Total Posts:115|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Countries are imaginary

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 1:58:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
They only exist the minds of their "inhabitants ". Convince enough people they don't exist and they will disappear. Government is a system dependent on blind obedience. A construct of people who willing submit their minds and bodies to there equally mindless sheep-herders.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:05:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 1:58:09 PM, FREEDO wrote:
They only exist the minds of their "inhabitants ". Convince enough people they don't exist and they will disappear. Government is a system dependent on blind obedience. A construct of people who willing submit their minds and bodies to there equally mindless sheep-herders.

so is property and rights and just about everything else, what is your point?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:05:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Countries are definitely not imaginary. They're quite real entities which are recognized as what they are by not only the citizens, but by other actors, including other countries and their citizens. In essence, a country is an entity empowered by those that recognize its power and influence. It doesn't make it imaginary, because that power and influence is quite real, and can have quite real affects.

Or, put this way: if countries do not exist, then neither do corporations. Because what is a corporation but an entity recognized by consumers, employees and shareholders as legitimate and with power and influence? You can't have it both ways, either.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:07:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 1:58:09 PM, FREEDO wrote:
They only exist the minds of their "inhabitants ". Convince enough people they don't exist and they will disappear. Government is a system dependent on blind obedience. A construct of people who willing submit their minds and bodies to there equally mindless sheep-herders.

PROFOUND! !... bunch of mindless puppets.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:07:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:05:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
Countries are definitely not imaginary. They're quite real entities which are recognized as what they are by not only the citizens, but by other actors, including other countries and their citizens. In essence, a country is an entity empowered by those that recognize its power and influence. It doesn't make it imaginary, because that power and influence is quite real, and can have quite real affects.

Or, put this way: if countries do not exist, then neither do corporations. Because what is a corporation but an entity recognized by consumers, employees and shareholders as legitimate and with power and influence? You can't have it both ways, either.

Same with the economy.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:09:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:05:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
Countries are definitely not imaginary. They're quite real entities which are recognized as what they are by not only the citizens, but by other actors, including other countries and their citizens. In essence, a country is an entity empowered by those that recognize its power and influence. It doesn't make it imaginary, because that power and influence is quite real, and can have quite real affects.

Or, put this way: if countries do not exist, then neither do corporations. Because what is a corporation but an entity recognized by consumers, employees and shareholders as legitimate and with power and influence? You can't have it both ways, either.

Fair enough. They are both subjective. But the point I'm trying ti make here is that it's a system held up by blind obedience of it's individuals. Where as in a business you take orders for your self-gain rather just because you were told so.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:12:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:09:27 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/4/2010 2:05:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
Countries are definitely not imaginary. They're quite real entities which are recognized as what they are by not only the citizens, but by other actors, including other countries and their citizens. In essence, a country is an entity empowered by those that recognize its power and influence. It doesn't make it imaginary, because that power and influence is quite real, and can have quite real affects.

Or, put this way: if countries do not exist, then neither do corporations. Because what is a corporation but an entity recognized by consumers, employees and shareholders as legitimate and with power and influence? You can't have it both ways, either.

Fair enough. They are both subjective. But the point I'm trying it make here is that it's a system held up by blind obedience of it's individuals. Where as in a government you take orders for your self-gain rather just because you were told so.

This statement is interchangeable. Some corporations are worst than some oppressive states.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:13:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:09:27 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Fair enough. They are both subjective. But the point I'm trying ti make here is that it's a system held up by blind obedience of it's individuals. Where as in a business you take orders for your self-gain rather just because you were told so.

In a business you take orders because you were told to do it, and if you didn't, you would be fired.

In a government, you follow the law because you were told to do it, and if you didn't, you'd end up in jail or killed.

Seems to me both are either "I told you" or "self-gain."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:14:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:12:50 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/4/2010 2:09:27 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/4/2010 2:05:11 PM, Volkov wrote:
Countries are definitely not imaginary. They're quite real entities which are recognized as what they are by not only the citizens, but by other actors, including other countries and their citizens. In essence, a country is an entity empowered by those that recognize its power and influence. It doesn't make it imaginary, because that power and influence is quite real, and can have quite real affects.

Or, put this way: if countries do not exist, then neither do corporations. Because what is a corporation but an entity recognized by consumers, employees and shareholders as legitimate and with power and influence? You can't have it both ways, either.

Fair enough. They are both subjective. But the point I'm trying it make here is that it's a system held up by blind obedience of it's individuals. Where as in a government you take orders for your self-gain rather just because you were told so.

This statement is interchangeable. Some corporations are worst than some oppressive states.

Ya, those propped up by the state.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:17:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:13:59 PM, Volkov wrote:

In a business you take orders because you were told to do it, and if you didn't, you would be fired.

Being employed is a privilege.

In a government, you follow the law because you were told to do it, and if you didn't, you'd end up in jail or killed.

Being free is a right.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:19:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:14:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Ya, those propped up by the state.

Hey, wanna know a funny fact?

In the 1930's, American companies either were or almost started pushing for fascism in the United States because of the perceived benefits that companies in Nazi Germany were getting from Hitler's rule. This didn't include socialist benefits either, but rather the chance for businesses to influence the government and run relatively freely.

So, next time someone tells you that corporations are completely freedom-loving and more moral than the government ever could be, tell them that interesting little fact.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:20:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:13:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
In a government, you follow the law because you were told to do it, and if you didn't, you'd end up in jail or killed.

Not so. A friend of mine for example seem have a deep moral respect for "the law" and thus refuses to right turn when a sign posted reads "no right turn on red" even if no one else is around because "it would be wrong". Oddly enough she has no problem with jaywalking, however.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:21:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If I step over the Mexican border, the cops will be subject to a completely different constitution, and will go after me for rather different reasons. I'm not imagining this, test it yourself
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.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:22:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:19:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/4/2010 2:14:40 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Ya, those propped up by the state.

Hey, wanna know a funny fact?

In the 1930's, American companies either were or almost started pushing for fascism in the United States because of the perceived benefits that companies in Nazi Germany were getting from Hitler's rule. This didn't include socialist benefits either, but rather the chance for businesses to influence the government and run relatively freely.

So, next time someone tells you that corporations are completely freedom-loving and more moral than the government ever could be, tell them that interesting little fact.

This is exactly what I meant, in bed with the government. And obviously I know that the people running them may want that. I think the shouldn't be and if they aren't then they function as a good thing regardless if I personally dislike the people running it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:23:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:19:28 PM, Volkov wrote:
Hey, wanna know a funny fact?

In the 1930's, American companies either were or almost started pushing for fascism in the United States because of the perceived benefits that companies in Nazi Germany were getting from Hitler's rule. This didn't include socialist benefits either, but rather the chance for businesses to influence the government and run relatively freely.

So, next time someone tells you that corporations are completely freedom-loving and more moral than the government ever could be, tell them that interesting little fact.

Precisely. Big business loves using the government to grant itself special privileges and protect itself from competition.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:25:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:17:02 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Being employed is a privilege.

Yes, being employed is a privilege. But being employed also means recognizing that you have to follow what your employer says, or that employer doesn't have to bother with you.

Being free is a right.

If you understood rights, you wouldn't say such a thing.

Being free is a right - but rights are only existent if they're recognized by others. My right to "be free" is dependent upon my recognition of your right to also be free. Meaning if I start stabbing you in the gut, I'm disregarding your rights - leaving no recognition for my own rights. That, in turn, means that I have no rights.

This works the same way as employment. I have to recognize that my boss is my superior, and through that my boss has to recognize that when I do work, I need pay.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:25:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:21:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If I step over the Mexican border, the cops will be subject to a completely different constitution, and will go after me for rather different reasons. I'm not imagining this, test it yourself

The authorities are needlessly submitting themselves.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:27:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:25:27 PM, Volkov wrote:
Being free is a right - but rights are only existent if they're recognized by others.

Nonsense. Rights only exist in moral terms. They can either be recognized or not recognized but not recognizing a right dos not mean that it does not exist.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:28:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Governments, nations, countries are all abstractions, Platonic forms, which do not exist in material reality.

There are only individuals, some of which claim special privileges like the right to initiate force against peaceful individuals.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:31:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:25:27 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/4/2010 2:17:02 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Being employed is a privilege.

Yes, being employed is a privilege. But being employed also means recognizing that you have to follow what your employer says, or that employer doesn't have to bother with you.

Being free is a right.

If you understood rights, you wouldn't say such a thing.

Being free is a right - but rights are only existent if they're recognized by others. My right to "be free" is dependent upon my recognition of your right to also be free. Meaning if I start stabbing you in the gut, I'm disregarding your rights - leaving no recognition for my own rights. That, in turn, means that I have no rights.

This works the same way as employment. I have to recognize that my boss is my superior, and through that my boss has to recognize that when I do work, I need pay.

Being employed is something your given.
You can't be given freedom, it is your natural state of being.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:31:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:27:46 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Nonsense. Rights only exist in moral terms. They can either be recognized or not recognized but not recognizing a right dos not mean that it does not exist.

That is what the nonsense. My right to property can only be verified by your recognition of it. How that recognition is brought about - whether through mutual agreement or force - doesn't matter. But it must be recognized, otherwise that right doesn't exist to anyone but me.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:32:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:31:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Being employed is something your given.
You can't be given freedom, it is your natural state of being.

"Natural state of being"? Lol.

Your "natural state" is dependent upon other individuals agreeing that you have it. If they don't agree, your "natural state" will be six feet under.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:35:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:32:26 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/4/2010 2:31:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Being employed is something your given.
You can't be given freedom, it is your natural state of being.

"Natural state of being"? Lol.

Your "natural state" is dependent upon other individuals agreeing that you have it. If they don't agree, your "natural state" will be six feet under.

How so? If no one else is around besides me, I have freedom without it being recognized by others. The base for freedom is not in others it is in myself, it is an attitude. The recognition that I am my own highest authority.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:35:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:31:05 PM, Volkov wrote:
That is what the nonsense. My right to property can only be verified by your recognition of it.

Whether others recognize it does not change whether or not you actually have a right to it.

How that recognition is brought about - whether through mutual agreement or force - doesn't matter. But it must be recognized, otherwise that right doesn't exist to anyone but me.

It may be useless if no one recognizes it, but the idea of rights is the idea of moral forms. Even if it is not recognized does not mean that it should not be recognized.

To have a right to something is for it to be wrong for someone to stop you from having that right. Therefore, whether others accept it as being right or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it is true or not.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:37:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:35:09 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Whether others recognize it does not change whether or not you actually have a right to it.

Who says you have a right to it? You? Who are you? You're no one. Only God has the ability to declare your right to something, and we all know He doesn't exist.

It may be useless if no one recognizes it, but the idea of rights is the idea of moral forms. Even if it is not recognized does not mean that it should not be recognized.

To have a right to something is for it to be wrong for someone to stop you from having that right. Therefore, whether others accept it as being right or not is irrelevant to the question of whether it is true or not.

A "right" is only true insofar as others other than you accept that it is true. There is no way around this unless you start appealing to God.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:37:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:25:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/4/2010 2:21:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If I step over the Mexican border, the cops will be subject to a completely different constitution, and will go after me for rather different reasons. I'm not imagining this, test it yourself

The authorities are needlessly submitting themselves.

Submitting themselves?

I don't think "submitting" is what authorities do.
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.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:39:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:35:00 PM, FREEDO wrote:
How so? If no one else is around besides me, I have freedom without it being recognized by others. The base for freedom is not in others it is in myself, it is an attitude. The recognition that I am my own highest authority.

If there is no one else around you, then the question is irrelevant. You have no "rights" because there is no one for you to defend your rights against. You might recognize yourself as your own highest authority, but no one but you will care, which makes the entire exercise one of futility.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:42:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:37:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/4/2010 2:25:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/4/2010 2:21:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If I step over the Mexican border, the cops will be subject to a completely different constitution, and will go after me for rather different reasons. I'm not imagining this, test it yourself

The authorities are needlessly submitting themselves.

Submitting themselves?

I don't think "submitting" is what authorities do.

They are submitting to someone above them and THEY are submitting to someone above them. They are all choosing to negate their individuality to another, except the person at the top who is a tyrant. Or the person at the top, in the case of a Democracy may partially answer to the collective and it creates a circle of sheepishness.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:43:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 2:37:48 PM, Volkov wrote:
Who says you have a right to it? You? Who are you? You're no one. Only God has the ability to declare your right to something, and we all know He doesn't exist.

Even if God exists he would have no power to make something right and another thing wrong. Are you not familiar with the Euthyphro dlemma?[1]

A "right" is only true insofar as others other than you accept that it is true. There is no way around this unless you start appealing to God.

False. For example, whether God exists or not is an entirely separate question from whether others believe that he exists or they do not.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran