Back to Constitutional Conservatism

Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by NoStateofMind, Nov 9, 2012.

  1. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Everyone and everything enforces natural law. If you lived on a jungle island without a government, and attempted to rob and maim an island villager, they'd fight for their life and attempt to take your own.

    This is law enforcement. The enforcement of natural law. Nobody is just going to let you rape, rob, and kill them. People will enforce their rights with or without a government present.

    Nonsense. There's nothing special about a government that allows the creation of roads and specialized equipment. The same goes for armies. People can voluntarily organize and pool their resources without creating a government monopoly on the use of aggressive force.

    LOL. These things exist because mankind has the ability to produce and create things. It's not like people would all of a sudden just stop producing and creating things because government disappeared. They would just keep on keeping on.

    Government has no function in this regard.

    Because of what? You're not making any sense. The government has nothing without first stealing it from the people it purports to "represent". And it is theft, as the government takes with or without permission. In fact, the government will even kill to maintain its unlawful extortion racket. If you try to resist, they will open fire.

    It's worse than theft, as theft doesn't necessarily imply the use of violent force. It's robbery. Plain old robbery.

    What does? What is "that"? The last 100+ years of human financial systems has essentially revolved around debt-based monetary systems. Why? Because the government has no fucking money, that's why. The only money it has it what it steals through taxes, inflation, and what it can borrow, which just means the government has to tax and inflate even more later on to pay the principle + interest.

    I have explained natural law in basic terms. For all the rest you can crack a book or do a little research. Or you can read this:

    http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/obey-natural-law/
     
  2. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    It has nothing to do with what I declare or you deny. It is what is. You can either choose to recognize it or ignore it, but it's still there.

    Nonsense. We are here and alive because we are supposed to be here and alive. If we were supposed to be dead or non-existent, then that's what we'd be. But we are alive. This is the natural state of affairs we find ourselves in. All of our instincts are geared towards preserving our life and those of our loved ones. Life is "right". Life is a human "right". It is a right because, as sentient beings, we are able to recognize this and recognize the rights of others. And we largely recognize the rights of others because it is in our best interest to do so, as the right to my own life is dependent on my recognizing your right to your life.

    That sounds absolutely delightful. People focusing their efforts on a local level and interacting with those they actually know and care about, instead of worrying about what the people in a state 2,500 miles away are doing to each other.

    Why would anyone want a million man standing army? Nothing good comes from having standing armies.

    I see no reason a collection of villages with shared interests (like defense) can't organize a large, volunteer fighting force in the absence of government.

    Nonsense. If government doesn't break down on mistrust, then neither would anarchy.

    Nobody has the right to simply stab someone just because he is paranoid.

    More nonsense. People can and will still contract with each other and form agreements through mutually agreed upon third party arbitrators and mediators. If you don't trust someone, you don't have to do business with them.

    You're referencing a reaction that takes place inside a system of governments, which all brainwash their citizens to be patriotic and nationalistic.

    "This country wronged us! Let's boycott some of their corporations and shun them! French fries are now "freedom fries"! LOL! That will really show them!"

    You're projecting your own nationalistic indoctrination onto decentralized anarchy.

    Why would a region of anarchy have an absence of trade? If there are people present, they will both produce and consume goods and services. This will create demand. Demand will create more production. Excess production will be traded externally for external goods and services. Etc...

    You're really not making a whole lot of sense with this warlord stuff.

    Maybe, maybe not. Surely you aware there are also governments that sometimes can't stop organized forces either. Yes, sometimes even governments are overrun. However, this constant fear of being overrun by warlords, posses, bad guys, and governments is not a good enough excuse to become a warlord, posse, bad guy, or government yourself.

    It seems like every excuse you have for creating government comes down to fear of one thing or another. Fear of bad people. Fear of catastrophe. Fear of war. Fear of invasion. Fear, fear, fear, fear, fear. And if you don't have something legitimate to fear, you'll simply manufacture it out of nothing. FEAR!

    Do you know what kind of society you're going to create if it's based on nothing but fear? Consider some recent historical examples and give it some thought.

    Interesting. So what you're saying is, the U.S. government can't pacify Afghanistan without ruining its reputation and jeopardizing its relationship with other nations? Wouldn't this work the same in anarchy? Wouldn't people be reluctant to go around murdering and stealing from each other out of fear for their reputation and relationships with everyone else?

    Or does that conveniently only work under government?

    Let me guess. This too is only true under government? It doesn't apply to anarchy, right?

    You mean, that's what you've been told. That's the sell job you've been sold. And, of course, you bought it.

    Wow, our government managed to eradicate the Nazi government in what, less than four years, but can't seem to get a handle on the lowly Taliban after 11 years? Not only that, but our casus belli for going after the Taliban was ten times better than the one we had for going after Nazi Germany. Do you honestly believe this stinking pile of horse shit you're pitching to me? That this whole thing is a "police action" that we just can't seem to take care of?

    LOL. Dude, you're killing me with this shit. I'm losing I.Q. points talking to you. How can you take this stuff seriously?

    Good point. So you'd invade, and without a centralized local government in place for you to take over and administer your occupation, you'd have to impose some sort of quasi-martial law over a bunch of lawless people who don't recognize you as a legitimate authority.

    You'd dig a mine to exploit a resource and the locals would blow it up. You'd build a pipeline to deliver your oil to a port and it would "spring" a leak. You'd send out a squad to patrol the streets, and the only thing that would return are their heads in picnic baskets.

    I'm sure your occupation would end well!

    Wait, couldn't this apply to you as well? How do you know the people you are leading into war against a peaceful anarchic society will allow it? Maybe you're suffering from false-consensus effect? Maybe they will organize a coup and put you in jail for trying to wage a war of aggression against a trading partner.

    LOL. Yeah, that kind of backfired on you a bit.

    Nonsense. I was born into this system, so I am not faced with losing my freedom, which never existed anyway.

    There's nothing for me to gain by killing myself.

    What's this "we" stuff? You won't do shit, because we both know you're a coward who'd rather watch rainbow pony anime cartoons from the comfort of your couch. After all, there are plenty of people planting IEDs in the Middle East. How come you're not over there playing cowboy with them? How come you're not over there in the shit?

    We both know the answer. It's because you don't believe any of the bullshit you're saying here.
     
  3. DominionSeraph

    DominionSeraph Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,275
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yes, humans are predicable. Makes them easy to control.
    Shock and awe and pain compliance. Leads to submission in accordance with natural law. If they don't, you kill them in accordance with natural law as an object lesson.

    That is a government, just as the rapist/robber/killer is implementing government.
    If you want to negate government you need to stop trying to govern people's actions. Government just leads to more government, ya' know.

    And people can slit their own throats.
    Can != will.


    Yay for freshmen economics:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem


    Wrong. Government provides a solid baseline of enforced, agreed-upon rules. Without this, the economy would be in shambles. Who would ever deposit money in a bank if there was nobody to tell them they had to give it back? Who would lend out for investment? If you have to hold to the threat of personal war, that's inefficient, and such a system rewards the professional con artist and the thieving bankster with the best defense.
    Who is going to build a multimillion dollar structure if your rival can kill you and move in? You suddenly need an army defending everything of value. Oh, but if you have an army for defense, guess what else it can be used for? Why, attacking things with insufficient defense! So you have battles of private armies, shifting treaties as alliances are made and broken as the best plunder targets shift. Oh, and then you have the military coups, because why would a security chief work for peanuts when he can kill the fat cat and have the whole thing?

    Organized government takes away "might makes right," in favor of rule of law. Laws are designed with government survival in mind -- government cannot be overly oppressive lest it invite its overthrow. It designs laws to be fair lest it lose its raison d'etre of being better and more efficient than the alternative. Fair laws can be agreed upon in light of the alternative (horrendously, retardedly inefficient anarchy) allowing for enforcement towards the uniform ideal with only a minimal security force. This is MUCH more efficient than an arms race between private armies bent on plunder.

    Government works. Anarchy does not.

    1. Government is a very good thing.
    2. People will sacrifice minor things to keep a very good thing.
    3. A dissident who would act to impair the government for childish, self-centered reasons, being asymmetric to the ingroup and thus not having his punishment threaten to reflect, is a minor thing.

    The free rider problem means that the People cannot risk a person reaping the benefits of their government without paying in.* The dissidents' "assurances" that they will not leech off the system cannot be trusted. But to assign a security force to oversee them is out of the question due to its expense -- you'd throw the efficiency gained by having a government right out the window if you needed to keep watch on every dissident. So instead we make good on the threats.
    311,000,000 people > you. We will kill you rather than watch as you act as a seed for society's destruction.


    (*inb4 poor people not paying taxes. That's a case of the system taking care of its own by adjusting for inequality, which is not the same as being leeched by outsiders.)

    It is a natural law that the majority power need not care what you think is a natural law.
     
    #128 DominionSeraph, Nov 13, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2012
  4. MooseNSquirrel

    MooseNSquirrel Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your natural law site isnt working, but from what you have been saying either natural law is divinely created or you believe might is right, none of which really support any of your arguments.

    Im not going to go into a huge recap of the last 10000 years of human history for you but I think I can safely assert that without humans banding together to create excess food supplies -- and the means to share and protect them aka roads and armies -- you and I wouldnt be sitting here arguing on the internet.

    And governments can print money.
     
  5. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Works for me.

    Both conclusions are false.

    Humans can create excess food supplies, roads, and armies without creating a government. Government is not a prerequisite to people producing and creating stuff. After all, if human beings need a government in place before they can produce and create stuff, how did they ever manage to produce organized government in the absence of organized government?

    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Printing money doesn't create wealth, it only dilutes wealth. Were you under the impression that the government creates all wealth in an economy by simply pressing the 'print' button? That government paper represents wealth instead of all the goods and services within an economy?
     
  6. Juror No. 8

    Juror No. 8 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds like something Joe Stalin would have said.

    I wonder if your politics are any different than his?

    Of course. Everything and everyone is a government. Everything they do is also government.

    This sounds like the same kind of thing Christians say: "God is in everything! God is in everything we do! God is all around us!"

    Just replace 'God' with 'Government' and it's easy to see you're just another religious holy roller.

    According to your logic, though, that would be impossible, because all human actions are a form of government. So even if I do nothing at all, there will still be government as long as humans exist.

    Why would you equate people with voluntarily coming together to pool their resources with cutting their own throats? I thought you believed it was necessary for people to come together in such a way. Now you say it's akin to committing suicide.

    Which is it? You're all over the map.

    A relatively minor but not insurmountable problem.

    Clearly this is incorrect, as plenty of people don't agree with the rules.

    Like me, for instance.

    LOL.

    LOL, so only a government can tell a bank not to rob people? OK, then, what happens when your banks get control of the government? Who's going to tell the banks not to rob people then?

    Government is far more inefficient and a far bigger waste of resources, but that doesn't seem to bother you very much, so why would inefficiency bother you under anarchy?

    If someone can afford to build a multimillion dollar structure, he can probably also afford some security.

    You think?

    LOL, right. People who wish to protect stuff can't hire a large security force on the private market. Instead, they have to create individual armies to protect every single installation.

    LOL.

    They same things happen under governments. Governments attack each other, alliances and treaties shift, countries are plundered, and military commands carry out coups. In fact, we almost had one in this country back in 1933.

    If government supposedly solves this problem, why hasn't it solved this problem yet?

    LOL.

    LOL, since when? Somebody should have told Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and communist China. Clearly they didn't get your memo.

    More LULZ. The opposite is true. The more oppressive a government is, the greater chance it has to prevent overthrow.

    If this is true, and governments prevent arms races, why do governments spend billions upon billions of dollars trying to one-up each other in military arms races?

    LOL, where has government ever worked? Society is falling apart all around us. The U.S. is in decay. The evidence can't be any more plain.

    What's "good" about a people possessing a monopoly on the use of aggressive force against other people? I thought you Leftists were opposed to monopolies?

    Including each other.

    What does this have to do with anything?

    Taxation is still theft. You can't talk your way out of it.

    So then why force him to accept the benefits? Why not make the benefits of government a voluntary choice?

    You would have made a fine kommissar in the old Soviet Union.

    "Worship government, or else!"

    LOL.


    How can you "adjust for inequality" by making people unequal in the eyes of the tax man? Equality is making everyone pay the same tax rate. Unless you're making everyone pay the same tax rate, you're essentially practicing discrimination.

    Incorrect again, as the whims of the majority have no bearing on natural law.
     
  7. Munky

    Munky Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2005
    Messages:
    9,377
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yah, because in the 18th century the ghetto welfare queens and illegal mexicans would have had to actually work for a living instead of mooching off others. Oh, the horror! The post-modern, uber-enlightened liberal would have none of that.
     
  8. MooseNSquirrel

    MooseNSquirrel Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    0
    News flash Munky, everyone was an illegal during the 18th century.

    Ghetto welfare queens....thanks for the laugh!
     
  9. MooseNSquirrel

    MooseNSquirrel Golden Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well run governments have always provided the framework for wealth creation, whether it be printing money, putting in roads, or defending its freedom loving citizens. If all you are aiming for is survival then fine, you dont need a government.

    Anyhoo...

    Site is finally working.

    Its an interesting site, and interesting questions are asked.

    But it is truly magical thinking to believe that -- and I repeat, flies in the face of all of human history -- that benevolent self interest will lead to improvement of the human condition, that somehow we all inherently know justice from injustice, law from unlawful etc etc etc

    But I can see how this type of magical thinking would allow one to believe that because taxation isnt needed (we will build these roads as a community...somehow!), it therefore must be wrong...it ias an unjust law, because we inherently know so.

    Well I call BS on that. Well you dont inherently know it to be unjust, it just feels that way, and you want it be. And lo and behold, we have natural to make it so!