ideas are going to be magically more beneficial; they just have superior means of enforcing them.

Elected officials in government are good at being elected and having no integrity, but they're not necessarily more intelligent, so if anything we should expect their recommendations - or should I say threats - to be worse. We should naturally assume that government will ultimately be accountable to the financial institutions/lobbyists that buy it off, but not to 99% of citizens who haven't. As Frederic Bastiat said, "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe themselves to be made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"

Government betrays itself by its use/threat of violence to accomplish its goals.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nothing against you personally Jat, but this is the reason why sometimes I really hate Libertarians.

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community, they must stop those few people from creating disorder and going scott free. The reality is that it is impossible for a Democratic government to point the gun at the whole populace, because the government IS the populace.

To your 2nd paragraph, I think it's really insulting to say that politicians have no integrity. It seems like people who are either famous or in power are some how dehumanized on an unrealistic level. I have aspirations of running for something, and I wouldn't want someone actually believing that I have no integrity just for aspiring to that goal or for being in a difficult position to make decisions that won't be universally palatable.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 8:51:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
Nothing against you personally Jat, but this is the reason why sometimes I really hate Libertarians.

No offense taken, but it's sily to "really hate" people because they have a political view which differs from yours.

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community, they must stop those few people from creating disorder and going scott free.

Well, without government, would most people still contribute solid chunks of their income to fund the kinds of programs that the government currently funds, in the way they fund them? I didn't claim that most people would start murdering others when it's convenient if there were no laws against it. I would say though that most people would not continue to voluntarily fund the military industrial complex or the police/prison state. Most people would not fund the War on Drugs in its current form. Most people would not fund the Patriot Act. Most people would not fund the NDAA. Etc.

If government programs/legislation would be funded voluntarily in the absence of government, those programs are unnecessary, and similar programs could be funded more efficiently without the government. If government programs would not be funded voluntarily in the absence of government, government is tyrannical, because it is forcing us to pay substantial amounts of our incomes for things which we have no choice in paying for, i.e. suppression of our very own civil liberties and terrorizing/murdering countless innocents abroad.

The reality is that it is impossible for a Democratic government to point the gun at the whole populace, because the government IS the populace.

The government is only the populace if the populace literally controls the legislation. America for example is not a democracy, it is a republic with elected officials supposedly representing the people. Elected officials tend not to represent the genuine will of "the people" so much as they do the campaign financier and the lobbyist.

To your 2nd paragraph, I think it's really insulting to say that politicians have no integrity. It seems like people who are either famous or in power are some how dehumanized on an unrealistic level. I have aspirations of running for something, and I wouldn't want someone actually believing that I have no integrity just for aspiring to that goal or for being in a difficult position to make decisions that won't be universally palatable.

Sorry I hit a soft spot, I obviously did not mean to insult you. However the vast majority of politicians lack integrity. In order to get elected, you have to be a sell out. Take you, an advocate of atheism. There are probably more irreligious people in Congress than it seems, or at least people who are way less religious than they pretend to be, but it would be extremely risky to their political careers to admit to being an atheist/agnostic/irreligious or less religious than they pretend. If they were advocating it then you can forget about them, they will never be elected in America again. My point is that most people tend to be stupid, so if you're intelligent and going to get their votes, you usually have to shut up about some of your core beliefs or water them down.

This is in addition to the fact that lobbyists and financial interests simply purchase the votes of the legislators. Money in exchange for a vote. It is remarkable when a politician like Ron Paul has an anti-lobbyist stance and does not sell out like that. Why is it remarkable and noteworthy? Because there are so few politicians who have that characteristic, because most of them would sell out - to the extent they can without risking re-election.

Even for those legislators that sell out, which is many of them, they have to also toe the party line if they want to stay in the party and not have the party screw them over and work against them. So in the case of most politicians, you have to follow the will of your party on most issues, whether or not you agree with it.

So between a politician prostituting himself to the electorate, to lobbyists, and to his party, he almost definitely can't get elected and stay in office without totally selling out and mostly ignoring the average citizen he represents.
imabench
Posts: 21,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 9:00:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The way government works is that people allow the government to enforce rules and use force against those who violate them in exchange for social order. You can say that if people just all stop obeying at the same time government will go away or whatever, but a large amount of people (me and most average adults) are fine with the government using force against rule breakers. Even though all people can stop following the laws, a large majority of people like the amount of social order we have right now and thus wont protest if someone tells them too.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 9:42:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 9:00:08 PM, imabench wrote:
The way government works is that people allow the government to enforce rules and use force against those who violate them in exchange for social order.

Presupposing that social order requires institutionalized coercion. Reasoning for this?

You can say that if people just all stop obeying at the same time government will go away or whatever, but a large amount of people (me and most average adults) are fine with the government using force against rule breakers.

That's not all it does. The State is founded on institutionalized coercion so it doesn't just use force against bad people. It uses force against every single member of its supposed sovereignty.

Moreover, a large portion of the things States punish people for aren't theft and assault. There's prosecution for violation of various laws and regulations against non-aggressive activities such as drug use, ignorance of various regulatory measures, withholding tax payment, etc. So claim if you will that you're fine with someone to punish the bad guys. But even then its a far leap to justifying the overwhelming majority of State actions.

Lastly, no one cares what you or people like you support. The whole point of anarchism is that if you consent to such a flawed social order, that's your business. But just because your own judgement is flawed doesn't give you the right to force its consequences on the dissenting populace.

Even though all people can stop following the laws, a large majority of people like the amount of social order we have right now and thus wont protest if someone tells them too.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

If you simply mean tacit consent (which you probably do), you're still wrong. First, it conflicts with the contractual grounding of the State you've employed in the past. Some dudes signed the Constitution that binds everyone in the U.S. forever, etc. is how I seem to remember it. Contractually speaking, just not saying no doesn't mean sh1t. I don't go up to someone and say "if you want me to fvc your wife don't say anything!".

On top of that, just a majority of people consenting to something obviously doesn't make it justified or beneficial in a utilitarian sense. I've seen you say the same thing before. Just because seven out of ten people think it would be better if the sky was orange doesn't make it so. Furthermore, just because seven out of ten people think we should steal from everyone in the community doesn't justify it.

they must stop those few people from creating disorder and going scott free.

Presupposing a monocentric legal system is the only possible way to maintain social order.

The reality is that it is impossible for a Democratic government to point the gun at the whole populace, because the government IS the populace.

Ah yes the "we are the people" ploy. First, there is no genuinely democratic government. Everything going by the name is usually some form of republican democracy. Furthermore, your claim ignores collective irrationality. The U.S. government has adopted a policy of warrantless wiretapping on its citizens, assassinating citizens abroad, throwing drug users in cages, etc. On the top of that the entire foundation of the State is to extract wealth under the threat of violence. Yet there's no sign of public support for the existence of the State per se to be diminishing.

It's because people keep claiming we would all be eating each other if there was no State that no one notices the gun in the middle of the room.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 9:56:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

Rarely will you find an example of 000ike contradicting moral nihilism, but good find socialpinko :p.

I think 000ike gave up moral nihilism though.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 9:57:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 9:42:47 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:00:08 PM, imabench wrote:
The way government works is that people allow the government to enforce rules and use force against those who violate them in exchange for social order.

Presupposing that social order requires institutionalized coercion. Reasoning for this?

You can say that if people just all stop obeying at the same time government will go away or whatever, but a large amount of people (me and most average adults) are fine with the government using force against rule breakers.

That's not all it does. The State is founded on institutionalized coercion so it doesn't just use force against bad people. It uses force against every single member of its supposed sovereignty.

It's not force if is something that you want.


Moreover, a large portion of the things States punish people for aren't theft and assault. There's prosecution for violation of various laws and regulations against non-aggressive activities such as drug use, ignorance of various regulatory measures, withholding tax payment, etc. So claim if you will that you're fine with someone to punish the bad guys. But even then its a far leap to justifying the overwhelming majority of State actions.

Depends on your definition of "bad guys," doesn't it?


Lastly, no one cares what you or people like you support.

False, believe it or not, a lot of people care about what every day people believe and support.

The whole point of anarchism is that if you consent to such a flawed social order, that's your business. But just because your own judgement is flawed doesn't give you the right to force its consequences on the dissenting populace.

Well, if we lived under anarchism, that might then apply. But you can leave the "flawed social order" if you like, and find any other that you prefer. You have a "free market" of choices out there.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 9:59:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 9:56:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

Rarely will you find an example of 000ike contradicting moral nihilism, but good find socialpinko :p.

I think 000ike gave up moral nihilism though.

Is it really that rare? I seem to find anything he posts in the politics section as littered with the scent of social contract theory or utilitarianism.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:00:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 9:59:33 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:56:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

Rarely will you find an example of 000ike contradicting moral nihilism, but good find socialpinko :p.

I think 000ike gave up moral nihilism though.

Is it really that rare? I seem to find anything he posts in the politics section as littered with the scent of social contract theory or utilitarianism.

sorry, i forgot to add the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] to make my message clear.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:02:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:00:48 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:59:33 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:56:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

Rarely will you find an example of 000ike contradicting moral nihilism, but good find socialpinko :p.

I think 000ike gave up moral nihilism though.

Is it really that rare? I seem to find anything he posts in the politics section as littered with the scent of social contract theory or utilitarianism.

sorry, i forgot to add the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] to make my message clear.

No, its quite common to find 000ike ignore moral nihilism. I'm curious how often you can find myself contradicting moral nihilism. I'm sure I do it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:02:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 9:56:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

Rarely will you find an example of 000ike contradicting moral nihilism, but good find socialpinko :p.

I think 000ike gave up moral nihilism though.

That is still pending the assumption that he is referring to "right" not "power," even though it makes the most sense with "power."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:03:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 9:57:57 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:42:47 PM, socialpinko wrote:

That's not all it does. The State is founded on institutionalized coercion so it doesn't just use force against bad people. It uses force against every single member of its supposed sovereignty.

It's not force if is something that you want.

You want a candy bar. I have a candy bar. I take your wallet and leave you the candy bar. It isn't theft because you wanted the candy bar right?


Moreover, a large portion of the things States punish people for aren't theft and assault. There's prosecution for violation of various laws and regulations against non-aggressive activities such as drug use, ignorance of various regulatory measures, withholding tax payment, etc. So claim if you will that you're fine with someone to punish the bad guys. But even then its a far leap to justifying the overwhelming majority of State actions.

Depends on your definition of "bad guys," doesn't it?

I suppose. I meant bad guys in the sense of murderers and thieves i.e., people who by the very nature of their actions disrupt social order.


Lastly, no one cares what you or people like you support.

False, believe it or not, a lot of people care about what every day people believe and support.

K.

The whole point of anarchism is that if you consent to such a flawed social order, that's your business. But just because your own judgement is flawed doesn't give you the right to force its consequences on the dissenting populace.

Well, if we lived under anarchism, that might then apply. But you can leave the "flawed social order" if you like, and find any other that you prefer. You have a "free market" of choices out there.

That's my point. The statist argument is "I can't think of how it could work otherwise, therefore we'll all do it my way". The anarchist reply is "Do what you want, don't drag everyone else down with you."
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:03:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 9:59:33 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:56:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

Rarely will you find an example of 000ike contradicting moral nihilism, but good find socialpinko :p.

I think 000ike gave up moral nihilism though.

Is it really that rare? I seem to find anything he posts in the politics section as littered with the scent of social contract theory or utilitarianism.

subjective morality. That's all. I don't why that's so hard for people to swallow
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:03:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

If you simply mean tacit consent (which you probably do), you're still wrong. First, it conflicts with the contractual grounding of the State you've employed in the past. Some dudes signed the Constitution that binds everyone in the U.S. forever, etc. is how I seem to remember it. Contractually speaking, just not saying no doesn't mean sh1t. I don't go up to someone and say "if you want me to fvc your wife don't say anything!".

On top of that, just a majority of people consenting to something obviously doesn't make it justified or beneficial in a utilitarian sense. I've seen you say the same thing before. Just because seven out of ten people think it would be better if the sky was orange doesn't make it so. Furthermore, just because seven out of ten people think we should steal from everyone in the community doesn't justify it.

they must stop those few people from creating disorder and going scott free.

Presupposing a monocentric legal system is the only possible way to maintain social order.

The reality is that it is impossible for a Democratic government to point the gun at the whole populace, because the government IS the populace.

Ah yes the "we are the people" ploy. First, there is no genuinely democratic government. Everything going by the name is usually some form of republican democracy. Furthermore, your claim ignores collective irrationality. The U.S. government has adopted a policy of warrantless wiretapping on its citizens, assassinating citizens abroad, throwing drug users in cages, etc. On the top of that the entire foundation of the State is to extract wealth under the threat of violence. Yet there's no sign of public support for the existence of the State per se to be diminishing.

It's because people keep claiming we would all be eating each other if there was no State that no one notices the gun in the middle of the room.

Don't have time or feel like responding to your arguments that I've heard before, and don't have any more potency the umpteenth time. ....so I'll just say this. Your assassination ploy is a gross mischaracterization (like the majority of your views), and all wiretaps required a warrant under the Obama administration. The law enforcement is comprised of fellow citizens who are, ultimately, enforcing the law by their own accord...The power is purely in the arms of the people...WE who created the government in the first place.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:04:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:02:40 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:56:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

Rarely will you find an example of 000ike contradicting moral nihilism, but good find socialpinko :p.

I think 000ike gave up moral nihilism though.

That is still pending the assumption that he is referring to "right" not "power," even though it makes the most sense with "power."

He made sure to point out that the "power" of the government is something entrusted to it by then community. If he meant power in a dominative sense there would be no need for recourse to majoritarianism.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:05:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:02:40 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:56:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

Rarely will you find an example of 000ike contradicting moral nihilism, but good find socialpinko :p.

I think 000ike gave up moral nihilism though.

That is still pending the assumption that he is referring to "right" not "power," even though it makes the most sense with "power."

why does it make sense with "power". "virtue of power" is pretty morally loaded.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:09:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:03:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:59:33 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:56:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

Rarely will you find an example of 000ike contradicting moral nihilism, but good find socialpinko :p.

I think 000ike gave up moral nihilism though.

Is it really that rare? I seem to find anything he posts in the politics section as littered with the scent of social contract theory or utilitarianism.

subjective morality. That's all. I don't why that's so hard for people to swallow

a) You've described yourself as a moral nihilist before
b) the argument for subjective moralism seems like a massive appeal to authority combined with the is-ought problem. If I stand corrected, it states that If society agrees that "X" is good or bad then society should do "X"? Correct. It also doesn't explain why your moral code is superior, even though others in society have different moral codes.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:09:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:03:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:57:57 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:42:47 PM, socialpinko wrote:

That's not all it does. The State is founded on institutionalized coercion so it doesn't just use force against bad people. It uses force against every single member of its supposed sovereignty.

It's not force if is something that you want.

You want a candy bar. I have a candy bar. I take your wallet and leave you the candy bar. It isn't theft because you wanted the candy bar right?

If I'm willing to pay for it, it isn't theft for you to get the money out of my wallet. Just like how many places will swipe your debit card for you. They are not stealing your money.



Moreover, a large portion of the things States punish people for aren't theft and assault. There's prosecution for violation of various laws and regulations against non-aggressive activities such as drug use, ignorance of various regulatory measures, withholding tax payment, etc. So claim if you will that you're fine with someone to punish the bad guys. But even then its a far leap to justifying the overwhelming majority of State actions.

Depends on your definition of "bad guys," doesn't it?

I suppose. I meant bad guys in the sense of murderers and thieves i.e., people who by the very nature of their actions disrupt social order.


Lastly, no one cares what you or people like you support.

False, believe it or not, a lot of people care about what every day people believe and support.

K.

The whole point of anarchism is that if you consent to such a flawed social order, that's your business. But just because your own judgement is flawed doesn't give you the right to force its consequences on the dissenting populace.

Well, if we lived under anarchism, that might then apply. But you can leave the "flawed social order" if you like, and find any other that you prefer. You have a "free market" of choices out there.

That's my point. The statist argument is "I can't think of how it could work otherwise, therefore we'll all do it my way". The anarchist reply is "Do what you want, don't drag everyone else down with you."

And that is what it is, if you don't want to "be dragged down" with the US, then don't stay in the US. It's like being on a train and complaining that the train isn't going where you want to go.

What you have to remember, is that even if you own the title to a piece of land, you do not own the sovereignty of that land, that is still held by the government. Since they own that, they make the rules for it.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:10:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:03:32 PM, 000ike wrote:

Don't have time or feel like responding to your arguments that I've heard before, and don't have any more potency the umpteenth time. ....so I'll just say this. Your assassination ploy is a gross mischaracterization (like the majority of your views),

Good thing that wasn't simply conjecture or I'd simply be able to dismiss it out of hand...

and all wiretaps required a warrant under the Obama administration.

And signing the extension of the Patriot Act was just for the lolz right?

The law enforcement is comprised of fellow citizens who are, ultimately, enforcing the law by their own accord...

I don't know what you're getting at by that. It neither justifies the laws they seek to enforce nor creates any legitimate need or obligation to follow those rules. The German Army during Nazi rule (Godwin's law I know) were ordinary citizens. I guess that makes up for that then.

The power is purely in the arms of the people...WE who created the government in the first place.

Oh we created the government in the first place? That seems like a pretty big event. I'm sure I would have remembered where I was. Where were you exactly when WE created the government?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:10:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:04:47 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 10:02:40 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:56:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

Rarely will you find an example of 000ike contradicting moral nihilism, but good find socialpinko :p.

I think 000ike gave up moral nihilism though.

That is still pending the assumption that he is referring to "right" not "power," even though it makes the most sense with "power."

He made sure to point out that the "power" of the government is something entrusted to it by then community. If he meant power in a dominative sense there would be no need for recourse to majoritarianism.

It would seem more in line with "authoritative" power. We grant them the authority.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:12:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:10:50 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/5/2012 10:04:47 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 10:02:40 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:56:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

Rarely will you find an example of 000ike contradicting moral nihilism, but good find socialpinko :p.

I think 000ike gave up moral nihilism though.

That is still pending the assumption that he is referring to "right" not "power," even though it makes the most sense with "power."

He made sure to point out that the "power" of the government is something entrusted to it by then community. If he meant power in a dominative sense there would be no need for recourse to majoritarianism.

It would seem more in line with "authoritative" power. We grant them the authority.

Nevermind, if he is not going to defend his words, I sure as hell am not.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:17:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 7:56:19 PM, jat93 wrote:
I feel like government, by relying on the use or threat of force/violence to enforce its legislation, is making an admission that if everyone could really choose, we would not adhere to its legislation. If what the state offers is necessary or beneficial, would it really have to point a gun at everyone's head to get us to do it? Why wouldn't we be able to figure out that beneficial thing without the state? It's not like just because government has the guns and the power, their ideas are going to be magically more beneficial; they just have superior means of enforcing them.

Elected officials in government are good at being elected and having no integrity, but they're not necessarily more intelligent, so if anything we should expect their recommendations - or should I say threats - to be worse. We should naturally assume that government will ultimately be accountable to the financial institutions/lobbyists that buy it off, but not to 99% of citizens who haven't. As Frederic Bastiat said, "If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe themselves to be made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?"

Government betrays itself by its use/threat of violence to accomplish its goals.

This is so vanilla. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:18:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:03:12 PM, socialpinko wrote:

If I'm willing to pay for it, it isn't theft for you to get the money out of my wallet. Just like how many places will swipe your debit card for you. They are not stealing your money.

If your analogy is anywhere near applicable then it must take into account the possibility that I may withdraw my consent. Where's the box one can check to withdraw support for government services? Furthermore you're assuming that this is a contract that was made in anyone's life time who's alive today. It would actually be more like your great great great great grandfather bought a candybar from someone and subsequently forced his decision on the entire country and on everyone's progeny.

That's my point. The statist argument is "I can't think of how it could work otherwise, therefore we'll all do it my way". The anarchist reply is "Do what you want, don't drag everyone else down with you."

And that is what it is, if you don't want to "be dragged down" with the US, then don't stay in the US. It's like being on a train and complaining that the train isn't going where you want to go.

So you're going with love it or leave it? Alright. When you say if I don't like it that I can leave you're sorta presupposing the legitimacy of the State as an institution as well as the idea that its sovereignty is legitimate. But that's the entire thing in question here! I'm saying the State lacks legitimacy, not that I don't like the service. It's akin to if I broke into your house and settled down. If you don't like it that doesn't mean you have to leave. I'm the one in the wrong!

What you have to remember, is that even if you own the title to a piece of land, you do not own the sovereignty of that land, that is still held by the government. Since they own that, they make the rules for it.

That's the unsupported presupposition of your argument. It's that that I'm specifically calling into question.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:18:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:09:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 10:03:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:59:33 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:56:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

Rarely will you find an example of 000ike contradicting moral nihilism, but good find socialpinko :p.

I think 000ike gave up moral nihilism though.

Is it really that rare? I seem to find anything he posts in the politics section as littered with the scent of social contract theory or utilitarianism.

subjective morality. That's all. I don't why that's so hard for people to swallow

a) You've described yourself as a moral nihilist before
b) the argument for subjective moralism seems like a massive appeal to authority combined with the is-ought problem. If I stand corrected, it states that If society agrees that "X" is good or bad then society should do "X"? Correct. It also doesn't explain why your moral code is superior, even though others in society have different moral codes.

That is only a single branch of subjective morality. Subjective morals is nothing more than the belief that various ethical views exist (normally called moral relativism). This can refer to societal or individual.

Another thing to remember is that the Appeal to authority does not have any implication on morals, only what is factually correct.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:18:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:09:25 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 10:03:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:59:33 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:56:02 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/5/2012 9:53:10 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 8:04:21 PM, 000ike wrote:

The government enforces their laws not because everyone plans on disobeying them, but because there are a few of the populace that plan on disobeying them...and by virtue of the power entrusted to them by the general lawful community,

What is meant here by the term power? Do you mean right, as in they are entrusted with the right to do so? If so it contradicts your self described ethical nihilism. If you simply mean most people have consented to the State's dominion, you have to realize that actual explicit consent for the State at best can be given after the fact(as in after the state has already established monopolistic rule).

Rarely will you find an example of 000ike contradicting moral nihilism, but good find socialpinko :p.

I think 000ike gave up moral nihilism though.

Is it really that rare? I seem to find anything he posts in the politics section as littered with the scent of social contract theory or utilitarianism.

subjective morality. That's all. I don't why that's so hard for people to swallow

a) You've described yourself as a moral nihilist before

and I soon after corrected it to moral relativism, which is what it actually was the entire time.

b) the argument for subjective moralism seems like a massive appeal to authority combined with the is-ought problem. If I stand corrected, it states that If society agrees that "X" is good or bad then society should do "X"? Correct. It also doesn't explain why your moral code is superior, even though others in society have different moral codes.

WHAT argument for subjective morality? This is how I know you're making things up. I haven't even presented an argument for relativism in this thread! What argument are you talking about?

Morality is more so intersubjective, a combination of biologically/evolutionary enshrined values that are hardwired in the human brain....and then the social and communal impetus that hones them. This means that we have an assumed ethical base that we can always refer to because we can safely presume that every values certain ends. This does not meant that any morality is objective (that's hands down, completely absurd),...it does mean that I can assume you value things like freedom, justice, fairness, order etc. and work my argument around that reasonable human presumption.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:20:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:18:30 PM, 000ike wrote:

Morality is more so intersubjective, a combination of biologically/evolutionary enshrined values that are hardwired in the human brain....and then the social and communal impetus that hones them. This means that we have an assumed ethical base that we can always refer to because we can safely presume that everyone values certain ends. This does not mean that morality is objective (that's hands down, completely absurd),...it does mean that I can assume you value things like freedom, justice, fairness, order etc. and work my argument around that reasonable human presumption.

*fixed for spelling and grammar
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:20:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ike, so your argument is this? "We" (ambiguously defined) give consent to the government. Therefore what? We have an obligation to obey its laws? How exactly do you fit that in with your nihilism again?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:22:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:20:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/5/2012 10:18:30 PM, 000ike wrote:

Morality is more so intersubjective, a combination of biologically/evolutionary enshrined values that are hardwired in the human brain....and then the social and communal impetus that hones them. This means that we have an assumed ethical base that we can always refer to because we can safely presume that everyone values certain ends. This does not mean that morality is objective (that's hands down, completely absurd),...it does mean that I can assume you value things like freedom, justice, fairness, order etc. and work my argument around that reasonable human presumption.

*fixed for spelling and grammar

The trouble comes when you try to enforce it. Someone doesn't agree with some random ethical rule you pull out your arse. What do you say? If they don't value whatever it is you do then what?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2012 10:23:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/5/2012 10:22:03 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/5/2012 10:20:25 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/5/2012 10:18:30 PM, 000ike wrote:

Morality is more so intersubjective, a combination of biologically/evolutionary enshrined values that are hardwired in the human brain....and then the social and communal impetus that hones them. This means that we have an assumed ethical base that we can always refer to because we can safely presume that everyone values certain ends. This does not mean that morality is objective (that's hands down, completely absurd),...it does mean that I can assume you value things like freedom, justice, fairness, order etc. and work my argument around that reasonable human presumption.

*fixed for spelling and grammar

The trouble comes when you try to enforce it. Someone doesn't agree with some random ethical rule you pull out your arse. What do you say? If they don't value whatever it is you do then what?

That's the beauty of it. Nothing. Whoever has the power to enforce his beliefs regardless will prevail. That's how life works, and it is neither a good or bad system by any objective standard. It is what it is.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault