Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Politics are Immoral

BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 2:54:35 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
I would like to give the anarchist view of politics and why it is 'immoral'. First definitions:

Politics: activities that relate to influencing the actions and policies of a government.

Government: the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc.

Immoral : not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

This is also in the context of modern democracies

If government controls people in a given geographical area and politics is the activity by which we influence this control, to involve yourself in political action is to attempt to control the actions of other people.
If we were to meet on the street and I were to attempt to force myself in someway upon you, it would be considered a crime. Some form of assault would be incurred upon you by my actions. Their would be no question from anyone, if it was proven true, that I was in the wrong.

This is true of all person to person interaction that initiating force is to be considered at the very least unpleasant by the person on the receiving end.

It must be true that no one likes to be forced to do anything, by the use of the word force. And so we must all be able to agree that preventing the initiation of force should be the only logical use of law, as law is itself force.

So why is it that politics has become so socially acceptable? The connection seems to be lost. If I vote for 'a great wall' for instance, I am forcing you to pay for this as well.
Or much worse a war, or any number of things I don't agree with or am morally opposed to. Even in the most often case of solving a problem we both agree should be solved, but being forced to pay for the other's 'solution'.

While the act is different from outright taking it from you, the end result is still the same. The intention is as well. By voting I am intending in acquiring something for myself without personally laboring for it. I am intending for the government to force you to labor for it and give it to me. It would seem in return I accept this authority, in that way the voter and politician work together to both maintain authority and use that authority to benefit some at the expense of others.

The entire argument about politics is who should force who to do what. The question should be who has the 'right' to tell another what to do? Who is possibly entitled to legitimately force another for any purpose? How can any one person or group be considered above another?
At the very least these questions must be brought into the arena of mainstream political philosophy. I assume this will be inevitable if out species is to progress.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 1:35:55 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Anarchy, anything less would be uncivilized!
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2016 4:10:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/12/2016 1:35:55 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Anarchy, anything less would be uncivilized!

That's a great quote.

I hope I get a few takers with this post. I've considered myself libertarian for years but still saw the need for the state. Really I assumed it's existence was necessary or rather was inevitable. After a period of intense reading and deliberation I had that epiphany I assume most other anarchists have. After that there's no going back.
Election years are difficult for an anarchist, all these people going back and forth, frothing at the mouth over who should be president, how 'we' should do this and that. Never a thought to why we are arguing in the first place, or if we need to be arguing at all.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 10:40:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
The government enforces accepted patterns of conduct and societal values -- that's why people recognize its legitimacy.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 12:23:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 10:40:52 AM, tejretics wrote:
The government enforces accepted patterns of conduct and societal values -- that's why people recognize its legitimacy.

A possible legitimate role of government is just the opposite, that is to protect minorities from tyranny of a majority.

When government enacts then enforces conduct and values, elections become very important.

How about countering the OP by explaining the morality of imposing values on others with collective violence?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 12:43:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/12/2016 2:54:35 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
I would like to give the anarchist view of politics and why it is 'immoral'. First definitions:

Politics: activities that relate to influencing the actions and policies of a government.

Government: the group of people who control and make decisions for a country, state, etc.

Immoral : not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

This is also in the context of modern democracies

If government controls people in a given geographical area and politics is the activity by which we influence this control, to involve yourself in political action is to attempt to control the actions of other people.
If we were to meet on the street and I were to attempt to force myself in someway upon you, it would be considered a crime. Some form of assault would be incurred upon you by my actions. Their would be no question from anyone, if it was proven true, that I was in the wrong.

This is true of all person to person interaction that initiating force is to be considered at the very least unpleasant by the person on the receiving end.

It must be true that no one likes to be forced to do anything, by the use of the word force. And so we must all be able to agree that preventing the initiation of force should be the only logical use of law, as law is itself force.

So why is it that politics has become so socially acceptable? The connection seems to be lost. If I vote for 'a great wall' for instance, I am forcing you to pay for this as well.
Or much worse a war, or any number of things I don't agree with or am morally opposed to. Even in the most often case of solving a problem we both agree should be solved, but being forced to pay for the other's 'solution'.

While the act is different from outright taking it from you, the end result is still the same. The intention is as well. By voting I am intending in acquiring something for myself without personally laboring for it. I am intending for the government to force you to labor for it and give it to me. It would seem in return I accept this authority, in that way the voter and politician work together to both maintain authority and use that authority to benefit some at the expense of others.

The entire argument about politics is who should force who to do what. The question should be who has the 'right' to tell another what to do? Who is possibly entitled to legitimately force another for any purpose? How can any one person or group be considered above another?

That questions doesn't go away as government goes away. There will always be power differential between people. Even if I sign an contract that lays the terms of setting a conflict or breach of contract there can be unscrupulous selling practices that I must accept out of necessity such as buying food to survive.

They have food and I don't therefore with lack of competition I have to accept the terms of condition no matter how disfavorable to me. It is not fair to call a situation such as that as a voluntary transaction.

It is how humans get enslaved as indentured servants aka modern slaverythromycin. A lack of governance does not solve these areas where a human holds tremendous power over another.

At the very least these questions must be brought into the arena of mainstream political philosophy. I assume this will be inevitable if out species is to progress.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 12:48:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 12:23:10 PM, Chang29 wrote:

I was putting it into the OP's perspective.

My view is that the state ought to legislate based on a utilitarian calculus.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 9:22:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 10:40:52 AM, tejretics wrote:
The government enforces accepted patterns of conduct and societal values -- that's why people recognize its legitimacy.

I am not arguing that isn't the intended goal or belief of this representative democracy.
I am arguing that there are 'accepted patterns of conduct and societal values' but that government does not enforce them. Instead it's very claim to power violates those 'accepted patterns of conduct and societal values'. If you and I are engaging socially I cannot claim power over you by claiming that I represent and enforce the 'accepted patterns of conduct and societal values' . It would be nonsense obviously I could ever claim that power over you, but here we have people claiming the very same thing. It is only the believe in that authority or the acceptance of that claim that gives it legitimacy.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2016 11:45:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 12:48:51 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:23:10 PM, Chang29 wrote:

I was putting it into the OP's perspective.

My view is that the state ought to legislate based on a utilitarian calculus.

People harmed by a "utilitarian calculus", how are they protected? Or, should they just acquiesce to the threat of violence?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 2:13:03 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/13/2016 12:43:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:54:35 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:


That questions doesn't go away as government goes away. There will always be power differential between people. Even if I sign an contract that lays the terms of setting a conflict or breach of contract there can be unscrupulous selling practices that I must accept out of necessity such as buying food to survive.

They have food and I don't therefore with lack of competition I have to accept the terms of condition no matter how disfavorable to me. It is not fair to call a situation such as that as a voluntary transaction.

It is how humans get enslaved as indentured servants aka modern slaverythromycin. A lack of governance does not solve these areas where a human holds tremendous power over another.

The argument you seem to be putting forward is that we MUST trade to survive and so to call it voluntary exchange would be incorrect.

This is a false equivalence, You are claiming we must trade to survive, but that isn't true, what we must do is survive. Trade is only a means to facilitate a better chance at survival.
Nature is forcing us. Physics, time, our own fragility or mortality are all forcing us to get food, shelter, clothing etc. and so it is up to us to provide these things for ourselves. To say that we must trade is to deny our responsibility for ourselves, especially to say that voluntary exchange is forced. It would claim our own mortality is the fault of humanity.
Also it seems you are saying that because trade is force to some degree, government still should play a role? In protecting us from force? You didn't really specify.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 3:35:07 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 2:13:03 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:43:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:54:35 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:


That questions doesn't go away as government goes away. There will always be power differential between people. Even if I sign an contract that lays the terms of setting a conflict or breach of contract there can be unscrupulous selling practices that I must accept out of necessity such as buying food to survive.

They have food and I don't therefore with lack of competition I have to accept the terms of condition no matter how disfavorable to me. It is not fair to call a situation such as that as a voluntary transaction.

It is how humans get enslaved as indentured servants aka modern slaverythromycin. A lack of governance does not solve these areas where a human holds tremendous power over another.

The argument you seem to be putting forward is that we MUST trade to survive and so to call it voluntary exchange would be incorrect.

This is a false equivalence, You are claiming we must trade to survive, but that isn't true, what we must do is survive. Trade is only a means to facilitate a better chance at survival.
Nature is forcing us. Physics, time, our own fragility or mortality are all forcing us to get food, shelter, clothing etc. and so it is up to us to provide these things for ourselves. To say that we must trade is to deny our responsibility for ourselves, especially to say that voluntary exchange is forced. It would claim our own mortality is the fault of humanity.
Also it seems you are saying that because trade is force to some degree, government still should play a role? In protecting us from force? You didn't really specify.

We should all be farmers and never be in a situation where someone can take advantage of us. Got it.
Rhivan
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 12:52:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/12/2016 1:35:55 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Anarchy, anything less would be uncivilized!

Here is one for the thread: Politics are Immoral, But Anarchy is worse.
roun12
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 3:58:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 12:52:22 PM, Rhivan wrote:
At 6/12/2016 1:35:55 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Anarchy, anything less would be uncivilized!

Here is one for the thread: Politics are Immoral, But Anarchy is worse.

+1
"No, I disagree. 'R' is among the most menacing of sounds. That's why they call it MURDER, not Muckduck." - Dwight

"Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." - George Carlin
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 9:54:49 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 3:35:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:13:03 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:43:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:54:35 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:


That questions doesn't go away as government goes away. There will always be power differential between people. Even if I sign an contract that lays the terms of setting a conflict or breach of contract there can be unscrupulous selling practices that I must accept out of necessity such as buying food to survive.

They have food and I don't therefore with lack of competition I have to accept the terms of condition no matter how disfavorable to me. It is not fair to call a situation such as that as a voluntary transaction.

It is how humans get enslaved as indentured servants aka modern slaverythromycin. A lack of governance does not solve these areas where a human holds tremendous power over another.

The argument you seem to be putting forward is that we MUST trade to survive and so to call it voluntary exchange would be incorrect.

This is a false equivalence, You are claiming we must trade to survive, but that isn't true, what we must do is survive. Trade is only a means to facilitate a better chance at survival.
Nature is forcing us. Physics, time, our own fragility or mortality are all forcing us to get food, shelter, clothing etc. and so it is up to us to provide these things for ourselves. To say that we must trade is to deny our responsibility for ourselves, especially to say that voluntary exchange is forced. It would claim our own mortality is the fault of humanity.
Also it seems you are saying that because trade is force to some degree, government still should play a role? In protecting us from force? You didn't really specify.

We should all be farmers and never be in a situation where someone can take advantage of us. Got it.

Obviously that isn't close to what I'm saying, we both know that. How can someone take advantage of you if they are not forcing you to do anything? You can accept their offer or not. In what way could they conceivably take advantage of you by an offer?
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 10:02:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 12:52:22 PM, Rhivan wrote:
At 6/12/2016 1:35:55 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Anarchy, anything less would be uncivilized!

Here is one for the thread: Politics are Immoral, But Anarchy is worse.

There were many years before I was an anarchist so I understand how people accept the state regardless of it having no benefit to society, if it ever did is a different story. I would prefer you try and refute my argument, not doing so is only an affirmation that it's correct.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 10:07:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 3:58:36 PM, roun12 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 12:52:22 PM, Rhivan wrote:
At 6/12/2016 1:35:55 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Anarchy, anything less would be uncivilized!

Here is one for the thread: Politics are Immoral, But Anarchy is worse.

+1

I will basically say the same thing to you, feel free to argue against my OP or admit that it is correct. To say 'anarchy is worse' is not an attempt at an argument. I didn't become an anarchist over night and it was a long battle before I conceding ultimately to reason and truth.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 11:33:46 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 9:54:49 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 3:35:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:13:03 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:43:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:54:35 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:


That questions doesn't go away as government goes away. There will always be power differential between people. Even if I sign an contract that lays the terms of setting a conflict or breach of contract there can be unscrupulous selling practices that I must accept out of necessity such as buying food to survive.

They have food and I don't therefore with lack of competition I have to accept the terms of condition no matter how disfavorable to me. It is not fair to call a situation such as that as a voluntary transaction.

It is how humans get enslaved as indentured servants aka modern slaverythromycin. A lack of governance does not solve these areas where a human holds tremendous power over another.

The argument you seem to be putting forward is that we MUST trade to survive and so to call it voluntary exchange would be incorrect.

This is a false equivalence, You are claiming we must trade to survive, but that isn't true, what we must do is survive. Trade is only a means to facilitate a better chance at survival.
Nature is forcing us. Physics, time, our own fragility or mortality are all forcing us to get food, shelter, clothing etc. and so it is up to us to provide these things for ourselves. To say that we must trade is to deny our responsibility for ourselves, especially to say that voluntary exchange is forced. It would claim our own mortality is the fault of humanity.
Also it seems you are saying that because trade is force to some degree, government still should play a role? In protecting us from force? You didn't really specify.

We should all be farmers and never be in a situation where someone can take advantage of us. Got it.

Obviously that isn't close to what I'm saying, we both know that. How can someone take advantage of you if they are not forcing you to do anything? You can accept their offer or not. In what way could they conceivably take advantage of you by an offer?

It is not a difficult concept, which was already laid out. Lack competition, controls supply, and is a necessity to life. In that scenario there is a considerable power difference between parties that it in all practical definitions can not be considered voluntary.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/14/2016 11:45:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 11:33:46 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:54:49 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 3:35:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:13:03 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:43:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:54:35 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:


That questions doesn't go away as government goes away. There will always be power differential between people. Even if I sign an contract that lays the terms of setting a conflict or breach of contract there can be unscrupulous selling practices that I must accept out of necessity such as buying food to survive.

They have food and I don't therefore with lack of competition I have to accept the terms of condition no matter how disfavorable to me. It is not fair to call a situation such as that as a voluntary transaction.

It is how humans get enslaved as indentured servants aka modern slaverythromycin. A lack of governance does not solve these areas where a human holds tremendous power over another.

The argument you seem to be putting forward is that we MUST trade to survive and so to call it voluntary exchange would be incorrect.

This is a false equivalence, You are claiming we must trade to survive, but that isn't true, what we must do is survive. Trade is only a means to facilitate a better chance at survival.
Nature is forcing us. Physics, time, our own fragility or mortality are all forcing us to get food, shelter, clothing etc. and so it is up to us to provide these things for ourselves. To say that we must trade is to deny our responsibility for ourselves, especially to say that voluntary exchange is forced. It would claim our own mortality is the fault of humanity.
Also it seems you are saying that because trade is force to some degree, government still should play a role? In protecting us from force? You didn't really specify.

We should all be farmers and never be in a situation where someone can take advantage of us. Got it.

Obviously that isn't close to what I'm saying, we both know that. How can someone take advantage of you if they are not forcing you to do anything? You can accept their offer or not. In what way could they conceivably take advantage of you by an offer?

It is not a difficult concept, which was already laid out. Lack competition, controls supply, and is a necessity to life. In that scenario there is a considerable power difference between parties that it in all practical definitions can not be considered voluntary.

What you have "laid out" is a false equivalence. You are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that if someone has food and you don't you are forced to trade to acquire the food. That is too say there is no other food. How did the people with the food get it? Why are you not capable of obtaining food elsewhere? How are you otherwise entitled to someone else's food in the first place? And how does government even solve this?

Also why are you not arguing against my OP? This is already not making much sense.
This sentence: "Lack competition, controls supply, and is a necessity to life." What is this supposed to mean? If you are saying that if someone claims a particular resource you must trade with them, then are missing what I am saying. It is not ok to force the claim of a particular resources or claim land by force. That is still the initiation of force.
roun12
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 12:05:31 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 10:07:52 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 3:58:36 PM, roun12 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 12:52:22 PM, Rhivan wrote:
At 6/12/2016 1:35:55 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Anarchy, anything less would be uncivilized!

Here is one for the thread: Politics are Immoral, But Anarchy is worse.

+1

I will basically say the same thing to you, feel free to argue against my OP or admit that it is correct. To say 'anarchy is worse' is not an attempt at an argument. I didn't become an anarchist over night and it was a long battle before I conceding ultimately to reason and truth.

Most anarchist states, such as Hungary and Ukraine in the 1920's, are shown to be incapable of withstanding outside force. Anarchist states can easily become dictatorships, such as Spain in the 1930's. Most anarchist states don't last very long and they crumble within a few years or decades.
"No, I disagree. 'R' is among the most menacing of sounds. That's why they call it MURDER, not Muckduck." - Dwight

"Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." - George Carlin
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 1:12:37 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 12:05:31 AM, roun12 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 10:07:52 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 3:58:36 PM, roun12 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 12:52:22 PM, Rhivan wrote:
At 6/12/2016 1:35:55 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Anarchy, anything less would be uncivilized!

Here is one for the thread: Politics are Immoral, But Anarchy is worse.

+1

I will basically say the same thing to you, feel free to argue against my OP or admit that it is correct. To say 'anarchy is worse' is not an attempt at an argument. I didn't become an anarchist over night and it was a long battle before I conceding ultimately to reason and truth.

Most anarchist states, such as Hungary and Ukraine in the 1920's, are shown to be incapable of withstanding outside force. Anarchist states can easily become dictatorships, such as Spain in the 1930's. Most anarchist states don't last very long and they crumble within a few years or decades.

Well, I appreciate you putting in some effort though this claim doesn't relate to the OP. I am not aware there was ever really an 'anarchist state'. Somalia for instance is not an anarchist nation, let's call it. Somalians still are ruled by warlords or religious leaders. Anarchy as I see it is the realization that no one is legitimate in claiming rule over another. The translation as far as I understand is 'no rulers' which would imply equality under law. We could argue about what constitutes the definition of anarchy, but that is not my intention. My intention is to bring to light the force involved in government and therefore political action and how it violates our own social ethical standards.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 2:57:54 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/14/2016 11:45:50 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:33:46 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:54:49 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 3:35:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:13:03 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:43:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:54:35 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:


That questions doesn't go away as government goes away. There will always be power differential between people. Even if I sign an contract that lays the terms of setting a conflict or breach of contract there can be unscrupulous selling practices that I must accept out of necessity such as buying food to survive.

They have food and I don't therefore with lack of competition I have to accept the terms of condition no matter how disfavorable to me. It is not fair to call a situation such as that as a voluntary transaction.

It is how humans get enslaved as indentured servants aka modern slaverythromycin. A lack of governance does not solve these areas where a human holds tremendous power over another.

The argument you seem to be putting forward is that we MUST trade to survive and so to call it voluntary exchange would be incorrect.

This is a false equivalence, You are claiming we must trade to survive, but that isn't true, what we must do is survive. Trade is only a means to facilitate a better chance at survival.
Nature is forcing us. Physics, time, our own fragility or mortality are all forcing us to get food, shelter, clothing etc. and so it is up to us to provide these things for ourselves. To say that we must trade is to deny our responsibility for ourselves, especially to say that voluntary exchange is forced. It would claim our own mortality is the fault of humanity.
Also it seems you are saying that because trade is force to some degree, government still should play a role? In protecting us from force? You didn't really specify.

We should all be farmers and never be in a situation where someone can take advantage of us. Got it.

Obviously that isn't close to what I'm saying, we both know that. How can someone take advantage of you if they are not forcing you to do anything? You can accept their offer or not. In what way could they conceivably take advantage of you by an offer?

It is not a difficult concept, which was already laid out. Lack competition, controls supply, and is a necessity to life. In that scenario there is a considerable power difference between parties that it in all practical definitions can not be considered voluntary.

What you have "laid out" is a false equivalence. You are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that if someone has food and you don't you are forced to trade to acquire the food. That is too say there is no other food. How did the people with the food get it? Why are you not capable of obtaining food elsewhere? How are you otherwise entitled to someone else's food in the first place? And how does government even solve this?

Also why are you not arguing against my OP? This is already not making much sense.
This sentence: "Lack competition, controls supply, and is a necessity to life." What is this supposed to mean? If you are saying that if someone claims a particular resource you must trade with them, then are missing what I am saying. It is not ok to force the claim of a particular resources or claim land by force. That is still the initiation of force.

I'm not certain how I have presented a false equivalence when I have not compared any thing to you. Your entire OP is based upon forced versus voluntary transactions. I gave you an example of situation that is seemingly voluntary between private individuals where when dig deeper they are not voluntary due to the power difference between the two parties. Your system apparently has nothing to offer for such situation.
bhakun
Posts: 231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 3:44:58 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
No gods, no masters.
"We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered." -MLK Jr
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 3:45:21 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 2:57:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:45:50 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:33:46 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:54:49 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 3:35:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:13:03 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:43:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:54:35 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:


That questions doesn't go away as government goes away. There will always be power differential between people. Even if I sign an contract that lays the terms of setting a conflict or breach of contract there can be unscrupulous selling practices that I must accept out of necessity such as buying food to survive.

They have food and I don't therefore with lack of competition I have to accept the terms of condition no matter how disfavorable to me. It is not fair to call a situation such as that as a voluntary transaction.

It is how humans get enslaved as indentured servants aka modern slaverythromycin. A lack of governance does not solve these areas where a human holds tremendous power over another.

The argument you seem to be putting forward is that we MUST trade to survive and so to call it voluntary exchange would be incorrect.

This is a false equivalence, You are claiming we must trade to survive, but that isn't true, what we must do is survive. Trade is only a means to facilitate a better chance at survival.
Nature is forcing us. Physics, time, our own fragility or mortality are all forcing us to get food, shelter, clothing etc. and so it is up to us to provide these things for ourselves. To say that we must trade is to deny our responsibility for ourselves, especially to say that voluntary exchange is forced. It would claim our own mortality is the fault of humanity.
Also it seems you are saying that because trade is force to some degree, government still should play a role? In protecting us from force? You didn't really specify.

We should all be farmers and never be in a situation where someone can take advantage of us. Got it.

Obviously that isn't close to what I'm saying, we both know that. How can someone take advantage of you if they are not forcing you to do anything? You can accept their offer or not. In what way could they conceivably take advantage of you by an offer?

It is not a difficult concept, which was already laid out. Lack competition, controls supply, and is a necessity to life. In that scenario there is a considerable power difference between parties that it in all practical definitions can not be considered voluntary.

What you have "laid out" is a false equivalence. You are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that if someone has food and you don't you are forced to trade to acquire the food. That is too say there is no other food. How did the people with the food get it? Why are you not capable of obtaining food elsewhere? How are you otherwise entitled to someone else's food in the first place? And how does government even solve this?

Also why are you not arguing against my OP? This is already not making much sense.
This sentence: "Lack competition, controls supply, and is a necessity to life." What is this supposed to mean? If you are saying that if someone claims a particular resource you must trade with them, then are missing what I am saying. It is not ok to force the claim of a particular resources or claim land by force. That is still the initiation of force.

I'm not certain how I have presented a false equivalence when I have not compared any thing to you. Your entire OP is based upon forced versus voluntary transactions. I gave you an example of situation that is seemingly voluntary between private individuals where when dig deeper they are not voluntary due to the power difference between the two parties. Your system apparently has nothing to offer for such situation.

False equivalence, meaning that you are stating something to be coercive when in fact it is not. Mortality is coercive, it forces you to breath and eat and drink. If someone offers to trade you food for something, you simply have an option you previously didn't. You have lost nothing and in no way are obligated to accept said offer. You can look as close as you'd like, you simply are not being forced by an offer, you're being 'forced' in that case by your own mortality. That is the false equivalence. You're equating voluntary trade, of food for instance, with force because you are 'forced' to eat. Again that is not to imply you are forced to trade for food, just forced to acquire it again my your own mortality, by nature.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 4:26:28 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 3:45:21 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/15/2016 2:57:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:45:50 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:33:46 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:54:49 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 3:35:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:13:03 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:43:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:54:35 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:


That questions doesn't go away as government goes away. There will always be power differential between people. Even if I sign an contract that lays the terms of setting a conflict or breach of contract there can be unscrupulous selling practices that I must accept out of necessity such as buying food to survive.

They have food and I don't therefore with lack of competition I have to accept the terms of condition no matter how disfavorable to me. It is not fair to call a situation such as that as a voluntary transaction.

It is how humans get enslaved as indentured servants aka modern slaverythromycin. A lack of governance does not solve these areas where a human holds tremendous power over another.

The argument you seem to be putting forward is that we MUST trade to survive and so to call it voluntary exchange would be incorrect.

This is a false equivalence, You are claiming we must trade to survive, but that isn't true, what we must do is survive. Trade is only a means to facilitate a better chance at survival.
Nature is forcing us. Physics, time, our own fragility or mortality are all forcing us to get food, shelter, clothing etc. and so it is up to us to provide these things for ourselves. To say that we must trade is to deny our responsibility for ourselves, especially to say that voluntary exchange is forced. It would claim our own mortality is the fault of humanity.
Also it seems you are saying that because trade is force to some degree, government still should play a role? In protecting us from force? You didn't really specify.

We should all be farmers and never be in a situation where someone can take advantage of us. Got it.

Obviously that isn't close to what I'm saying, we both know that. How can someone take advantage of you if they are not forcing you to do anything? You can accept their offer or not. In what way could they conceivably take advantage of you by an offer?

It is not a difficult concept, which was already laid out. Lack competition, controls supply, and is a necessity to life. In that scenario there is a considerable power difference between parties that it in all practical definitions can not be considered voluntary.

What you have "laid out" is a false equivalence. You are saying, and correct me if I am wrong, that if someone has food and you don't you are forced to trade to acquire the food. That is too say there is no other food. How did the people with the food get it? Why are you not capable of obtaining food elsewhere? How are you otherwise entitled to someone else's food in the first place? And how does government even solve this?

Also why are you not arguing against my OP? This is already not making much sense.
This sentence: "Lack competition, controls supply, and is a necessity to life." What is this supposed to mean? If you are saying that if someone claims a particular resource you must trade with them, then are missing what I am saying. It is not ok to force the claim of a particular resources or claim land by force. That is still the initiation of force.

I'm not certain how I have presented a false equivalence when I have not compared any thing to you. Your entire OP is based upon forced versus voluntary transactions. I gave you an example of situation that is seemingly voluntary between private individuals where when dig deeper they are not voluntary due to the power difference between the two parties. Your system apparently has nothing to offer for such situation.

False equivalence, meaning that you are stating something to be coercive when in fact it is not. Mortality is coercive, it forces you to breath and eat and drink. If someone offers to trade you food for something, you simply have an option you previously didn't. You have lost nothing and in no way are obligated to accept said offer. You can look as close as you'd like, you simply are not being forced by an offer, you're being 'forced' in that case by your own mortality. That is the false equivalence. You're equating voluntary trade, of food for instance, with force because you are 'forced' to eat. Again that is not to imply you are forced to trade for food, just forced to acquire it again my your own mortality, by nature.

And when your daughter is bleeding out at the steps of a hospital who offers a trade to save her life for all your future earnings? Is that a simple voluntary offer one can walk away from?

You can't even acknowledge that people can take advantage of others in your technical free and voluntary deals.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/15/2016 9:15:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 4:26:28 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/15/2016 3:45:21 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/15/2016 2:57:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:45:50 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:33:46 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:54:49 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 3:35:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:13:03 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:43:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:54:35 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:

.

And when your daughter is bleeding out at the steps of a hospital who offers a trade to save her life for all your future earnings? Is that a simple voluntary offer one can walk away from?

You can't even acknowledge that people can take advantage of others in your technical free and voluntary deals.

And no one would offer me anything better? No hospital would treat my daughter for a reasonable price? Is that the best you can do, come up with a scenario that would never exist in reality?
In reality there are plenty of people willing to trade fairly, and that is because it is in their self interest to do so. The only way someone could ever do something like that is if they were somehow the only one with that particular skill, and still why? That person would still need things themselves, they would still need other people just the same. Again, that is a scenario created entirely outside of reality.
I am against the initiation of force, and for equality of law, and am merely pointing out that politics and government is the initiation of force. I don't see how you are trying to prove anything to the contrary.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2016 12:02:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/15/2016 9:15:16 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/15/2016 4:26:28 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/15/2016 3:45:21 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/15/2016 2:57:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:45:50 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:33:46 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:54:49 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 3:35:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:13:03 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:43:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:54:35 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:

.

And when your daughter is bleeding out at the steps of a hospital who offers a trade to save her life for all your future earnings? Is that a simple voluntary offer one can walk away from?

You can't even acknowledge that people can take advantage of others in your technical free and voluntary deals.

And no one would offer me anything better? No hospital would treat my daughter for a reasonable price? Is that the best you can do, come up with a scenario that would never exist in reality?
In reality there are plenty of people willing to trade fairly, and that is because it is in their self interest to do so. The only way someone could ever do something like that is if they were somehow the only one with that particular skill, and still why? That person would still need things themselves, they would still need other people just the same. Again, that is a scenario created entirely outside of reality.
I am against the initiation of force, and for equality of law, and am merely pointing out that politics and government is the initiation of force. I don't see how you are trying to prove anything to the contrary.

What are you smoking that you don't think people are in life and death emergency situations where they can't shop for quotes for the best offer. You have some whacky notions.

Just forget it and dream of your world where buyers are never in a very disadvantaged situation and can hop on the Internet for 10 quotes for goods and services.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 2:47:52 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/16/2016 12:02:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/15/2016 9:15:16 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/15/2016 4:26:28 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/15/2016 3:45:21 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/15/2016 2:57:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:45:50 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:33:46 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:54:49 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 3:35:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:13:03 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:43:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:54:35 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:

.

And when your daughter is bleeding out at the steps of a hospital who offers a trade to save her life for all your future earnings? Is that a simple voluntary offer one can walk away from?

You can't even acknowledge that people can take advantage of others in your technical free and voluntary deals.

And no one would offer me anything better? No hospital would treat my daughter for a reasonable price? Is that the best you can do, come up with a scenario that would never exist in reality?
In reality there are plenty of people willing to trade fairly, and that is because it is in their self interest to do so. The only way someone could ever do something like that is if they were somehow the only one with that particular skill, and still why? That person would still need things themselves, they would still need other people just the same. Again, that is a scenario created entirely outside of reality.
I am against the initiation of force, and for equality of law, and am merely pointing out that politics and government is the initiation of force. I don't see how you are trying to prove anything to the contrary.

What are you smoking that you don't think people are in life and death emergency situations where they can't shop for quotes for the best offer. You have some whacky notions.

Just forget it and dream of your world where buyers are never in a very disadvantaged situation and can hop on the Internet for 10 quotes for goods and services.

I really shouldn't even waste my time with you, because now it is completely clear that's what I'm doing. Shop for quotes? What are you talking about now? I thought in your lovely example where you created this absurd visceral, emotionally charged scenario where "my daughter is bleeding to death", 'my daughter' is at a hospital? So what hospital is going to charge me "all of my future earnings"? Stupid, stupid scenario and 'argument' and I have 'wacky notions'? Please for the love of all that is good, stop voting, this is why I have to deal with BS, people like you that are completely clueless.
My world where buyers are never in disadvantaged situations? Did I say that? No, no I didn't. All this back and forth and you never attempted to challenge the OP.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 4:04:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 2:47:52 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/16/2016 12:02:01 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/15/2016 9:15:16 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/15/2016 4:26:28 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/15/2016 3:45:21 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/15/2016 2:57:54 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:45:50 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 11:33:46 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 9:54:49 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/14/2016 3:35:07 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/14/2016 2:13:03 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/13/2016 12:43:40 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 6/12/2016 2:54:35 AM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:

.

And when your daughter is bleeding out at the steps of a hospital who offers a trade to save her life for all your future earnings? Is that a simple voluntary offer one can walk away from?

You can't even acknowledge that people can take advantage of others in your technical free and voluntary deals.

And no one would offer me anything better? No hospital would treat my daughter for a reasonable price? Is that the best you can do, come up with a scenario that would never exist in reality?
In reality there are plenty of people willing to trade fairly, and that is because it is in their self interest to do so. The only way someone could ever do something like that is if they were somehow the only one with that particular skill, and still why? That person would still need things themselves, they would still need other people just the same. Again, that is a scenario created entirely outside of reality.
I am against the initiation of force, and for equality of law, and am merely pointing out that politics and government is the initiation of force. I don't see how you are trying to prove anything to the contrary.

What are you smoking that you don't think people are in life and death emergency situations where they can't shop for quotes for the best offer. You have some whacky notions.

Just forget it and dream of your world where buyers are never in a very disadvantaged situation and can hop on the Internet for 10 quotes for goods and services.

I really shouldn't even waste my time with you, because now it is completely clear that's what I'm doing. Shop for quotes? What are you talking about now? I thought in your lovely example where you created this absurd visceral, emotionally charged scenario where "my daughter is bleeding to death", 'my daughter' is at a hospital? So what hospital is going to charge me "all of my future earnings"? Stupid, stupid scenario and 'argument' and I have 'wacky notions'? Please for the love of all that is good, stop voting, this is why I have to deal with BS, people like you that are completely clueless.
My world where buyers are never in disadvantaged situations? Did I say that? No, no I didn't. All this back and forth and you never attempted to challenge the OP.

All this back and forth is simply because you refuse to acknowledge that there are situations where suppliers have goods and services necessary for life that puts people who need to exchange for those goods and services in an extremely disadvantaged position.

It is also very clear that you are young otherwise you would know that Ronald Reagan signed a law requiring emergency rooms accept all emergencies because my visceral example did indeed happen. Unfortunately a society you propose it would begin to happen again.

Last thing I will say is that the only person you should fear on your debates is your self.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 11:00:31 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/18/2016 4:04:44 PM, slo1 wrote:
All this back and forth and you never attempted to challenge the OP.

All this back and forth is simply because you refuse to acknowledge that there are situations where suppliers have goods and services necessary for life that puts people who need to exchange for those goods and services in an extremely disadvantaged position.


And that has nothing to do with politics being immoral. Politicians and voters use the force of the state to disadvantage people constantly, to steal and murder and imprison. Some people are taller, smarter, stronger, better looking, whatever genetic traits that create an advantage over others. But all things equal, remove force from the equation and you have a 'system' with the most equality. If you are to say that we need politic force to better the world, I would ask, do you see these politicians? The same people that would advantage themselves by disadvantaging another are running the government!

It is also very clear that you are young otherwise you would know that Ronald Reagan signed a law requiring emergency rooms accept all emergencies because my visceral example did indeed happen. Unfortunately a society you propose it would begin to happen again.


Yeah, I'm not that young. Oh, that happened? A child was left to bleed to death on the steps of the hospital because the father didn't agree to pay all of his future earnings for her care? Yeah sure, I must of missed that one. And a society without force would let people bleed to death because they couldn't pay their future earnings? That makes so much sense, you're right.

Last thing I will say is that the only person you should fear on your debates is your self.

Yes, I will fear myself, you never actually addressed the OP, but sure thing.
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 2:27:47 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 11:00:31 PM, BillSPrestonEsq wrote:
At 6/18/2016 4:04:44 PM, slo1 wrote:
All this back and forth and you never attempted to challenge the OP.

All this back and forth is simply because you refuse to acknowledge that there are situations where suppliers have goods and services necessary for life that puts people who need to exchange for those goods and services in an extremely disadvantaged position.


And that has nothing to do with politics being immoral. Politicians and voters use the force of the state to disadvantage people constantly, to steal and murder and imprison. Some people are taller, smarter, stronger, better looking, whatever genetic traits that create an advantage over others. But all things equal, remove force from the equation and you have a 'system' with the most equality. If you are to say that we need politic force to better the world, I would ask, do you see these politicians? The same people that would advantage themselves by disadvantaging another are running the government!

It is also very clear that you are young otherwise you would know that Ronald Reagan signed a law requiring emergency rooms accept all emergencies because my visceral example did indeed happen. Unfortunately a society you propose it would begin to happen again.


Yeah, I'm not that young. Oh, that happened? A child was left to bleed to death on the steps of the hospital because the father didn't agree to pay all of his future earnings for her care? Yeah sure, I must of missed that one. And a society without force would let people bleed to death because they couldn't pay their future earnings? That makes so much sense, you're right.

It was more nuanced than that. Poor would get treated and then discharged prior than they should have been because hospitals knew the poor would not pay. As an aggrigate the poor were twice as likely to die after discharge than those with health insurance. Some hospitals indeed turned away people at the door.

The OP places a standard of immorality based upon involuntary versus voluntary. I gave examples of voluntary transaction that really due to the power differential and necessity of the buying party can not be truly considered voluntary. Simply to point out that a lack of governance does not eliminate all involuntary transactions.

It is a valid point and you turned it into this sh1t show. The simple fact of the matter is that religions, governments, tribes, and families institute rules.

A government telling hospitals it must accept all emergency patients that show up at its door is no less morale than your father telling you to pick up your room.

Last thing I will say is that the only person you should fear on your debates is your self.

Yes, I will fear myself, you never actually addressed the OP, but sure thing.