• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What are you willing to give?

Would you support a speech given a a free world leader, unequivocal that all shall be free?

  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I can't risk the life of the all for the rights of the few.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4
Really? What is stopping gangs of criminals from murdering you in your sleep and taking all your shit?

I'm not sure how your question is relevant to my claim that bands of politicians are raving lunatics.
 
These are trying times to be sure, more is a stake in the Ukraine than the fate of that nation. What is a stake is what has been at stake since the free people of this world decided the human beings have rights both inalienable and unbridgeable. That free people have the rights of a government of their own choosing, and to only be ruled by the consent of the governed.

I think JFK said it best when he said," Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free."

If you believe that, if you take it to heart, then we can not allow aggressive nations that give not freedom to their own people's to roll their tanks over their neighbors.

But what are we willing to give?

Are we willing to give it all, to risk the fate of the entire world in a conflict that could result in nuclear annihilation?

Maybe I'm just a simple man, with simple ways, but I have always known that you have got to stand up to a bully. I think it is time to take Putin and China to task for their endless and reckless threats, they only make these reckless threats because they know the free world will be measured in our responses. They know we value all life, that we love this world and all it's peoples', but you can still love a thing and be willing to risk it to stand up for what is right.

To me, we can not allow the forces of tyranny to reign over man, that I would be willing to risk it all to stand up to a bully, even a nuclear armed one. Does that mean I would be reckless? No, but you have to stand up to these threats with tough speech, to let them know that you are willing to give the last full measure of devotion for human freedoms anywhere human dwell.

I think our response to these threats needs to be unequivocal, that we are willing to risk all to save few. Such speech maybe only stands to escalate, but that would only prove that Putin and China are run by madmen, and it's time to make them put up or shut up.
Imo it is a mistake to place putin and Xi (lower case for putin he's done too little for me to respect him, upper case for Xi, he's the president of a sovereign nation that plays an important part in global affairs and while he doesn't merit praise in many areas, I don't see him as a madman.

You are gambling far too much on the decision of a someone who appears on the edge of sanity.
 
Definitely. The market already provides nearly every "service" the state does, without all the waste, fraud, and corruption. For example, in the US there are more people working in private security than there are police officers. Dispute resolution is another area where the market is superior, hence the boom in private arbitration. Government-run courts are glacially slow, extremely expensive, and commonly yield unjust decisions.

But it can be difficult (but not impossible) for markets to provide public goods, like national defense.



Let the governments there fund themselves voluntarily and the people by their actions will provide the answer.

Please show where a country has run successfully without a government anywhere.
How would law and order be maintained and how would roads between cities get built?
 
Please show where a country has run successfully without a government anywhere.

There aren't any, but that doesn't mean much. In an argument about politics 250 years ago, a person might have asked, "Please show where a country has run successfully with the entire population voting for representatives. It's absurd on its face."

How would law and order be maintained

Government isn't the only source of law, nor is it even a good source of law. Private law has very long history.

Note you asked how "law and order" would be provided, instead of how individual rights would be protected. The latter is what people actually want and are willing to pay for.

and how would roads between cities get built?

In developed countries, roads are built by the private sector via government contracts. People can buy anything the government can buy.

Governments are predicated on force and violence, and those are things which should never be legitimized. Given that the state as an institution is so contemptible, your questions are of the same nature as that of a slaver in America during the 1850s asking, "If we free black people from slavery, who's going to pick the cotton?"
 
These are trying times to be sure, more is a stake in the Ukraine than the fate of that nation. What is a stake is what has been at stake since the free people of this world decided the human beings have rights both inalienable and unbridgeable. That free people have the rights of a government of their own choosing, and to only be ruled by the consent of the governed.

I think JFK said it best when he said," Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free."

If you believe that, if you take it to heart, then we can not allow aggressive nations that give not freedom to their own people's to roll their tanks over their neighbors.

But what are we willing to give?

Are we willing to give it all, to risk the fate of the entire world in a conflict that could result in nuclear annihilation?

Maybe I'm just a simple man, with simple ways, but I have always known that you have got to stand up to a bully. I think it is time to take Putin and China to task for their endless and reckless threats, they only make these reckless threats because they know the free world will be measured in our responses. They know we value all life, that we love this world and all it's peoples', but you can still love a thing and be willing to risk it to stand up for what is right.

To me, we can not allow the forces of tyranny to reign over man, that I would be willing to risk it all to stand up to a bully, even a nuclear armed one. Does that mean I would be reckless? No, but you have to stand up to these threats with tough speech, to let them know that you are willing to give the last full measure of devotion for human freedoms anywhere human dwell.

I think our response to these threats needs to be unequivocal, that we are willing to risk all to save few. Such speech maybe only stands to escalate, but that would only prove that Putin and China are run by madmen, and it's time to make them put up or shut up.
Have you made that decision? Have you sold everything and are there now texting from the battle field?
 
I'm not sure how your question is relevant to my claim that bands of politicians are raving lunatics.

Nevermind. I can see this discussion will go nowhere.
 
Note you asked how "law and order" would be provided, instead of how individual rights would be protected. The latter is what people actually want and are willing to pay for.

So people can buy the individual rights that they can afford?

Government isn't the only source of law, nor is it even a good source of law. Private law has very long history.

Governments are predicated on force and violence, and those are things which should never be legitimized.

What are some examples of 'private law'?

Noting that you mentioned private security: How would 'private law' be enforced?
 
Definitely. The market already provides nearly every "service" the state does, without all the waste, fraud, and corruption. For example, in the US there are more people working in private security than there are police officers. Dispute resolution is another area where the market is superior, hence the boom in private arbitration. Government-run courts are glacially slow, extremely expensive, and commonly yield unjust decisions.

But it can be difficult (but not impossible) for markets to provide public goods, like national defense.



Let the governments there fund themselves voluntarily and the people by their actions will provide the answer.
Can the market provide justice?
 
This is a huge topic. If you are really interested, I suggest this book to start:

I can't read. Just give me a couple of examples of and answer how 'private law' would be enforced.
 
I can't read. Just give me a couple of examples of and answer how 'private law' would be enforced.

No, I'm not wasting my time writing you a very long post explaining how justice works without the state. You're an adult who presumably can use a search engine and guess the appropriate key words.
 
No, I'm not wasting my time writing you a very long post explaining how justice works without the state. You're an adult who presumably can use a search engine and guess the appropriate key words.

I didn't ask you to "explain how justice works without the state." You should be able to answer my questions without writing a long reply.
 
Honest question here.

Do you really think a country can exist and thrive without a government?
Let's take the UK as an example as it's quite small and is isolated as an island. Do you think the people of the UK would be better off without a government?
He will say yes....even though no such country exists
 
......require rules, laws, organization to operate.

Yes, but they don't have to come from government.

I didn't ask you to "explain how justice works without the state." You should be able to answer my questions without writing a long reply.

Here's a historical example for both of you. The lex mercatoria was a body of private law with disputes adjudicated in private courts. The courts were fast, cheap, and just, because those that weren't were avoided by the traders. The arbitrators were highly respected men with reputations for fairness and impartiality. It lasted for some 400 years before various states took it over.

Private law is everywhere. A modern example of private law are the rules of this forum we are debating on. The rules here were created by the market, not by the state. Note that the creators of the rules have a very strong incentive to make the rules as fair and as reasonable as possible, unlike when the state passes laws. The moderators here also have an incentive to be impartial, even if they don't want to be, unlike a judge employed by the state.
 
Yes, but they don't have to come from government.
I didn't say they did. You avoided the point, intentionally.

you are playing a semantic game, substituting government with governance
 
Here's a historical example for both of you. The lex mercatoria was a body of private law with disputes adjudicated in private courts. The courts were fast, cheap, and just, because those that weren't were avoided by the traders. The arbitrators were highly respected men with reputations for fairness and impartiality. It lasted for some 400 years before various states took it over.

Private law is everywhere. A modern example of private law are the rules of this forum we are debating on. The rules here were created by the market, not by the state. Note that the creators of the rules have a very strong incentive to make the rules as fair and as reasonable as possible, unlike when the state passes laws. The moderators here also have an incentive to be impartial, even if they don't want to be, unlike a judge employed by the state.

Thanks for trying to answer my questions.

'Everybody knows' that many laws are enforced with what's referred to as justice systems, and police often attempt to arrest people and bring them into justice systems. How would private law bring people into private justice systems they don't want to enter?

I'm sorry, but using DP as an example is hilarious.
 
There aren't any, but that doesn't mean much. In an argument about politics 250 years ago, a person might have asked, "Please show where a country has run successfully with the entire population voting for representatives. It's absurd on its face."



Government isn't the only source of law, nor is it even a good source of law. Private law has very long history.

Note you asked how "law and order" would be provided, instead of how individual rights would be protected. The latter is what people actually want and are willing to pay for.



In developed countries, roads are built by the private sector via government contracts. People can buy anything the government can buy.

Governments are predicated on force and violence, and those are things which should never be legitimized. Given that the state as an institution is so contemptible, your questions are of the same nature as that of a slaver in America during the 1850s asking, "If we free black people from slavery, who's going to pick the cotton?"

Right, so you think it would be ok to have areas where the law is just made by the people of that area?
What if they decide a system like The Purge is a good idea?

Secondly, why would any company pay for roads that don't specifically help them? How would roads in residential areas be maintained as most residents can't afford to maintain the local road network?

The comparison to slavery is absurd as nobody is working for the government under the threat of death and everyone is free to leave the country unless they're in prison.
On that note how will prisons be funded?

I'm afraid to say the Libertarian dream state just doesn't work as people need rules and rules need government to be enforced otherwise you have anarchy.
The nearest the world has been to that is Somalia under the rule of the pirates and are you really trying to argue that was on the road to being ideal?
 
These are trying times to be sure, more is a stake in the Ukraine than the fate of that nation. What is a stake is what has been at stake since the free people of this world decided the human beings have rights both inalienable and unbridgeable. That free people have the rights of a government of their own choosing, and to only be ruled by the consent of the governed.

I think JFK said it best when he said," Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free."

If you believe that, if you take it to heart, then we can not allow aggressive nations that give not freedom to their own people's to roll their tanks over their neighbors.

But what are we willing to give?

Are we willing to give it all, to risk the fate of the entire world in a conflict that could result in nuclear annihilation?

Maybe I'm just a simple man, with simple ways, but I have always known that you have got to stand up to a bully. I think it is time to take Putin and China to task for their endless and reckless threats, they only make these reckless threats because they know the free world will be measured in our responses. They know we value all life, that we love this world and all it's peoples', but you can still love a thing and be willing to risk it to stand up for what is right.

To me, we can not allow the forces of tyranny to reign over man, that I would be willing to risk it all to stand up to a bully, even a nuclear armed one. Does that mean I would be reckless? No, but you have to stand up to these threats with tough speech, to let them know that you are willing to give the last full measure of devotion for human freedoms anywhere human dwell.

I think our response to these threats needs to be unequivocal, that we are willing to risk all to save few. Such speech maybe only stands to escalate, but that would only prove that Putin and China are run by madmen, and it's time to make them put up or shut up.

The biggest threat to world peace in the last 3 decades has been the United States and its pseudo-"democracy" dependent Israel in my humble opinion, your flowery words and cries for "freedom for all mankind" ring very hollow in my ears.
Get your own house in order. Then we'll talk of saving the world from all the other "madmen". :rolleyes:(y)
 
Back
Top Bottom