Total Posts:52|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

In Your Mind, Why Does Government Have...

slo1
Posts: 4,314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2014 9:42:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Collectively as a group we allow it and the cost to not allow it does not yet reach the level of the opportunity costs of the current government.

Ps. Love you too brother.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 12:29:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What gives a bear the right to eat a bunny?

The bear has large claws and the bunny is adorable, with tiny little bunny paws and a tiny little bunny nose.

I don't know if that answers your question but you won't get any satisfying answers anyway.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
joepbr
Posts: 128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 1:43:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's not the government that has the right to rule me. It's I (or better, we) who have the right to rule the government.

It's called democracy.
My alternative to the Political Compass: http://www.debate.org...
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 1:47:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I give it the right to do so because I don't trust the lot of you shifty-eyed degenerates -- and I can't be bothered to constantly defend my property Baghdad style, so full-fash it is.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 10:46:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 9:36:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
the right to rule you?

It doesn't. In my mind I should rule my country, since that's basicly what democracy is about, people ruling themselves. So governments do not have the right to rule me.
Kc1999
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 11:03:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 9:36:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
the right to rule you?

Well, I have two reasons:

1. Without the government, I wouldn't have anything to diss.
2. The gov. makes McDonalds places.
#NoToMobocracy #BladeStroink
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 1:59:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 12:29:11 AM, FREEDO wrote:
What gives a bear the right to eat a bunny?

The bear has large claws and the bunny is adorable, with tiny little bunny paws and a tiny little bunny nose.

I don't know if that answers your question but you won't get any satisfying answers anyway.

That's actually a really insightful answer
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 1:59:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 1:43:11 AM, joepbr wrote:
It's not the government that has the right to rule me. It's I (or better, we) who have the right to rule the government.

It's called democracy.

So the government tells you what to do, taxes you, imprisons you if you don't comply with its edicts, and you're in charge? K.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 2:50:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 9:36:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
the right to rule you?

loaded question.
"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
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 3:52:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If we abolished government, either society would devolve into a right-less "society", or it would organize itself in such a way that no meaningful distinction could be made between it and the government abolished.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 3:59:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anarchism is based on subjectivism ,i.e. on the notion that higher-levels of self do not exist. It takes approximately two seconds to realize this.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 4:22:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 3:52:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If we abolished government, either society would devolve into a right-less "society", or it would organize itself in such a way that no meaningful distinction could be made between it and the government abolished.

The distinction would be the "right to rule." This can be demonstrated in all of these examples: [http://3.bp.blogspot.com...].

Or simply look at police gun violence lately. If you employed rights enforcement agents in your defense firm and one killed an innocent guy controversially, that would be EXTREMELY BAD press that would (through reputation factors) lead to you losing thousands of customers.

Conversely in America, you have one defense provider: The US Government and/or your respective state. If one of those officers kills a guy controversially, nothing really changes because you extort money through the population via taxation to fund your monopoly on "rights protection" (although in the US the Supreme Court ruled that police do not have an obligation to protect you, whereas under a private system they'd have BOTH a financial obligation and a legal obligation to protect you).
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 6:14:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 4:22:30 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:52:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If we abolished government, either society would devolve into a right-less "society", or it would organize itself in such a way that no meaningful distinction could be made between it and the government abolished.

The distinction would be the "right to rule." This can be demonstrated in all of these examples: [http://3.bp.blogspot.com...].

Or simply look at police gun violence lately. If you employed rights enforcement agents in your defense firm and one killed an innocent guy controversially, that would be EXTREMELY BAD press that would (through reputation factors) lead to you losing thousands of customers.

Conversely in America, you have one defense provider: The US Government and/or your respective state. If one of those officers kills a guy controversially, nothing really changes because you extort money through the population via taxation to fund your monopoly on "rights protection" (although in the US the Supreme Court ruled that police do not have an obligation to protect you, whereas under a private system they'd have BOTH a financial obligation and a legal obligation to protect you).

He's most definitely not defending the status-quo, fyi. There's a difference between a government that horribly oversteps its bounds (like what every country in the world has, currently), and an extremely limited government that doesn't even have the power to tax the population. The latter is basically what you're advocating, anyway - rights-protection-agencies that rely on public donations and consent in order to run. I think that most An-Caps are indistinguishable from minarchists, and that the distinction is too small to really matter. Are most An-Caps really in favour of "competing" protection agencies, considering how each of them, to be valid, would have to abide by the NAP and such? It seems like an An-Cap would just support the agency that is able to do the best job without violating rights, which is basically just supporting a specific government - an-caps wouldn't exactly be inclined to support a fascist private dictatorship if such a thing would exist over pre-expansion America.

This just goes to show that there is a standard that An-Caps use to measure how good or valid one of these protection agencies are, and, if so, they would just support one type of agency, which is the same thing in essence as government.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 6:22:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 4:22:30 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:52:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If we abolished government, either society would devolve into a right-less "society", or it would organize itself in such a way that no meaningful distinction could be made between it and the government abolished.

The distinction would be the "right to rule." This can be demonstrated in all of these examples: [http://3.bp.blogspot.com...].

Or simply look at police gun violence lately. If you employed rights enforcement agents in your defense firm and one killed an innocent guy controversially, that would be EXTREMELY BAD press that would (through reputation factors) lead to you losing thousands of customers.

Conversely in America, you have one defense provider: The US Government and/or your respective state. If one of those officers kills a guy controversially, nothing really changes because you extort money through the population via taxation to fund your monopoly on "rights protection" (although in the US the Supreme Court ruled that police do not have an obligation to protect you, whereas under a private system they'd have BOTH a financial obligation and a legal obligation to protect you).

I knew from the very question that you posed (and your username) that you had to be a libertarian. Well, maybe you think that the solution to all of society's problems is privatizing everything, from the police and the military to education and health-care. That would work for the rich, sure, but what about the poor and middle-class man? What happens to them? The poor would have no protection, and the middle-class only a comparatively poor one. There would be nothing, in such a society, to stop the wealthy from oppressing the poor and extorting far more money from them, and not only money, than the federal government. In fact, society would be nothing more than a bunch of gangsters fighting each other for control of the market.

Perhaps you would like to live in a country that resembled Afghanistan during its Taliban period, or pre-modern Scotland, where protection, and everything else, was indeed privatized. I certainly wouldn't like to live in such a place.

The appropriate response to police militarization is not to get rid of the police (that would be like killing a fly with an assault rifle) but rather protest marches and political campaigning.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2014 11:14:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 1:59:59 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/28/2014 1:43:11 AM, joepbr wrote:
It's not the government that has the right to rule me. It's I (or better, we) who have the right to rule the government.

It's called democracy.

So the government tells you what to do, taxes you, imprisons you if you don't comply with its edicts, and you're in charge? K.

Yup! cuz we told 'em to.

I mean, come on, it's hard to get everybody to agree and even harder to expect everything and everyone to run smoothly (given the hypothetical in which everyone is the same). Put down some costs to receive substantial benefits.

Those "costs" vary over cultures, and may seem to be less appealing or more appealing based on how you view them.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 1:28:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 6:22:12 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 8/28/2014 4:22:30 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/28/2014 3:52:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If we abolished government, either society would devolve into a right-less "society", or it would organize itself in such a way that no meaningful distinction could be made between it and the government abolished.

The distinction would be the "right to rule." This can be demonstrated in all of these examples: [http://3.bp.blogspot.com...].

Or simply look at police gun violence lately. If you employed rights enforcement agents in your defense firm and one killed an innocent guy controversially, that would be EXTREMELY BAD press that would (through reputation factors) lead to you losing thousands of customers.

Conversely in America, you have one defense provider: The US Government and/or your respective state. If one of those officers kills a guy controversially, nothing really changes because you extort money through the population via taxation to fund your monopoly on "rights protection" (although in the US the Supreme Court ruled that police do not have an obligation to protect you, whereas under a private system they'd have BOTH a financial obligation and a legal obligation to protect you).

I knew from the very question that you posed (and your username) that you had to be a libertarian. Well, maybe you think that the solution to all of society's problems is privatizing everything, from the police and the military to education and health-care. That would work for the rich, sure, but what about the poor and middle-class man? What happens to them? The poor would have no protection, and the middle-class only a comparatively poor one.

There would be nothing, in such a society, to stop the wealthy from oppressing the :poor and extorting far more money from them, and not only money, than the federal :government. In fact, society would be nothing more than a bunch of gangsters :fighting each other for control of the market.

There would be, in fact - it is obviously not in the interests of anyone to let the country devolve into gang warfare. That is why libertarians are against the most dangerous gang - the group of politicians and armymen who think that the people are slaves to be squeezed dry in pursuit of the "public good". Nothing except for destruction can be obtained by these means. If you think that having an entity put guns to the heads of every citizen to extort them is moral or necessary for the benefit of that "public good", then the public good be damned.

If a market, like that which libertarians advocate, is truly free, it is devoid of the initiation of force - meaning that no gangs would be allowed to have their power-struggles. Private entities defending the public and the market against these gangs, which would rely solely on private donations and support (and if you don't think that people will donate, you must think that people are fans of the destruction of their lives), are the only viable way in order to keep a society from collapsing.

This is setting aside the matter that the withholding of unpaid-for resources is anything but coercion, and that anyone who wants to "redistribute wealth to protect the right to life of the poor" or whatever slogans you want to throw around must, in fact, be violating that right - you cannot deny property and try to withhold the right to life. It's a contradiction in terms. You cannot, morally, violate the rights of one group in order to try to uphold those of another. Any such policy ends with rights being violated and that's the end of it. The point is that, even if such a system isn't effective (and I'd argue that it would be), government wouldn't be, either.


Perhaps you would like to live in a country that resembled Afghanistan during its Taliban period, or pre-modern Scotland, where protection, and everything else, was indeed privatized. I certainly wouldn't like to live in such a place.
You speak of privatization while pointing to places where the concept of property rights was consistently denied and destroyed.
The appropriate response to police militarization is not to get rid of the police (that would be like killing a fly with an assault rifle) but rather protest marches and political campaigning.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 2:16:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 9:36:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
the right to rule you?

They have no right to rule me. The government does, however, have the right to pass and enforce laws agreed upon by the duly elected representatives of citizens.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 3:59:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 2:16:50 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:36:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
the right to rule you?

They have no right to rule me. The government does, however, have the right to pass and enforce laws agreed upon by the duly elected representatives of citizens.

The right to pass and enforce laws = the right to rule. If you believe this, how does the government acquire the right to rule? And how do they possess the right to do all these actions [http://3.bp.blogspot.com...] when private citizens do not have the right to do them? If you believe they get this ability from some vague collectivist drivel like "the will of the people," how do the people give a right to the government that they themselves do not possess?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 4:18:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 3:59:33 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/29/2014 2:16:50 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 8/27/2014 9:36:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
the right to rule you?

They have no right to rule me. The government does, however, have the right to pass and enforce laws agreed upon by the duly elected representatives of citizens.

The right to pass and enforce laws = the right to rule. If you believe this, how does the government acquire the right to rule? And how do they possess the right to do all these actions [http://3.bp.blogspot.com...] when private citizens do not have the right to do them? If you believe they get this ability from some vague collectivist drivel like "the will of the people," how do the people give a right to the government that they themselves do not possess?

No, it's not the right to rule as there is no ruler. If you want to live in a place with no government monopoly on force, move to Somalia.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 8:05:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 1:28:38 AM, bossyburrito wrote:

There would be, in fact - it is obviously not in the interests of anyone to let the country devolve into gang warfare.

I've always wondered why some folks think this.

The richest people would have no problem with this--they can afford the protection. And, indeed, violence and conflict tend to distract people from social problems, so I would think gang warfare (perhaps controlled behind the scenes through manipulation) most certainly would be in the best interests of some.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 8:35:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2014 9:36:33 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
the right to rule you

You have finally seen the light. All forms of govt with the exception of a Republic Rule the people. In a Republic like America used to be the people "Govern" themselves and use the govt to build infrastructure and a standing military. But those days have long since past and now we are ruled by tyrants just like all the other countries.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 8:38:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 1:43:11 AM, joepbr wrote:
It's not the government that has the right to rule me. It's I (or better, we) who have the right to rule the government.

It's called democracy.

Incorrect, it's called a Republic. A democracy is mob rule, the founders of the US made sure to point that out and did everything they could to prevent the US from becoming a democracy via the electoral college among other things.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2014 11:16:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/28/2014 1:59:59 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/28/2014 1:43:11 AM, joepbr wrote:
It's not the government that has the right to rule me. It's I (or better, we) who have the right to rule the government.

It's called democracy.

So the government tells you what to do, taxes you, imprisons you if you don't comply with its edicts, and you're in charge? K.

Well I mean if you like the taxes, and the laws, and the protection, and the ect. ect. then I guess it isn't so bad.

However if you have the mindset of a rebellious teenager then I guess it sucks.
Nolite Timere
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 7:14:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 11:16:14 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 8/28/2014 1:59:59 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 8/28/2014 1:43:11 AM, joepbr wrote:
It's not the government that has the right to rule me. It's I (or better, we) who have the right to rule the government.

It's called democracy.

So the government tells you what to do, taxes you, imprisons you if you don't comply with its edicts, and you're in charge? K.

Well I mean if you like the taxes, and the laws, and the protection, and the ect. ect. then I guess it isn't so bad.

However if you have the mindset of a rebellious teenager then I guess it sucks.

Yes, because only "rebellious teenagers" don't want a gun to the back of their heads. Normal people love extortion.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Morality
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 7:55:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/29/2014 8:38:17 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/28/2014 1:43:11 AM, joepbr wrote:
It's not the government that has the right to rule me. It's I (or better, we) who have the right to rule the government.

It's called democracy.

Incorrect, it's called a Republic. A democracy is mob rule, the founders of the US made sure to point that out and did everything they could to prevent the US from becoming a democracy via the electoral college among other things.
A Republic can also be a democracy. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

The US is a representative democracy and also a republic.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 8:37:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 7:55:30 PM, Morality wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:38:17 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/28/2014 1:43:11 AM, joepbr wrote:
It's not the government that has the right to rule me. It's I (or better, we) who have the right to rule the government.

It's called democracy.

Incorrect, it's called a Republic. A democracy is mob rule, the founders of the US made sure to point that out and did everything they could to prevent the US from becoming a democracy via the electoral college among other things.
A Republic can also be a democracy. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

The US is a representative democracy and also a republic.

But without the electoral college it would just be mob rule (A democracy)
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Morality
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 8:41:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/30/2014 8:37:42 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/30/2014 7:55:30 PM, Morality wrote:
At 8/29/2014 8:38:17 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 8/28/2014 1:43:11 AM, joepbr wrote:
It's not the government that has the right to rule me. It's I (or better, we) who have the right to rule the government.

It's called democracy.

Incorrect, it's called a Republic. A democracy is mob rule, the founders of the US made sure to point that out and did everything they could to prevent the US from becoming a democracy via the electoral college among other things.
A Republic can also be a democracy. The terms are not mutually exclusive.

The US is a representative democracy and also a republic.

But without the electoral college it would just be mob rule (A democracy)

No it wouldn't be. "Mob rule" would be direct democracy, where citizens vote on each bill directly, without senators or representatives. The electoral college is used exclusively for the presidential election, if it was removed, the US would still be a representative democracy.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2014 8:45:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Because of the implicit agreement of the social contract. The government can force people to abide by certain laws that don't violate their liberties in exchange for security.