PDA

View Full Version : Are people smart enough for Democracy? Apparently, not.



Double R
02-29-2012, 12:01 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/people-arent-smart-enough-democracy-flourish-scientists-185601411.html

I hate that my reasonably informed vote can be cancelled out by some knuckle dragging moron.

Punisher11
02-29-2012, 12:12 PM
"very smart ideas are going to be hard for people to adopt, because most people don’t have the sophistication to recognize how good an idea is," Dunning

:true story:

Das Kapitalist
02-29-2012, 12:47 PM
Your vote only counts if it's a perfect tie. Statistically your vote means as much as adding or subtracting a grain of sand from the ocean.

Double R
02-29-2012, 01:18 PM
According to the multi-verse model, there is a universe which exists that someone's retard vote will be cancelling my informed vote.

So, mutli-verse Matt is :fuu: right now.

Harry
02-29-2012, 01:25 PM
Statistically yes, but c'mon tai, it means a lot more than that and you know it. While it is true that one vote can only make a difference in a tie, something that any 3rd grader has already figured out, the significance of voting has to be appreciated from a collective point of view, in which case it holds a lot more power than it's actual effect.

Double R
02-29-2012, 01:35 PM
Will we have our first legit political discussion.


MERICANADA FUCK YEA

Double R
02-29-2012, 01:37 PM
Statistically yes, but c'mon tai, it means a lot more than that and you know it. While it is true that one vote can only make a difference in a tie, something that any 3rd grader has already figured out, the significance of voting has to be appreciated from a collective point of view, in which case it holds a lot more power than it's actual effect.

I agree with parts of what you said soley due to the fact that's a principal thing.

Yes, if there were one less moronic asshole out there, it wouldn't change the world.

However...

If someone steals a penny from my change tray, it would still piss me off.

Harry
02-29-2012, 01:57 PM
We had an election here where the bad guy won by like 20 people. It really pissed me off because I personally knew that many people that would have voted against him and didn't bother to vote.

Das Kapitalist
02-29-2012, 06:09 PM
Statistically yes, but c'mon tai, it means a lot more than that and you know it. While it is true that one vote can only make a difference in a tie, something that any 3rd grader has already figured out, the significance of voting has to be appreciated from a collective point of view, in which case it holds a lot more power than it's actual effect.

Beyond a certain sample size, your single vote becomes meaningless.

Sure, in a room of 100 people a lone vote can have some kind of effect, but with something like a national election, we are talking about hundreds of millions of votes where the margin of error is larger than entire cities. You are more likely to get killed on the way to the polls than have your vote have some kind of impact on the final result.

Harry
02-29-2012, 07:58 PM
Sure, and that's the conundrum of voting, your vote is meaningless, yes, but it is the final word as well. When an election is won, every single person is equally responsible. Its a bit hard to wrap our heads around the significance or our involvement, but ultimately, you can't look at it that way. You have to look at like your duty.

Suppose a country goes to war, and it needs to send out a million soldiers, so it calls upon all its men to go fight. Why go? You're just one person, your participation can't possibly have any effect on the outcome. You can just sit at home and enjoy the results. So do you?

You're going to say it's not the same thing, it's not as crucial to vote as it is to fight, but to a large degree it is. In fact, it may be more crucial.

It's not only about margins of error. When you vote, you just don't help to decide the winner, you help to offset the balance of power from the government to the people. It is only when that balance of power has shifted the wrong way that we see how important our vote is, like it has in so many other countries, where people literally risk their lives to vote.

Of course I realize that this is all moot to you since you are against any form of democracy, so my logic is obviously based only on the assumption that we're all on the same page about it.

Jake
02-29-2012, 11:37 PM
When you vote, you just don't help to decide the winner, you help to offset the balance of power from the government to the people. It is only when that balance of power has shifted the wrong way that we see how important our vote is, like it has in so many other countries, where people literally risk their lives to vote.



476


Walking does a lot more good than voting. A government has no power without people's support. A vote is a show of support.

Double R
02-29-2012, 11:44 PM
By Ti's logic, there's no point in abstaining your "support" if millions of people are still going to vote.

It doesn't matter of 5 people vote. What are they going to do? Draw numbers out of a hat?

Not saying I disagree, but saying that you don't vote because your one vote is "support" is really no more significant than saying your one vote matters.

And are we talking about the presidential election or every election?

Your one vote may mean diddly shit for President, but they start to matter the more localized the candidate is.

Ask the women of Alabama if they want to be forced to have an ultrasound probe shoved up their vagina before they can get an abortion because some yokel asshole in their district is a bible thumping fecalith.

PoisonTheWell
02-29-2012, 11:55 PM
In reading Nullification by Tom Woods, he makes the point that with the population growth, we'd have to have something like 4,000+ representatives to have the same say citizens did back when the country was founded.

This is also why we have a democratic republic (representative government) instead of straight-up democracy/mob rule.

Double R
03-01-2012, 12:00 AM
However, with the fact that our representatives have not grown and the population has, the "representative" democracy we think we have IS slowly turning into mob rule.

Now, it's a novel idea that the majority will overrule the idiotic majority in a perfect world, but with gradual decline in our educational standard for the past 4 decades...good luck.

Das Kapitalist
03-01-2012, 09:48 AM
Point of fact: These so-called representatives have no obligation to actually represent the anonymous majority who elect them, much less the minority that did not. However, you are bound to obey their mandates under penalty of violence whether you supported them or not.

Also, to claim that you are unconditionally bound by the decisions of a majority or of some other individual means that you ultimately do not exercise self-ownership. If ownership is defined as exclusive or monopoly control over something, clearly you don't exhibit this under any form of involuntary government.

Harry
03-01-2012, 01:27 PM
Tai, you don't support the concept of government. I understand that, and, I understand the concept of anarchy. I will defend the concept of anarchy, just not its practical application.

However, we're talking about an "aspect" of government here, the effectiveness of the individual vote, but as always, your counterpoint ends up being an argument for government itself. I can sort of understand that, because, for you, it's one in the same, after all, how can you argue for or against any aspect of government if you perceive the concept as a whole to be flawed. But, you have to also understand that people have chosen a "compromise". Government is not the answer, it is a compromise.

Just because people continue to support the concept of government, does not mean that they aren't able to grasp something that you do. We are all clear on the ramifications. We all understand the consequence that government has on our personal freedom. We simply also understand that it is a "better" system than anarchy. I use the word better in place of something more suitable, like, successful, or viable. I'm not sure how to express it, but you get the point.

At the root of it is this simple unshakeable belief I have, and I believe everyone else has. An anarchist state is bound to be overtaken by a government state. It is the element of human nature that cannot allow it to succeed. The concept itself it perfect, in a bubble. Anarchy is futile for the reason that it is a victim of its own success. It cannot happen, it cannot last. You can choose not to believe that if you like, but I'm not going to hammer back and forth on the subject like I have too often done. What I'm saying is, you cannot argue a principle that is already understood.

Stealth
03-01-2012, 01:29 PM
Harry, You seem like a lemming for the government. The type of person that would say, "i don't make the rules, I just inforce them" type shit.

Punisher11
03-01-2012, 01:34 PM
*enforce

Harry
03-01-2012, 01:39 PM
Harry, You seem like a lemming for the government. The type of person that would say, "i don't make the rules, I just inforce them" type shit.

That's absurd, I can't even respond to that. I think my point has missed you by like 5280 feet. :lol:

Stealth
03-01-2012, 01:42 PM
That's absurd, I can't even respond to that. I think my point has missed you by like 5280 feet. :lol:

:troll0:

Harry
03-01-2012, 02:13 PM
Dick :lol:

Das Kapitalist
03-01-2012, 02:44 PM
Tai, you don't support the concept of government. I understand that, and, I understand the concept of anarchy. I will defend the concept of anarchy, just not its practical application.

However, we're talking about an "aspect" of government here, the effectiveness of the individual vote, but as always, your counterpoint ends up being an argument for government itself. I can sort of understand that, because, for you, it's one in the same, after all, how can you argue for or against any aspect of government if you perceive the concept as a whole to be flawed. But, you have to also understand that people have chosen a "compromise". Government is not the answer, it is a compromise.

Just because people continue to support the concept of government, does not mean that they aren't able to grasp something that you do. We are all clear on the ramifications. We all understand the consequence that government has on our personal freedom. We simply also understand that it is a "better" system than anarchy. I use the word better in place of something more suitable, like, successful, or viable. I'm not sure how to express it, but you get the point.

At the root of it is this simple unshakeable belief I have, and I believe everyone else has. An anarchist state is bound to be overtaken by a government state. It is the element of human nature that cannot allow it to succeed. The concept itself it perfect, in a bubble. Anarchy is futile for the reason that it is a victim of its own success. It cannot happen, it cannot last. You can choose not to believe that if you like, but I'm not going to hammer back and forth on the subject like I have too often done. What I'm saying is, you cannot argue a principle that is already understood.

I think you are confusing things. I am not against the concept of government, but against the concept of a state. I use "government" because people use the term to mean "state" and often ask "U MEAN UR AGAINST VERMONT??" when I use the latter.

Government is simply a system by which society can be structured and ordered. This includes the concept of panarchy (many competing governments), self-governance, and private competing firms that take over functions traditionally monopolized by a "state".

The state is an institution that simply holds an unnatural monopoly on certain societal functions through the threat of violence*. There is no more to it than that. You can add a bunch of pomp and circumstance, dress it up in a powdered wig while proselytizing about honor, duty, and the greater good, but at the end of the day, that is what it is.

As for being taken over by a state, that's pretty far fetched. Obviously a stateless society within a world full of hostile governments would face this problem, so businesses would race to figure out a solution to this pretty quickly if this was such a concern. Maintenance of a few nuclear warheads is far cheaper than a standing army. And to counter your knee-jerk argument before you even say anything- What good would it do to blow your clients out of the water? You have no ability to tax so as soon as all of your clients leave, you have nothing. You can't pay your employees so they won't stick around, not to mention your Board of Directors would have to consiste of monumentally stupid individuals to move the business in that direction. No banks would lend to you and your rating as an agency would plummet. Not to mention you're not the only company with nukes, so when your threats cover clients of other protection agencies, they'll step up to defend them.

Also, without a tax base, foreign governments would really have nothing to take over. Traditionally this is what empires do- they conquer a foreign land and take over their government. The power structures are already in place, so you remove the head and replace with your own guys. If there is no structure, what the hell could you do? And if you're talking about people giving up the stateless life and forming a state again, then we'll just be right back where we started, so no loss there.

* = "What essentially sets a nation state apart.. which is a monopoly on violence" - Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ

Double R
03-01-2012, 02:52 PM
Point of fact: These so-called representatives have no obligation to actually represent the anonymous majority who elect them, much less the minority that did not. However, you are bound to obey their mandates under penalty of violence whether you supported them or not.

Also, to claim that you are unconditionally bound by the decisions of a majority or of some other individual means that you ultimately do not exercise self-ownership. If ownership is defined as exclusive or monopoly control over something, clearly you don't exhibit this under any form of involuntary government.

No they don't.

I never said I was unconditionally bound to anything. We've had this discussion before. Everyone has a choice. I can tell the government "Hey fuck you, I'm not playing by your rules". They can say "Ok, off to prison you go".

I'm not saying the rules are fair or just, but that's the way it is.

I wish I worked as a video game tester for a company ran by big breasted sluts who's idea of work morale boosts are blowjobs every couple of hours.

Unfortunately, that's not reality.

Again, I'm not saying we have a legitimate form of government, because there is no legitimate form of government aside from self government. I'm just saying we have what we have and what the rules currently are.

If my vote counts for shit, your non vote counts for an equal amount of shit. That's all.

Das Kapitalist
03-01-2012, 03:15 PM
No they don't.

I never said I was unconditionally bound to anything. We've had this discussion before. Everyone has a choice. I can tell the government "Hey fuck you, I'm not playing by your rules". They can say "Ok, off to prison you go".

I'm not saying the rules are fair or just, but that's the way it is.

I wish I worked as a video game tester for a company ran by big breasted sluts who's idea of work morale boosts are blowjobs every couple of hours.

Unfortunately, that's not reality.

Again, I'm not saying we have a legitimate form of government, because there is no legitimate form of government aside from self government. I'm just saying we have what we have and what the rules currently are.

If my vote counts for shit, your non vote counts for an equal amount of shit. That's all.

Sure, I'll give you that it's a choice as much as claiming dog shit is food because you can put it in your mouth and swallow and it will provide you with some level of nutrition.

And I'll reiterate the example I gave during our last convo: When a mugger confronts you with a gun and says "your wallet or your life", you do have a decision to some extent, but you are not responsible for homicide when he purchases a gun with your money and murders somebody.

Also, my non-vote counts as shit, sure. And not going to church counts for an equal amount of shit as going, but at least I'm not wasting my time with a pointless exercise.

Double R
03-01-2012, 03:24 PM
Hey, I never said the choices were fair.

Being asked where you want to be kicked in the taint or sodomized with a wisk is still a choice.

Harry
03-01-2012, 03:25 PM
your solution to everything is that business will figure out a way to get things done, not to oversimplify but fundamentally, this is at the core. I just can't agree with that. What is the ultimate goal of business?


Again, we're right back to where we started. You think it can work, I think it cannot. You think that the idea of a government taking over an anarchist state is far fetched? Look at the history of the world. This is the rule, not the far fetched exception. These circumstances that you envision which provide the framework for this to succeed is about as far fetched as I can imagine. No matter how you paint it, business will eventually become the very force that you are trying escape. At least with a small government kept in check by a majority, there is some accountability, ideally. I'm not saying its perfect by any means, but your scenario is the recipe for a nightmare.


Btw, when I say state, as in anarchist state, I mean the state of things, which I'm sure is obvious to you, but just to be clear.

Double R
03-01-2012, 03:34 PM
There's a difference between anarchy and a stateless society. People can still form hierarchies of responsibility without being coerced into them by force. Usually it's for the benefit of the community.

I'm a rather intelligent person, but I am fully aware that I cannot fly a space shuttle. I'm not going to go kicking down the doors of my community's space program and demand than I be able to fly to the moon because no body is threatening me with force if I do. It's common sense. Just like most laws today. I don't rape people. Not because it's against the law. I'm just not a fucking asshole.

Just because no state exists doesn't mean people will start raping at will and throwing their own shit at each other.

And to elaborate on your point about business. The sole point of a business is to make money. They figure out the best way to get things done so people can use utilize their services for exchange of some kind of commodity.

It's as simple as that.

Now people will say "greed destroys everything bla bla". Yes it does. However, checks and balances exist to ensure that a business who isn't providing the ideal service to a consumer will eventually fail.

When a violent state interferes with these checks and balances, that's when greed wins.

Das Kapitalist
03-01-2012, 03:58 PM
your solution to everything is that business will figure out a way to get things done, not to oversimplify but fundamentally, this is at the core. I just can't agree with that. What is the ultimate goal of business?


Again, we're right back to where we started. You think it can work, I think it cannot. You think that the idea of a government taking over an anarchist state is far fetched? Look at the history of the world. This is the rule, not the far fetched exception. These circumstances that you envision which provide the framework for this to succeed is about as far fetched as I can imagine. No matter how you paint it, business will eventually become the very force that you are trying escape. At least with a small government kept in check by a majority, there is some accountability, ideally. I'm not saying its perfect by any means, but your scenario is the recipe for a nightmare.


Btw, when I say state, as in anarchist state, I mean the state of things, which I'm sure is obvious to you, but just to be clear.

No, my solution is to let individuals acting in their own self-interest without any artificial barriers to entry to strive to develop the most optimal ways to solve problems in society. Instead, you advocate for one group within society to come up with one solution via legislative fiat to problems that could have multiple optimal solutions.

With your hellish nightmare scenario, you are looking at things as if they exist in a vacuum when in reality, all things are interconnected.

A single rogue business has to deal with investors, with consumers, with banks, protection agencies, insurance companies, utility companies, real estate companies, etc. While it would be great for these businesses if they could act unethically and get away with it, but fortunately for everyone, it is in their self-interest to play nicely.

Just like a single psychopathic individual has to deal with neighbors who will not help him, restaurants that will not serve him, protection agencies that will not cover him, grocery stores that will not allow him entry.

Das Kapitalist
03-01-2012, 04:07 PM
And to RR's point, people aren't going to devolve into mindless savages without the state. To claim that is to claim that the state is what keeps people moral and in check.. A state that is supposedly representative of the majority of the people.. who happen to me violent aggressors without the state..

http://www.dollarvigilante.com/storage/2011/2011-12-december/People%20are%20Bad%20So%20We%20Need%20a%20Governme nt%20Made%20up%20of%20People.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CAC HEVERSION=1321581182551

Double R
03-01-2012, 04:15 PM
Ti explaining something, then me trying to explain the same thing

http://i.imgur.com/uCAMN.gif

Harry
03-01-2012, 04:29 PM
Is anybody aware of what I'm even saying? Hey, if anarchy is so great, then let it happen. If a stateless society is so great, then let it happen. I'm not saying I have a problem with the way it works. (Actually, I do have an issue here and there) I'm saying that it will never happen, just like it has not happened. If it's so viable, why is it not prospering around the world? The governments are holding it back? At every corner of the earth? The majority of which has no value? After so many revolutions and wars and revolts and ages and empires, you would think such a natural state of utopia would have simply taken place. not being an ass, I'm just asking.

Double R
03-01-2012, 04:59 PM
Well nothing ever got accomplished with that fucking attitude mister.

Das Kapitalist
03-01-2012, 05:41 PM
Is anybody aware of what I'm even saying? Hey, if anarchy is so great, then let it happen. If a stateless society is so great, then let it happen. I'm not saying I have a problem with the way it works. (Actually, I do have an issue here and there) I'm saying that it will never happen, just like it has not happened. If it's so viable, why is it not prospering around the world? The governments are holding it back? At every corner of the earth? The majority of which has no value? After so many revolutions and wars and revolts and ages and empires, you would think such a natural state of utopia would have simply taken place. not being an ass, I'm just asking.

Because it hasn't happened, it can't happen? This would be like claiming during the 1600's that slavery cannot be abolished because no civilization without slavery exists or has existed. Also, all current landmasses are monopolized by some form of state, which is why libertarians are thinking outside the box (http://www.seasteading.org/)

It takes more than 'no government' for a voluntary society to take hold- it takes a fundamental shift in people's attitudes. I mean, even for democracy to work, there needs to be that same understanding. If you tried explaining the concept of democratic governance to someone in the Dark Ages, they'd wonder why the loser simply doesn't kill the winner and take over.

Das Kapitalist
03-01-2012, 05:41 PM
Well nothing ever got accomplished with that fucking attitude mister.

:nod:

Double R
03-01-2012, 06:16 PM
Plus, when Newt establishes his moon colony, libertarians should go first. Then nuke the earth. :troll:

Harry
03-01-2012, 06:18 PM
Because it hasn't happened, it can't happen? This would be like claiming during the 1600's that slavery cannot be abolished because no civilization without slavery exists or has existed. Also, all current landmasses are monopolized by some form of state, which is why libertarians are thinking outside the box (http://www.seasteading.org/)

It takes more than 'no government' for a voluntary society to take hold- it takes a fundamental shift in people's attitudes. I mean, even for democracy to work, there needs to be that same understanding. If you tried explaining the concept of democratic governance to someone in the Dark Ages, they'd wonder why the loser simply doesn't kill the winner and take over.

That argument can be used for pretty much anything that has yet to happen. C'mon, over centuries and millenniums, surely such a superior system would have eventually taken form, somewhere on the planet. It hasn't because of the explanation you've given? Really?

I mean, it's claimed efficiency and sensibility alone would have taken the path of least resistance and naturally developed. Every single land mass may have a government, but not every single society is gripped by an iron fist, and certainly not over a period of thousands of years. That's a pretty broad over-generalized explanation. Slowly over time, you would think that a candidate would emerge here and there from the masses and run on a platform of self ownership and the abolishment of government. The word of such a great and liberating movement would take momentum and happen, as all great movements have done. The only thing required is the will of the people. It's happened before. In fact, it happens all the time. Societies have time and time again come together to overthrow governments and empires that they did not believe in. Why wouldn't such a system have already emerged? Don't tell me it requires a shift in people's attitudes. That's a weak explanation. If the system were so great and obviously so, it wouldn't require a shift. It would HAPPEN.

It hasn't happened and is not happening for a reason. It is inherently flawed.

Harry
03-01-2012, 06:27 PM
Well nothing ever got accomplished with that fucking attitude mister.

The fact that is hasn't happened isn't what drives me to believe it cannot, it simply just supports what I already believe.

Double R
03-01-2012, 06:30 PM
That argument can be used for pretty much anything that has yet to happen. C'mon, over centuries and millenniums, surely such a superior system would have eventually taken form.

You are invalidating your own argument. Superior forms HAVE taken form over the years.

Just look at the evolution of man and see how many paradigm shifts have occured. 4,000 years ago people believed in fertility and sun gods. 400 years ago, people believed that the earth was the center of the universe. 100 years ago, people believed that man could not escape the earth's gravity. 40 years ago, people of color did not have the same rights as whites.

But, you're trying to tell us that the best system exists RIGHT NOW, and it nothing will ever change because it hasn't existed in the past?

That logic is so backwards, Spock just did a backflip.

Double R
03-01-2012, 06:32 PM
The fact that is hasn't happened isn't what drives me to believe it cannot, it simply just supports what I already believe.

That's like saying the future is impossible becuase it hasn't happened in the past.

Harry
03-01-2012, 06:59 PM
You are invalidating your own argument. Superior forms HAVE taken form over the years.

Just look at the evolution of man and see how many paradigm shifts have occured. 4,000 years ago people believed in fertility and sun gods. 400 years ago, people believed that the earth was the center of the universe. 100 years ago, people believed that man could not escape the earth's gravity. 40 years ago, people of color did not have the same rights as whites.

But, you're trying to tell us that the best system exists RIGHT NOW, and it nothing will ever change because it hasn't existed in the past?



That logic is so backwards, Spock just did a backflip.

Perhaps I said that in haste, yes you are right, the fact is that what exists at the present is not necessarily the best. But that's not what I was trying to get across. It's just trying to argue a point and the "go to" analogy is always the same, how so many years ago they believed in such and such. Sure it's a valid point I suppose, but it's also a given. You're also talking about something different. People from the beginning of time have, in the absence of science come to their own conclusion in order to explain things. The earth has been flat, it has been the center of the universe, sun gods etc etc. I'm not disputing that. What I'm talking about is what is at the core of human nature, and that has never changed, and we have a vast history of time to prove it, that is long and enduring enough to negate the arguments given. I'm not talking about understanding the nature of things and making things up to explain them. That changes with information. I'm talking about who human beings are. The tendency to form societies that pool their strengths and resources in order to care for the group as a whole. This is what is at the core of democracy and this is why it perseveres over the history of mankind. What is being advocated here is not something that reflects the interest of human's nature. We are not about self ownership and preservation. Sure at an extreme we are, but more than that, we are about caring for each other and looking out for the weak. That involves compromising some of our freedoms in order to establish and enforce certain rules. It all takes shape from this fundamental drive. Anarchy flies in the face of this. It's not that I don't "like" it, its simply that it is what it is, flawed.

PoisonTheWell
03-02-2012, 01:01 AM
Now, it's a novel idea that the majority will overrule the idiotic majority in a perfect world, but with gradual decline in our educational standard for the past 4 decades...good luck.

I'm sure we've all seen Idiocracy. We're "talking like a bunch of fags."

itdiestoday
03-02-2012, 08:22 AM
After reading this thread, I have this sudden urge to eat beef stew with some tobasco sauce/

overide
03-02-2012, 11:12 AM
What I'm talking about is what is at the core of human nature, and that has never changed, and we have a vast history of time to prove it, that is long and enduring enough to negate the arguments given.

I don't believe that there is a core of human nature. I think we are constantly evolving as a people. If itís not necessarily biological evolution, but social and mental.

Like others have said before, hundreds of years ago if someone insulted you, you challenged them to a duel and killed them. That isn't even considered in modern society because we have evolved past that.

Double R
03-02-2012, 11:25 AM
Let's say I am a pest control man. I come to your door, say I sprayed your house, and you now owe me 500 dollars. You get a little indignant, saying you never requested that service. Besides, 500 bucks is outrageous, you think it's worth 200 at most. I'll say to you that I provided a valuable service, I'll ask you and confirm that you've never had a problem with pests, and this is the way things work in this neighborhood. I spray all houses, nobody has ever had a problem with paying before, and besides, I need the money to fund my dog fighting ring. If you don't like it, you are free to move, at your own expense, but if you live here, you gotta pay or I lock you in my basement for a few months.

This is government. They provide a service, sure. But it's incredibly expensive for what it is, and they use the extra money for atrocious things, worse than dogfighting, they use it for war. Would you call what I did as the pest control guy theft? If not, what's your address? I have some extra chemical, and I will gladly provide you my "service."

Harry
03-02-2012, 12:41 PM
I don't believe that there is a core of human nature. I think we are constantly evolving as a people. If itís not necessarily biological evolution, but social and mental.

Like others have said before, hundreds of years ago if someone insulted you, you challenged them to a duel and killed them. That isn't even considered in modern society because we have evolved past that.

Sure, but I'm not talking about the whole social mores thing. The one thing that has persevered through millenniums is the fact that human beings have always come together to form societies, for the sake of power and security. You can't deny that and that is all I said. Every aspect of our social characteristics are ultimately based on our biological make up. We are wired to react socially in certain ways, just like all living things, this is clearly a well documented fact. It can be nurtured to certain degrees but ultimately we haven't changed in that regard.

Harry
03-02-2012, 12:59 PM
Let's say I am a pest control man. I come to your door, say I sprayed your house, and you now owe me 500 dollars. You get a little indignant, saying you never requested that service. Besides, 500 bucks is outrageous, you think it's worth 200 at most. I'll say to you that I provided a valuable service, I'll ask you and confirm that you've never had a problem with pests, and this is the way things work in this neighborhood. I spray all houses, nobody has ever had a problem with paying before, and besides, I need the money to fund my dog fighting ring. If you don't like it, you are free to move, at your own expense, but if you live here, you gotta pay or I lock you in my basement for a few months.

This is government. They provide a service, sure. But it's incredibly expensive for what it is, and they use the extra money for atrocious things, worse than dogfighting, they use it for war. Would you call what I did as the pest control guy theft? If not, what's your address? I have some extra chemical, and I will gladly provide you my "service."

You have opened my eyes to how government works. Clearly, the solution is anarchy.

Das Kapitalist
03-05-2012, 08:13 AM
I had to let this one marinate a bit.

Harry
03-05-2012, 12:10 PM
Don't be ashamed to concede, embrace the clarity...

Double R
03-05-2012, 03:54 PM
You have opened my eyes to how government works. Clearly, the solution is anarchy.

So it's either the state controlling everything or anarchy?

So what you just said is that if nobody is telling you what to do, you'll become anarchistic?

Das Kapitalist
03-05-2012, 07:40 PM
Anarchy means without rulers. It doesn't mean ski masks and pipe bombs. I admit that it's a loaded terms so I prefer to use the word voluntaryism.

Harry
03-06-2012, 01:04 PM
So it's either the state controlling everything or anarchy?

So what you just said is that if nobody is telling you what to do, you'll become anarchistic?

Uhhm, what do you think happens? The definition of anarchy is pretty much "nobody is telling you what to do". I am gathering that you are advocating for a system that is not anarchistic but one that has no government?

You need to decide what it is exactly that you are in favor of. The reason I am not arguing with ti is because he is very clear on what he believes in, as am I. There is nothing more to talk about. We only disagree on the viability of it. Well, perhaps the ethics as well, but that's a whole other debate.

I am responding to your statements for another reason though, perhaps I am not clearly understanding what you are saying, or you are not understanding what you are saying. Not being a dick, but I don't.

In your responses you are very clearly advocating a system of no government. Your "pest control" analogy leads me to believe exactly that. But then you stop short of declaring yourself an anarchist by advocating a "stateless society" instead, where there is no government, but hierarchies of responsibility. Ok, I'll grant you that, a voluntary sub-society can form where people contribute resources to have certain services and social programs, on a completely voluntary basis, where they can choose to leave the society if they choose. The thing is, this is what happens in an anarchistic society. People are free to voluntarily come together and do whatever they want. The question is, is there a government that can exercise force, or is there not?

You either have a government or you don't. You can water the government down as much as you want, but at the end of the day, it's still just a degree of government.

Harry
03-06-2012, 01:07 PM
Anarchy means without rulers. It doesn't mean ski masks and pipe bombs. I admit that it's a loaded terms so I prefer to use the word voluntaryism.
Why stop there? Let's call it cherry pie lol. You don't have to use a euphemism just because the legitimate title is synonymous with chaos due to the sensationalist nature of the media.

Das Kapitalist
03-06-2012, 04:16 PM
Why stop there? Let's call it cherry pie lol. You don't have to use a euphemism just because the legitimate title is synonymous with chaos due to the sensationalist nature of the media.

Perception of words matter, especially during initial phases of a conversation where the tone is set.

For instance, to you, the term taxation means something totally different from what it actually is, which is theft. To most people, the word anarchy means chaos.

Das Kapitalist
03-06-2012, 04:28 PM
In your responses you are very clearly advocating a system of no government. Your "pest control" analogy leads me to believe exactly that. But then you stop short of declaring yourself an anarchist by advocating a "stateless society" instead, where there is no government, but hierarchies of responsibility. Ok, I'll grant you that, a voluntary sub-society can form where people contribute resources to have certain services and social programs, on a completely voluntary basis, where they can choose to leave the society if they choose. The thing is, this is what happens in an anarchistic society. People are free to voluntarily come together and do whatever they want.

A "Stateless society" is exactly what I advocate for personally. Within this society, people are free to set up whatever types of governments they choose so long as they are free of force or violence. A social democratic model within a free society is totally possible. If a group of likeminded landowners set up an association with voluntary taxes, safety net, other services, that is all well and good as long as members are there by choice and they are free to leave if they choose. Sort of like the Amish I guess, though much less beholden to outside meddling.

Harry
03-06-2012, 05:30 PM
Yes, I completely understand the concept that you describe.