Comrade Brian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,239
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- NE, Minnesota
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I was comparing it to despotism.
galenrox said:Damn straight, when my dad pointed that out to me, I was awestruck by the simple wisdom behind it.
And to technocratic utilitarian, what? Is the only reason you're not out raping, pillaging, and murdering the law? I'd certainly hope not!
You're not talking about anarchy, you're talking about chaos. Anarchy is the absence of law, chaos is the absence of order. If that's lost on you you really need to practice thinking outside of the box.
galenrox said:I have explained this two you, but I don't doubt that the lack of nutrients in your system have left you too blind to see what I write:2wave:
Social order. If you kill someone, or try to kill someone, chances are either that person's friends will kill you back, or if actions deemed inappropriate in a given society become frequent, the society will take steps to end them.
Kelzie said:How will you provide order without laws? Crossing your fingers? Relying on *snicker* human nature?
galenrox said:If someone has no friends, society would still respond, and if society does not respond, I think that says something about the person. Think about your little neighborhood. If someone with no friends was killed, would you still seek justice? I would, even just for the simple fact that I would feel less safe in my neighborhood with murderers lurking.
If a leader of your community raped and murdered a drifter, would you care?
You're treating this as if you're not dealing with people. You are dealing with people. You're pretending that most people are rapists and murderers, and the only reason that they're not raping and murdering is because of the law, and those who aren't rapists or murderers are completely indifferent to rape and murder. In your experience, how many people have you met that are completely indifferent to rape and murder?
galenrox said:If you paid attention to that study, which I did, it was a complete justification for anarchy. It was a study of how people react to authority, and as it found, two thirds of people would be willing to kill a complete stranger if told to do so by an authority figure. Government is that authority.
galenrox said:Are you kidding? Where do you think the vast majority of the suckiness of humans comes from? It comes from the fact that we no longer hold ourselves responsible for how our world works. As long as there is a government, it's not our responsibility, it's theirs. If we knew that it was actually up to us to make sure **** worked right, I can guarantee we wouldn't have all of these little distractions and temper tantrums about filibusters.
There are certain aspects of human nature that suck. Government amplifies these aspects, and downplays the aspects that don't.
galenrox said:Society as a whole has authority, the individual, not so much. Not anywhere close to that of a government official or a doctor, or anyone else that we are prone to trust without question.
And to your first point, yeah, the government actually represents the people, and we all live in Candyland and prance around and ride unicorns in lollipop dreams.
Meanwhile in the real world, the presence of government detatches people from the actual going ons in this society. Christ, we actually elected a president who went out of his way that to say he doesn't care what we think.
Do you feel responsible for the war? More to the point, let's take someone who supports the war. Do you hold vague responsible for the war? No, you hold Bush responsible for the war. That is because vague is detatched from the actual going ons in our society due to the presence of government.
galenrox said:Really? So you personally think that vague is just as responsible, if not more so than Bush for the deaths of over 30,000 people, and you're still friendly with him?
I personally think you're just posturing for the purpose of this current debate. When it comes down to it, what have you done more of, Bush bashing or vague bashing?
There'd be less authority in general, because there wouldn't be anyone holding the unquestionable status that those doctors held in that study. Think about someone's thought process while doing that:
"I'm in a university, with a professor telling me what to do. There's no way he would actually make me kill that person, because he'd go to jail because it's against the law"
Now if those same people went in there, knowing full well that it was possible that the professor was killing these people, do you think they still would've done it?
galenrox said:Well, in the end authority comes from ability. If a group of people can do something and deal with the cosequences, they have the authority. That's how authority works, and don't you think for a second that that's not how government works.
Thus, if a society doesn't like gays, and think that gays should be killed, they better be ready to take on the gays, and if they can't, then they don't have the authority.
The fact of the matter is the VAST majority of people are quite reasonable, and able to decide fairly well what's right and what's wrong. That's why we leave our entire justice system up to juries. You keep focusing on the fringe crazies because that's the only place where you can find any problems.
Like, my neighborhood would be fine, your neighborhood would be fine, everywhere outside of Kansas and parts of Pennsylvania would be fine, because most people are reasonable, which is something I think you tend to forget.
galenrox said:Are you kidding? Are you seriously questioning how a bunch of people get the ability to punish 1 person?
galenrox said:...exactly...
galenrox said:private security forces, private road builders, trade agreements would be between businesses, and thus institutionalized trade agreements would be pointless.
galenrox said:Where do you think farmers get their seeds? They BUY them from businesses that sell seeds!!!
Basically the private security force would have a simple job, protect the members of the society from theft and violence (protect the body and the property), and, if the people wanted to actually be responsible for themselves, they'd buy some guns.
How do people decide what businesses to do business with now? You're asking questions "How would we do this without the government" when we already do it without the government, so the question's pointless.
As far as roads, they could just set off some roads as private drives if they want, or they could allow outsiders to use them like intelligent human beings who realize that their area would benefit by letting people use their roads as opposed to dedicating resources towards preventing the usage.
See, in an anarchy the possibilities to deal with any situation are endless. With government the possibility is always the same, to do the job crappily for way too much money.
galenrox said:It's not a tax since it's voluntary. If you don't want in on the private police force, you don't have to be. If you don't want your house protected by the private firehouse, be my guest. If you don't want to use the roads and you happen to be in an area where everyone happens to have the intelligence of a lemming, you don't have to.
There are not decisions that neccisarily effect the whole society, since the whole society would just be a bunch of individuals, and any individual has the option to completely remove him or herself from the rest of the bunch.
galenrox said:You're basing all of these ideas off the assumption that people are completely indifferent to those sorts of things. If a parent with an unwanted child knew that a privatized adoption service didn't check and make sure that the kid was going to a good family, do you really think shoe would give them her kid?
Do you think that a society that knows they are responsible for what goes on in their world (and I mean actually knows, not this bullshit back of the mind thing that goes on today) would do business with companies that used kids for slave labor?
If Walmart took kids off the street and used them for slave labor, would you still shop there? I wouldn't. If people knew that through their money they are endorsing the practices of the businesses, I think it's pretty clear that they wouldn't either.
Do you assume that people are indifferent to pedophelia? That they'd just sit back as the person next door ****s little kids? Or would they, and the rest of the neighborhood, go into that house and beat the ****er senseless and take away his kids? Same, even if NAMBLA started up their own town, do you think the bordering towns would just sit back and let these guys rape kids, or would they come in and get the kids and beat those ****ers senseless?
galenrox said:If the neighbors weren't idiots they'd call the fire house to come and protect their own houses. And if the kids were in there, do you think anyone, and I mean anyone, would quietly stand by and watch them burn? Hell no, you're being ridiculous.
You're once again assuming that no one cares about anyone else, and that the only reason anyone ever helps anyone is because of government. If that's the only reason you ever help anyone, then I have to question your morality, but it seems most people care about other people regardless of government.
People advance when they cooperate, I agree. People do not advance when they are forced to fit a mold created for 200 million people. People do not advance when their money is wasted throughout the endless amounts of beurocracy that will always exist with government. You need to face facts and realize that government is not even A reason people do good things, let alone the sole reason.
You're just afraid of the uncertainty, but that's life. If someone broke into my parents apartment right now to kill me, do you think having police will make a difference? No, so thus my security is uncertain. So is yours. Unless you live in a police department your security is always uncertain. Bad things happen, that's life. But you have yet to prove that government is neccisary, and considering all of the downsides of government, it would seem only logical that the best response would be its elimination.
Kelzie said:Just one...small...question. I missed a lot of this thread after you were insulting me, so if you answered already, just point me to the post.
How will you provide order without laws? Crossing your fingers? Relying on *snicker* human nature?
Kelzie said:How, exactly, would authority manifest itself in a society? Define it. How would your society get its authority to punish a murderer?
Kelzie said:I'm not quite clear what you are saying, but I don't think it's answering my question. How much authority isn't what I'm asking. How would a society get authority in the first place to punish a murderer?
Kelzie said:So would the entire society get involved every time there's a murder? Or every time they want a trade agreement, or to use another society's roads, or..well, you get the point. All of these thousands of people involving themselves every time the society needs to use its authority, how would they have time to do anything else?
Kelzie said:So if a farmer wanted to buy seed, he would have to individually approach the business, despite the fact that the society as a whole could get a much better deal for the seed than one person?
And how would the society decide which roads to buy access too? Or which businesses to deal with? Or which laws the private security force should enforce? Or what to do if a bigger private security force from another society wanted to take all their land? What would they do then?
Would every single member of the society decide on every single issue facing the society? How would they have time for anything else? And how would they pay for the private security force, and the roads?
Kelzie said:Hardly, you didn't answer all the question. How would a society pay for it? I'm assuming they'd have some sort of private firehouse as well. Along with a private police force, private roads...seems like you're going to have to issue a tax. Along with add "tax collector" to the jobs of your private police force.
Are there, or are there not decisions that must be made that affect the entire society?