Total Posts:83|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Democracy

Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 4:44:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think that the American system of representation would be better if a) The electoral college was eliminated, b) A Ranked-choice voting was implemented, and c) Political parties dissolved or became less decisive in politics.

How do you feel about these ideas? Realization of such is unlikely, but do you feel that this would be ideal?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 4:46:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Anarchy is ideal.

So no.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

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

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 4:53:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 4:46:49 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Anarchy is ideal.

So no.

Um. Are you being serious? That's what you think would be the most ideal transformation for American society? You've assessed all options and have decided that that is the best?

There are almost 7 billion people on the Earth. Anarchy is fun in a hypothetical world where we are all hunter-gatherers living in small bands, but that idea is cartoonishly unrealistic when applied to the world as it is.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 4:56:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 4:53:27 PM, Harlan wrote:
At 9/16/2009 4:46:49 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Anarchy is ideal.

So no.

Um. Are you being serious? That's what you think would be the most ideal transformation for American society? You've assessed all options and have decided that that is the best?

There are almost 7 billion people on the Earth. Anarchy is fun in a hypothetical world where we are all hunter-gatherers living in small bands, but that idea is cartoonishly unrealistic when applied to the world as it is.

Agreed.
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 5:32:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 4:53:27 PM, Harlan wrote:
Anarchy is fun in a hypothetical world where we are all hunter-gatherers living in small bands, but that idea is cartoonishly unrealistic when applied to the world as it is.

You know what's cartoonishly unrealistic?
Believing that pointing guns at people will create world peace.

You know what the government is?
The business that has the monopoly on the use of force.

Um. Are you being serious?
Yes, I am.

Since you're not exactly friendly, I won't exactly be friendly either.

That's what you think would be the most ideal transformation for American society? You've assessed all options and have decided that that is the best?
Excuse me, but how the hell am I supposed to have assessed all options? Are you like, straw-manning me and pretending I'm a God and then asking me if Anarchy is the best possible thing? Do you have NO idea how perception and experience works? Hell, we can skip all the basics, we can go to what you said in your first post.

Realization of such is unlikely, but do you feel that this would be ideal?
You did not ask for an absolute truth, you asked for opinions. If you meant "Only gods with absolute knowledge and infinite experience can post in this thread", then SO-RRY I was so human and couldn't figure that out from your original post there.

Yes, in my point of view, anarchy is ideal.

Um. Are you being serious? isn't going to change sh!t in my mind, and such a phrase is incapable of changing anyone who has an even remotely individually developing mind. Only children fall for the guilt crap.

Oh wait, that's what you think of me as.
NEVERMIND~
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

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

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 5:45:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 5:32:28 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/16/2009 4:53:27 PM, Harlan wrote:
Anarchy is fun in a hypothetical world where we are all hunter-gatherers living in small bands, but that idea is cartoonishly unrealistic when applied to the world as it is.

You know what's cartoonishly unrealistic?
Believing that pointing guns at people will create world peace.

You know what the government is?
The business that has the monopoly on the use of force.

Um. Are you being serious?
Yes, I am.

Since you're not exactly friendly, I won't exactly be friendly either.

That's what you think would be the most ideal transformation for American society? You've assessed all options and have decided that that is the best?
Excuse me, but how the hell am I supposed to have assessed all options? Are you like, straw-manning me and pretending I'm a God and then asking me if Anarchy is the best possible thing? Do you have NO idea how perception and experience works? Hell, we can skip all the basics, we can go to what you said in your first post.

Realization of such is unlikely, but do you feel that this would be ideal?
You did not ask for an absolute truth, you asked for opinions. If you meant "Only gods with absolute knowledge and infinite experience can post in this thread", then SO-RRY I was so human and couldn't figure that out from your original post there.

Yes, in my point of view, anarchy is ideal.

Um. Are you being serious? isn't going to change sh!t in my mind, and such a phrase is incapable of changing anyone who has an even remotely individually developing mind. Only children fall for the guilt crap.

Oh wait, that's what you think of me as.
NEVERMIND~

There's no need for you to be defensive. I was not attacking you, but was merely incredulous that one could suggest that that is an ideal mode for modern-day society.

And I probably was using bad phrasing when I said "assessed all options." What I meant was that you believe that anarchy is the best option that there is, "ideal", as it were. I did not mean that you assessed all of the infinite possible scenarios that could hypothetically exist, and it's ridiculous to interpret it as such.

I don't think of you as a child, unless of course, in a legal sense, you being under 18. You need to chill out.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 6:02:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 4:46:49 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Anarchy is ideal.

So no.

People are stupid and evil.

Everyone knows this, even the stupid and evil people.

Having guns pointed at everyone by everyone makes people a little less hesitant to be stupid and evil.

And that's fine with me.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 6:05:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 6:02:49 PM, Kleptin wrote:
People are stupid and evil.

Everyone knows this, even the stupid and evil people.
I don't exactly believe that, but....

Having guns pointed at everyone by everyone makes people a little less hesitant to be stupid and evil.

And that's fine with me.
....if that's what you support, that is a logical conclusion. If I believed that people are, that is, everybody is stupid and evil, then I would believe in the same conclusion you do. Now, if we take "everyone is stupid and evil" for a moment, and we want to have a world where everyone is pointing guns at everyone else... how exactly is this achieved by government?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

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

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 7:33:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 5:32:28 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 9/16/2009 4:53:27 PM, Harlan wrote:
Anarchy is fun in a hypothetical world where we are all hunter-gatherers living in small bands, but that idea is cartoonishly unrealistic when applied to the world as it is.

You know what's cartoonishly unrealistic?
Believing that pointing guns at people will create world peace.

You know what the government is?
The business that has the monopoly on the use of force.

Um. Are you being serious?
Yes, I am.

Since you're not exactly friendly, I won't exactly be friendly either.

That's what you think would be the most ideal transformation for American society? You've assessed all options and have decided that that is the best?
Excuse me, but how the hell am I supposed to have assessed all options? Are you like, straw-manning me and pretending I'm a God and then asking me if Anarchy is the best possible thing? Do you have NO idea how perception and experience works? Hell, we can skip all the basics, we can go to what you said in your first post.

Realization of such is unlikely, but do you feel that this would be ideal?
You did not ask for an absolute truth, you asked for opinions. If you meant "Only gods with absolute knowledge and infinite experience can post in this thread", then SO-RRY I was so human and couldn't figure that out from your original post there.

Yes, in my point of view, anarchy is ideal.

Um. Are you being serious? isn't going to change sh!t in my mind, and such a phrase is incapable of changing anyone who has an even remotely individually developing mind. Only children fall for the guilt crap.

Oh wait, that's what you think of me as.
NEVERMIND~

Ironically this very post shows why anarchy can't work.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 7:35:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 4:44:48 PM, Harlan wrote:
a) The electoral college was eliminated,

The electoral college seems, to me, to be one of the better ways to elect a position such as President. What other way would you elect a president? I don't know of other alternatives, because I don't know much about that system in general.

b) A Ranked-choice voting was implemented,

I disagree with ranked-choice and single-transferable voting as an effective voting process. I'm a person that likes his FPTP; STV and PR make me shiver.

and c) Political parties dissolved or became less decisive in politics.

I could agree with this in terms of presidential voting, but for legislative assemblies, I believe the parties should keep their current role, with maybe more free voting allowed.

How do you feel about these ideas? Realization of such is unlikely, but do you feel that this would be ideal?

I don't see any major issues with the current political system as it stands; the system itself is not perfect and allows for a lot of abuse, but what system does not?

What needs to happen is a re-engagement of the populace to politics; citizen need to understand and take a hold of the reigns of these politicians, because in the end, it is citizens and voters that can let the keep, or make sure they lose, their jobs, and that is a powerful tool in making sure things get done. Whether or not there are parties, or if there is a ranked-choice system, or if there is no electoral college doesn't change the fact that people need to be engaged in their democracy in order for it to work for them.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 7:35:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 7:11:36 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Rezz, would you mind explaining why you find anarchy to be ideal?

Yeah, I'm curious too Rezz. You agreed with me earlier that an ideal college system, or education system, is one that is free or at least paid for through government loans. Wouldn't anarchism kinda ruin this?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 7:49:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 6:05:46 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:Now, if we take "everyone is stupid and evil" for a moment, and we want to have a world where everyone is pointing guns at everyone else... how exactly is this achieved by government?

Government is constructed by the people to regulate themselves.
The method of regulation is threat of harm.
This is the same as people holding guns on each other.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 7:56:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 7:35:43 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/16/2009 7:11:36 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
Rezz, would you mind explaining why you find anarchy to be ideal?

Yeah, I'm curious too Rezz. You agreed with me earlier that an ideal college system, or education system, is one that is free or at least paid for through government loans. Wouldn't anarchism kinda ruin this?

I'm not sure I said that leet, I was more on the "I agree with you Australia is better in education" on the basis that I believe America is pretty much at the bottom of the world in terms of education.

Why do I find it ideal?

Everything is voluntary. My whole political history has been based on this, but the name has changed a few times. First it was "rights". Then it was "civil rights". Then it was "freedoms". Now it's still freedoms somewhat, but I've realized that every action has its consequence and there's no such thing (unless you work for the state of course) as freedom as do-what-you-want-no-conseuqnces, so now I chase the next best thing - a fully voluntary society.

The main argument against this is that it doesn't work. I once believed this too (and im not trying to put you guys down or anything, just saying how I went through things) but then I watched some of Molyneux's videos and read a few of his books on anarchism and then I started to believe in the theory behind it, even though I didn't understand it fully. I don't particularly mind this, as I believe in biology without understanding all of that, and I believe the earth is round without really being able to prove it, just as other people believe in the state without really knowing every aspect of it, or god without knowing every aspect of it; it's really hard to find a person that really can just defend his position absolutely, because that'd mean they had devoted a lot of time to researching it, time most people do not have.

But the basic proof/theory has convinced me that it's possible to have a society without monopolies on violence. Add that to my desire for freedom, and voila, you have yourself an anarchist called Rezz.

I'd be glad to change to anything any of you can show is more free than anarchy :D
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

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

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 8:03:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 7:49:34 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/16/2009 6:05:46 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:Now, if we take "everyone is stupid and evil" for a moment, and we want to have a world where everyone is pointing guns at everyone else... how exactly is this achieved by government?

Government is constructed by the people to regulate themselves.
The method of regulation is threat of harm.
This is the same as people holding guns on each other.
The government is simply people with guns. In every country that exists today, to the extent of my knowledge, the people are not allowed by their government to own arms more powerful than the government's. The government is therefore effectively a bunch of people with the monopoly on violence, and can point them at the [effectively or actually] disarmed citizens.

If we take a room of 100 men and give 1 or 10 of them guns, it doesn't matter if those 1 or 10 men were chosen or not chosen by the other 99 or 99, it is NOT the same as 100 guns being pointed at each other BY ANY STANDARD.

Oh yeah, government was not constructed by the people to regulate themselves. If we're talking about the original states several thousand years ago, none of those were created "to regulate themselves". The states that came after merely modelled after those original states. Tabula rasa, no state would ever arise because of a purpose to "regulate themselves".
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

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

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 8:08:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 7:56:16 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
I'd be glad to change to anything any of you can show is more free than anarchy

I've always wondered one thing...

What is the point of being "free" when you never actually will be?

To say an individual can be free is saying that they're basically insane. No individual is actually free; we have constraints brought upon us by the simple fact that we must live within the social and biological confines that make us human. You cannot try to murder someone without retaliation; you can't jump in the air without being brought down by gravity. Whatever you do, you're never actually "free" to do it, because we always live within confines of some sort, and that is simple reality.

The only people that do not live within the confines of this world, at least from their perspective, are those that are no longer sane. To them, freedom is real, because they're no longer living in reality.

So, why anarchy? Why try to allow "freedom" when it will never actually exist? Why not try to make organized the mess that is human society, and ensure that all participants can have access to the same freedoms the next person has. That kind of organization to me, seems much better than trying to allow freedom in a world were we will never actually have it.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 8:12:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 7:35:13 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/16/2009 4:44:48 PM, Harlan wrote:
a) The electoral college was eliminated,

The electoral college seems, to me, to be one of the better ways to elect a position such as President. What other way would you elect a president? I don't know of other alternatives, because I don't know much about that system in general.

Just a popular vote. Simplistic, easy, inclusive, democratic, fair.

b) A Ranked-choice voting was implemented,

I disagree with ranked-choice and single-transferable voting as an effective voting process. I'm a person that likes his FPTP; STV and PR make me shiver.

I think that a runoff vote would be better so that third parties would have a better chance of winning, and votes for third party candidates would not subtract from the important votes for the big candidates that will actually win.

Like I might think Ralph Nader is the best choice, but in stead vote for Obama because Ralph Nader is obviously not going to win. I think it is sad that that compromise must be made in a democratic society.

How do you feel about these ideas? Realization of such is unlikely, but do you feel that this would be ideal?

What needs to happen is a re-engagement of the populace to politics; citizen need to understand and take a hold of the reigns of these politicians, because in the end, it is citizens and voters that can let the keep, or make sure they lose, their jobs, and that is a powerful tool in making sure things get done. Whether or not there are parties, or if there is a ranked-choice system, or if there is no electoral college doesn't change the fact that people need to be engaged in their democracy in order for it to work for them.

Absolutely. And the voting day should be moved, also, to help this.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 8:18:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The government is simply people with guns. In every country that exists today, to the extent of my knowledge, the people are not allowed by their government to own arms more powerful than the government's. The government is therefore effectively a bunch of people with the monopoly on violence, and can point them at the [effectively or actually] disarmed citizens.

If we take a room of 100 men and give 1 or 10 of them guns, it doesn't matter if those 1 or 10 men were chosen or not chosen by the other 99 or 99, it is NOT the same as 100 guns being pointed at each other BY ANY STANDARD.

Oh yeah, government was not constructed by the people to regulate themselves. If we're talking about the original states several thousand years ago, none of those were created "to regulate themselves". The states that came after merely modelled after those original states. Tabula rasa, no state would ever arise because of a purpose to "regulate themselves".

And what's so wrong about that? The government is meant to be stronger than citizen for beneficial reasons, though it is true this power can be abused. This is why we have concepts of checks and balances to try to keep this power in control and not tip over.

What I'm still wondering is how an anarchy would even function. What happens when people commit crimes? What happens when an unruly Mafia family start creating havoc? There is no government to protect you. In fact, you damn yourself to the same situation you were trying to escape - instead of government with guns "oppressing you", it's a Mafia family (or gangs, etc.).
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 8:27:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 8:12:08 PM, Harlan wrote:
Just a popular vote. Simplistic, easy, inclusive, democratic, fair.

Are we talking about something like, Candidate A gets 46% of he vote, Candidate B 41%, rest 13%, and then it goes to run off between A and B, etc.?

I think that a runoff vote would be better so that third parties would have a better chance of winning, and votes for third party candidates would not subtract from the important votes for the big candidates that will actually win.

Like I might think Ralph Nader is the best choice, but in stead vote for Obama because Ralph Nader is obviously not going to win. I think it is sad that that compromise must be made in a democratic society.

Coming from my perspective, I can see why that (called strategic voting) is a very sad fact, but I also don't see that idea changing with an STV voting system.

For example, lets say there is three candidates - A, B and C. If you rank A as your first pick, B as your third and C as your second, but it seems to election seems to be leaning towards B anyways, whoever is getting the second most votes could still be your next least favourite candidate, which in this case is C. The vote then becomes a battle between B and C, while A gets shafted, despite him being your more preferred candidate.

This is the exact same situation with strategic voting. It appears that the election is leaning towards B, so to make sure that there is a good opposition to it, you'll vote B anyways, because clearly A doesn't have enough support to win. Same result.

STV also doesn't really create enough support for third parties, not as much as proportional representation would. Because with STV, the voting is still strategic - B and C will still battle, leaving the preferred A candidate in the dust. With PR, when you vote for A's party, A's party will assign seats specifically based on the number of votes they got - so if A party got 15% of the vote, and there is 100 seats up for grabs, A party gets 15 seats. STV doesn't work that way, and is not preferable for third parties.

Absolutely. And the voting day should be moved, also, to help this.

You mean from that first Tuesday of November mark? I agree.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 8:28:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 8:27:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
This is the exact same situation with strategic voting. It appears that the election is leaning towards B, so to make sure that there is a good opposition to it, you'll vote B* anyways, because clearly A doesn't have enough support to win. Same result.

I meant vote C*
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 8:36:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 8:08:52 PM, Volkov wrote:
[...] So, why anarchy? Why try to allow "freedom" when it will never actually exist? Why not try to make organized the mess that is human society, and ensure that all participants can have access to the same freedoms the next person has. That kind of organization to me, seems much better than trying to allow freedom in a world were we will never actually have it.

Yeah, that's what I said I realized. I don't believe in "freedom" anymore. I still like the idea because it gives me some kind of feeling I like, but it's just a fantasy concept to me now. I don't like violence though, so I'm still against that. I also believe it's not profitable. From both an efficiency and "moral" if you can call the NAP a moral argument, from both those standpoints, I oppose government. Anarchy is a better way of "organize[...] the mess that is human society, and ensure that all participants can have access to the same freedoms the next person has."

"The state is a denial of emergence. It will only work to the extent it mimics the emergent order, and so there is no state like no state." - confederalsocialist

That's what I believe.

At 9/16/2009 8:18:42 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
The government is simply people with guns. In every country that exists today, to the extent of my knowledge, the people are not allowed by their government to own arms more powerful than the government's. The government is therefore effectively a bunch of people with the monopoly on violence, and can point them at the [effectively or actually] disarmed citizens.

If we take a room of 100 men and give 1 or 10 of them guns, it doesn't matter if those 1 or 10 men were chosen or not chosen by the other 99 or 99, it is NOT the same as 100 guns being pointed at each other BY ANY STANDARD.

Oh yeah, government was not constructed by the people to regulate themselves. If we're talking about the original states several thousand years ago, none of those were created "to regulate themselves". The states that came after merely modelled after those original states. Tabula rasa, no state would ever arise because of a purpose to "regulate themselves".

And what's so wrong about that? The government is meant to be stronger than citizen for beneficial reasons, though it is true this power can be abused. This is why we have concepts of checks and balances to try to keep this power in control and not tip over.
Checks and balances is a flawed theory, in my opinion, though I haven't found anyone else making this argument, though I suspect that in turn is because I haven't looked hard enough. Checks and balances, in theory, are to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power. We have branch A,B.C. When A gets out of line, there are two things that B and C can do: 1) they use their powers to shrink A, or 2) they grow to match A. History shows us that branches B and C always choose path 2, and from basic human psychology, no not even, even just from that old british guy (though I think some guy in Plato's "The Republic" said it too) Lord whatshisface - "Power Corrupts."

When one branch shrinks, if that ever happens, the other two branches don't really give a d*mn. Then the people in the first branch will complain they don't have enough power, and they grow, then the other two branches will b!tch too, and it's just a never ending cycle of growing government power. It is inevitable.

I don't care what anybody means when they do anything,
because I believe everyone means well from their own point of view.


"No sane human being can look in the mirror and say: “I am evil.” Even a monster such as Hitler portrayed himself to himself as the saviour of Germany, the liberator of the Aryan race, and so on. The moment that a human being looks in the mirror and says, “I am evil,” he must change." - Stefan Molyneux

And when everyone has something, it's not that significant anymore.

To be honest, I get pretty pissed off when people make some huge mistake and then come back to me telling me they meant well. What did you think I was thinking? Did you honestly believe I thought you were an evil person?

It's kind of like how some people get pissed off more at "No offense" than they do to the original statement. I get pissed off when people say they mean well, because that suggests that I might have possibly been thinking the opposite.

Anyways.

What matters is how things actually turn out. And governments always end up screwing things up. I'm not interested in examples where its "Oh, the NHS looks like a pretty good government program in spite of all the others", no, by definition, government, which does not have the same price signals and indicators that the free market does, can not possibly ever provide better than the free market.


What I'm still wondering is how an anarchy would even function. What happens when people commit crimes? What happens when an unruly Mafia family start creating havoc? There is no government to protect you. In fact, you damn yourself to the same situation you were trying to escape - instead of government with guns "oppressing you", it's a Mafia family (or gangs, etc.).
I know I've "moved on", but Molyneux's book Practical Anarchy is a pretty good summary of how a stateless society can work. There's probably many better examples you can find on your own, but I haven't had time to go to mises or any of the big libertarian sites yet to find more books and articles on the issue. Molyneux's Practical Anarchy is a good "intro" to how an anarchy will solve some of the big issues many people talk about.

You can find it at http://freedomainradio.com...
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

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

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 8:48:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
To say an individual can be free is saying that they're basically insane. No individual is actually free; we have constraints brought upon us by the simple fact that we must live within the social and biological confines that make us human.
First, no social confines make you human. A human can be an island, if he can find a place to be one.

Second, the term freedom does not refer to the ability to fly by flapping your arms.
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.
leet4A1
Posts: 1,986
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 8:54:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 8:48:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A human can be an island, if he can find a place to be one.

Is this a typo? What do you mean a human can be an island?
"Let me tell you the truth. The truth is, 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy, a terrible terrible lie that someone gave to the people long ago. The 'what should be' never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no 'what should be,' there is only what is." - Lenny Bruce

"Satan goes to church, did you know that?" - Godsands

"And Genisis 1 does match modern science... you just have to try really hard." - GR33K FR33K5
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 8:54:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that your praise of the idea of anarchy, rezzeleaux, stems mostly from an idea of what, hypothetically, would be the most favorable circumstance for a society, but not what would practically work sociologically. I definitely respect that, and agree that if you subtract the general dysfunction of society (of which would obviously occur in reality) that would come with anarchy, it would be, hypothetically, better.

But I don't think such a thing is realistic, that is: an anarchy without those problems.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 8:56:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 8:54:51 PM, leet4A1 wrote:
At 9/16/2009 8:48:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
A human can be an island, if he can find a place to be one.

Is this a typo? What do you mean a human can be an island?


Ever heard the phrase "No man is an island?"

I was expressing disagreement with the phrase :).
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
9/16/2009 8:56:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 8:48:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
First, no social confines make you human. A human can be an island, if he can find a place to be one.

This is coming from the person who doesn't believe society exists, yet knows that what apparently doesn't exist does somehow affect him.

As well, you're still talking about constraints. A human can be an island, sure, but only if that human decides to never interact with another individual again, which already stops some portion of your "freedoms" there. You're free, but only free to live within the confines you have created for yourself. God help you if you ever come into contact with another human.

Second, the term freedom does not refer to the ability to fly by flapping your arms.

Sure it does. How could you really be "free" if your biological limitations don't allow you to do certain actions, like being free of gravity? You're confined to certain limits.

Freedom can relate just as much to scientific realities, as it can social/political/etc.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 9:00:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
A teacher that was at my middle school, upon having a student tell her that the student was an anarchist, got really mad and said, angrily "Why don't you go to a country where they practice anarchy, then?!"

I pointed out to her that that wouldn't be a country, and she gave me this insane-old-lady-stare and said "Thank You!", sarcastically.

The people they let teach...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 9:02:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 8:54:52 PM, Harlan wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that your praise of the idea of anarchy, rezzeleaux, stems mostly from an idea of what, hypothetically, would be the most favorable circumstance for a society, but not what would practically work sociologically. I definitely respect that, and agree that if you subtract the general dysfunction of society (of which would obviously occur in reality) that would come with anarchy, it would be, hypothetically, better.

But I don't think such a thing is realistic, that is: an anarchy without those problems.
You're going to have to specify.... I don't know which problems you are referring to? I can't conceive of a problem that a monopoly on violence do better than an anarchy, much less give an answer to a problem that an anarchy could not.

Yes, an anarchy would not work practically sociologically if we are going to be like, "what happened if all governments just suddenly disappeared" - I'm not sure if that's what you're arguing, but I can answer that if that's what you are saying.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

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

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2009 9:05:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/16/2009 8:56:55 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/16/2009 8:48:23 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
First, no social confines make you human. A human can be an island, if he can find a place to be one.

This is coming from the person who doesn't believe society exists
This is a straw man. My statements have never contained the notion that society "doesn't exist." They remove the package-deal status from it, the notion that it's somehow an entity, a stupendous whole. But the concept has referents-- things known as multiple individuals interacting.


As well, you're still talking about constraints. A human can be an island, sure, but only if that human decides to never interact with another individual again, which already stops some portion of your "freedoms" there.
No, it doesn't. Freedom does not mean the ability to violate the law of non-contradiction.

You're free, but only free to live within the confines you have created for yourself.
If the only confines you have are the natural and the self-made, you are free. The term "Free" refers to a situation in which no other human is attacking you or your property.


Second, the term freedom does not refer to the ability to fly by flapping your arms.

Sure it does. How could you really be "free" if your biological limitations don't allow you to do certain actions, like being free of gravity?
By means of not committing the fallacy of equivocation. You should try it sometime :).

Freedom can relate just as much to scientific realities, as it can social/political/etc.
Obviously, it can't. To be free of nature is a floating abstraction, never to be concretized in reality. Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. Seeking freedom as a political goal is a wholly different concept than seeking it as a scientific one-- the former has a realizable meaning, the latter has nothing remotely like one.
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.