Back to Constitutional Conservatism

[Juror No. 8]

Yeah, anarchy is so successful that anarchic societies have functionally ceased to exist. The world as we know it is living proof. Anarchy competed in the marketplace of ideas and it lost, over and over again. Don't be mad, it's just the market at work.

If we had a free market, you might have a point, but we don't, so you don't.

If the Amazon rainforest ceases to exist one day due to decades of deforestation, would it be because the Amazon rainforest was "unsuccessful", or would it be because mankind was too stupid and limited in forethought to do anything but destroy it?

Anarchy is simply a circuitous road to despotism.

LOL. Government is despotism, while anarchy is the polar opposite of despotism.

None of you seem to understand any of the terms you are using.

It's only pushed by for fools who have the luxury of never having to actually see their ideas implemented, and therefore will never be held accountable for their awfulness.

More LULZ. This is the mindset of your average American tax cow. Anyone who proposes a system without rulers (i.e., anarchy), is a "fool".

Some slaves just love their chains.

 

[Ausm]

Basically Jack Hunter understands that is it time to ditch the neocon and bible-thumper coalitition and adopt more Libertarian platforms if the GOP is to succeed.

If you team that up with the homophobes,flat earthers,birthers, gun nuts and racists who would that leave to vote?

 

[fskimospy]

If we had a free market, you might have a point, but we don't, so you don't.

We once had an entirely free market when men first arose as a species. All ideas were open, and anarchism lost. The free market spoke, your ideas lost. Someday you're just going to need to face up to it.

If the Amazon rainforest ceases to exist one day due to decades of deforestation, would it be because the Amazon rainforest was "unsuccessful", or would it be because mankind was too stupid and limited in forethought to do anything but destroy it?

Those two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. Clearly the Amazon rainforest was unsuccessful as it was unable to adapt to changing circumstances. It proved unfit for the world it existed in. Mankind might also be stupid for not preserving it, but in order to preserve it we would have to put artificial constraints on people. You might say we would have to 'govern' their actions.

LOL. Government is despotism, while anarchy is the polar opposite of despotism.

None of you seem to understand any of the terms you are using.

Might want to check that beam in your eye, brotha. Despotism is defined as the exercise of absolute power, and many governments do not exercise absolute power. Therefore government is not despotism. QED.

I also did not say that anarchy WAS despotism, simply that it led to it. There's a reason why the world was covered in emperors and kings for much of human history, it's because they took advantage of anarchic conditions and imposed their will over it. Anarchism is fundamentally weak in that way, and the flaw is irreparable.

More LULZ. This is the mindset of your average American tax cow. Anyone who proposes a system without rulers (i.e., anarchy), is a "fool".

Some slaves just love their chains.

No, you're a fool because your ideas are childish, naive, and ineffective. That's why they lost in the marketplace of ideas. You are also a fool because you lack the understanding of the world to effectively evaluate your own ideas rationally.

I imagine you are very young. Don't worry, you'll grow out of this.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

We once had an entirely free market when men first arose as a species. All ideas were open, and anarchism lost. The free market spoke, your ideas lost. Someday you're just going to need to face up to it.



Those two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. Clearly the Amazon rainforest was unsuccessful as it was unable to adapt to changing circumstances. It proved unfit for the world it existed in. Mankind might also be stupid for not preserving it, but in order to preserve it we would have to put artificial constraints on people. You might say we would have to 'govern' their actions.



Might want to check that beam in your eye, brotha. Despotism is defined as the exercise of absolute power, and many governments do not exercise absolute power. Therefore government is not despotism. QED.

I also did not say that anarchy WAS despotism, simply that it led to it. There's a reason why the world was covered in emperors and kings for much of human history, it's because they took advantage of anarchic conditions and imposed their will over it. Anarchism is fundamentally weak in that way, and the flaw is irreparable.



No, you're a fool because your ideas are childish, naive, and ineffective. That's why they lost in the marketplace of ideas. You are also a fool because you lack the understanding of the world to effectively evaluate your own ideas rationally.

I imagine you are very young. Don't worry, you'll grow out of this.

Cheers Eski, don't feed this troll, he's obnoxious enough when ignored.

Trust me on this one. ,)

 

[sigurros81]

I can honestly say this. I was one of the undecided voters, though I do not live in a swing state. I have yet to see a convincing argument on why I should vote for the GOP, especially from the conservatives on this board. There is not a single rational post by any of these guys that are not filled with conjectures and dramatic predictions of the apocalypse. Obama or Romney in the White House, the United States will go on. The United States has a way of sorting herself out. She's been doing so for the past 200+ years. If you want to convince people like me of why your ideologies are the better, I recommend staying away from emotional-based reasoning, if you could even call it reasoning.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I can honestly say this. I was one of the undecided voters, though I do not live in a swing state. I have yet to see a convincing argument on why I should vote for the GOP, especially from the conservatives on this board. There is not a single rational post by any of these guys that are not filled with conjectures and dramatic predictions of the apocalypse. Obama or Romney in the White House, the United States will go on. The United States has a way of sorting herself out. She's been doing so for the past 200+ years. If you want to convince people like me of why your ideologies are the better, I recommend staying away from emotional-based reasoning, if you could even call it reasoning.

The GOP knows women are whores and blacks and brown people are lazy, they also know that wealthy people will not hoard their wealth but rather spend it in society unlike the middleclass and the poor who will immediatly save it and thereby NOT invest in the economy at all.

What is needed is more extreme wealth and less people who can afford to consume anything beyond their minimum wage and then only on subsidized (hey, it's only fair) produce.

With Romney in the white house we'd be in big sheit, and while i know the messiah is from missourah i still say we because somehow we would get dragged into some war because it's the alien father and mothers son's war that is inevitable in this time...

Now, i'm not a moron but i do know that for the messiah to return to missorah the devil (which is pretty much the ME in Moranism) has to be defeated and his brother (yes, in moranism which some say is just like christianity, jesus and the devil are brothers born from an alien who ascended into the heavens and his wife) will then rule the universe from missourah.

And when that day comes you have to have holy underwear or you're doomed.

 

[Juror No. 8]

We once had an entirely free market when men first arose as a species. All ideas were open, and anarchism lost.

Not really, since even early mankind was plagued by people such as yourself who demanded to live at the expense of others and sought to impose systems (government) that institutionalized human parasitism. Anyone who spoke of freedom and personal responsibility was shot down, just as now.

The free market spoke, your ideas lost. Someday you're just going to need to face up to it.

Nope, my ideas won. The modern, fucked-up world of warring government Mafias and citizens as dependent as children is my proof.

Those two ideas aren't mutually exclusive. Clearly the Amazon rainforest was unsuccessful as it was unable to adapt to changing circumstances.

LOL. Good point. Trees really ought to learn how to adapt to chainsaws.

What a maroon.

It proved unfit for the world it existed in. Mankind might also be stupid for not preserving it, but in order to preserve it we would have to put artificial constraints on people. You might say we would have to 'govern' their actions.

Wait a minute. If people are too stupid and too destructive to preserve a rainforest, then wouldn't they also too stupid and too destructive to govern each other successfully? Or do people all of sudden become non-stupid and non-destructive once they form a government?

LOL.

Might want to check that beam in your eye, brotha. Despotism is defined as the exercise of absolute power, and many governments do not exercise absolute power. Therefore government is not despotism. QED.

Oh really? Then what is it that limits the power of these "many" governments?

I also did not say that anarchy WAS despotism, simply that it led to it.

You mean, government leads to despotism, since government ("we must have rulers!") is despotism.

Again, anarchy ("no rulers") is the opposite.

There's a reason why the world was covered in emperors and kings for much of human history...

Yes, and it's because of government and the mindless philosophy behind it.

it's because they took advantage of anarchic conditions and imposed their will over it. Anarchism is fundamentally weak in that way, and the flaw is irreparable.

LOL, no, they took advantage of conditions created by people like you, who demanded that they exist:

"Please, please come and rule over us! We must have rulers! Take care of us and protect us! Redistribute my neighbor's property to me and I'll support you!"

No, you're a fool because your ideas are childish, naive, and ineffective. That's why they lost in the marketplace of ideas. You are also a fool because you lack the understanding of the world to effectively evaluate your own ideas rationally.

I imagine you are very young. Don't worry, you'll grow out of this.

Then I guess it must suck to get taken to school by such a young, naive child. Then again, with the kind of childish, co-dependent stuff you believe ("I must be ruled because I can't do it myself"), it's almost as if you take yourself to school. I just provide the lessons.

Step right up!

 

[HomerJS]

Link



This is the truth IMO. I honestly don't think we will ever go back to a Constitutional government. We are too far down the road of liberalism for that to change now.

Dammit dude, you just made me 4/5 of a human being again!

 

[DominionSeraph]

You're mistaking vigilance for war. They are not the same.

A cold war is not free.

I live in a city with a lot of violent crime. Armed robberies are more common than in most other parts of the country, other than Baltimore, Detroit, and Miami. Because I am aware of this, I am always vigilant, which makes me a lousy target. However, this doesn't mean I am in a constant state of war with armed robbers. It just means that I have my eyes open and am always mentally prepared to defend myself.

You're making the mistake of thinking you exist in a world without a functioning government. The premise here wasn't your operation in a world with a police force, it was without government.
Your vigilance does not equal a few thousand cops backed by the National Guard and FBI.

Why would I need a government to defeat you? Wouldn't an equivalent posse, or a posse of greater number and strength, provide enough to deterrent to either chase you off or scare you straight?

That posse would be a government -- you are attempting to govern my posse's actions. And your posse won't work very well if you don't have some sort of internal command structure. That's government as well.
If you tried not to govern in any way, I'd just recruit away every competent member with ease: "Look guys, Juror No. 8 is a complete moron and he's just going to get you killed with this, 'Let's have no effective defense,' strategy of his. Look at the people he's with -- they're sheeple not worthy of your respect. Come over to my side where we actually have organization, an effective system of common defense, and a framework which allows us to resolve conflict with one another in an agreed-upon manner allowing everyone to move forward with the confidence that conflict will be resolved. We'll put those sheeple to work for us (as they're too stupid to govern themselves) and we'll all share in the benefits!"

The incompetence of anarchy does not fare well against the efficiency and organization of governance.

I acknowledge that there will be violent crime with or without government. My argument is simple, don't ever legalize or legitimize it. And certainly don't ever call it government and allow it to consolidate centralized power.

You have no government to give force to "illegality". Your opinions have no backing. You might as well be saying, "Let's not legalize the Sun coming up in the morning" for all you can stop it.
When I come up and shoot you in order to steal what you have, your dying words of, "B... but I called 'no shootsies'," is going to give me a hearty laugh.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you'd choose a life of violent, immoral crime over a life of peaceful interaction if it meant you'd be living a more comfortable life?

I'm saying that there's no chance of peaceful interaction without something enforcing that peace. If you will not be governed by mutual consent and are just standing around waiting for a master, I'll be that master rather than standing there like a dumbass like you.

No. A woman who fights off a rapist, for instance, isn't instituting a government over the rapist. She's merely defending herself against his aggression, as she has the right to do.

It is government. And he will be working to govern her, which nature also allows.
He will probably win.
Afterwards, she will probably try to govern things so that it doesn't happen again. If she has access to the foundational elements of a society she might try to convince some men to use their fists to threaten violence against any who would threaten her, giving her a more powerful government than her arms alone.
But going around beating people up can be tiresome. Easier to build a metal cage and make people wait it out.
But what about false accusation? The guy in the cage is going to be pretty pissed off at the injustice if we don't get this right -- we want to end violence, not foster revenge. I guess we need a judge then.
Hmmm... how are we gonna pay for this?

That's a stretch. By telling a man that he is not allowed to enslave me, that I have a right to be free and to live my life for my own purpose, I am not threatening him or governing him. He is free to go about his business as long as respects my rights.

Dude, you just threatened consequences if he enslaved you.
Why u governing him, bro? Why you actin' all like da' po-lice?

Sure, as long as they are voluntary.

I have no problem with donations, charities, or lotteries.

Your personal feelings are irrelevant.

So, in your worldview, people can't form voluntary groups for mutual benefit without coercing each other? That all such groups eventually disintegrate without violent coercion?

Violence is a powerful tool. If it is not used to hold violence in check, violence will likely erupt to take advantage of the power vacuum.

Now that's pretty cynical. Needless to say, I don't find it a valid observation.

Tell me again how Santa is real...

Your premises are faulty.

Tested in thousands of experiments and fitting in perfectly with the history of human behavior? Contrasted to yours which fall apart on every single level, coming from a person who assembled his concept of "human behavior in the absence of government," in a room that still contained every single force of governmental authority?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRQTZC3uNW4

The term 'government' has multiple definitions, and you seem to be attempting to use all of them interchangeably with organized government (a legal monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force).

The government determines legality, it isn't necessarily a monopoly, nor is it necessarily concerned with the initiation of aggressive force. If I step on an ant does the government not exist?

Power and group dynamics between individuals and collectives does not necessarily mean 'government' as I am using the term here.

Where is the meaningful difference?

Was the payment agreed to before hand? Was there a mutually agreed upon contract or bargain requiring me to render payment for your services upon completion? Was full, informed disclosure involved?

If the answer is no, then you and your army essentially represent an extortion racket. Am I supposed to be thankful that you only want 5 percent and not more?

Yes.
You're not very bright.

I'm a victim either way, right? Isn't that what you are saying? I'm either a victim of my neighbors or I'm a victim of your extortion racket. I can either stand on principle against my neighbors, or I can sigh a deal with the devil and legitimize your scam.

I choose the former.

Enjoy jail.

If you don't like people like me dissenting with the system as it exists, maybe it's you who should leave.

We are the majority power. This is our country. You will live by our rules or suffer the consequences.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Dammit dude, you just made me 4/5 of a human being again!

You think that is bad, i'm an abomination sent by satan to defeat Brighams church and thus have to be put to death along with .... well most of the US actually.

AKA Jewish.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

A cold war is not free.

Pony man, you're wasting your efforts on a man devoid of common sense.

While i think you're a tad daft you got the spirit, use it for good, in the name of lickymyass or whatever.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Dammit dude, you just made me 4/5 of a human being again!

Sensationalize much? Oh i forgot i was speaking to mr race card himself. Excuse me.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Pony man, you're wasting your efforts on a man devoid of common sense.

There's really no effort here. The whiny teenage mindset of, "The government is oppressing me," isn't exactly difficult to navigate.

 

[fskimospy]

There's really no effort here. The whiny teenage mindset of, "The government is oppressing me," isn't exactly difficult to navigate.

I tend to agree with JoS on this. He's pretty clearly a teenager who thinks he's stumbled on a Great Truth. Once he grows up some he'll be embarrassed about how stupid he looked here.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

There's really no effort here. The whiny teenage mindset of, "The government is oppressing me," isn't exactly difficult to navigate.

Whatever little effort it is, it is wasted i assure you.

If the US could run on republicrats tears it would be self sufficient forever though.

It's that bad, people are fucking weeping and wailing about a loss that everyone but them knew was going to happen.

Romney win the election? yeah and some day trees will become nuclear fission plants just out of ordinary occurence.

 

[Juror No. 8]

A cold war is not free.

So basic vigilance, which is the natural state of affairs throughout the animal kingdom, is now considered a "cold war"?

LOL.

I guess every time a person crosses a busy street, it's the same as fighting a cold war then.

LOL. Good one.

You're making the mistake of thinking you exist in a world without a functioning government.

No, you misunderstood my response, but we'll see where you go with it...

The premise here wasn't your operation in a world with a police force, it was without government. Your vigilance does not equal a few thousand cops backed by the National Guard and FBI.

So in a world without organized governments, there will be no such thing as private police and security forces?

LOL. Right, only the government can do that!

That posse would be a government -- you are attempting to govern my posse's actions. And your posse won't work very well if you don't have some sort of internal command structure. That's government as well.

LOL. So now all posses are considered governments? LOL. I guess all street gangs and Mafias are considered governments too then, right? The Crips and Bloods are governments as well!

You also claim that every person and every group of people constitutes a government. At what point does this nonsense end? Dogs influence their surroundings. Are they governments too?

LOL.

If you tried not to govern in any way, I'd just recruit away every competent member with ease: "Look guys, Juror No. 8 is a complete moron and he's just going to get you killed with this, 'Let's have no effective defense,' strategy of his. Look at the people he's with -- they're sheeple not worthy of your respect. Come over to my side where we actually have organization, an effective system of common defense, and a framework which allows us to resolve conflict with one another in an agreed-upon manner allowing everyone to move forward with the confidence that conflict will be resolved. We'll put those sheeple to work for us (as they're too stupid to govern themselves) and we'll all share in the benefits!"

Yes, you sound as if you are the type of person to organize a group of street thugs. This is fitting.

The incompetence of anarchy does not fare well against the efficiency and organization of governance.

LOL, "efficiency of government". I've seen it all now.

What government is efficient? Governments are textbook lessons in waste, fraud, and corruption, just as all monopolies are.

You have no government to give force to "illegality".

I don't need a government to give force to illegality, as natural law trumps man-made law. People have individual rights regardless of what laws governments pass.

Your opinions have no backing. You might as well be saying, "Let's not legalize the Sun coming up in the morning" for all you can stop it.
When I come up and shoot you in order to steal what you have, your dying words of, "B... but I called 'no shootsies'," is going to give me a hearty laugh.

As if people are just going to allow you to go around shooting and stealing from them. People will see you shoot me and then they'll string you up in the middle of the town square and watch the buzzards pick your bones clean. As they point and laugh at your demise, you can say, "but, but, but, I'm the government, and you can't do this to me!".

LOL.

I'm saying that there's no chance of peaceful interaction without something enforcing that peace.

Yes, and it's called self-defense. I don't go into the woods and attack bears because I know they will defend themselves against my aggression, and their ability to defend themselves is dangerous to my health.

Natural law. Learn it. Know it. Live it.

If you will not be governed by mutual consent and are just standing around waiting for a master, I'll be that master rather than standing there like a dumbass like you.

Who's going to allow you to be their master? I won't. Declare that I am your slave and I'll slit your throat the first moment you take a nap. You won't even manage to be the master of the worms who eat your corpse six feet under.

It is government. And he will be working to govern her, which nature also allows.
He will probably win.

LOL. So a woman who fights off a rapist is "government", and the rapist himself is "government". Everything in your world is a government. Even the toilet paper that wipes your ass is government!

LOL!

Afterwards, she will probably try to govern things so that it doesn't happen again. If she has access to the foundational elements of a society she might try to convince some men to use their fists to threaten violence against any who would threaten her, giving her a more powerful government than her arms alone.
But going around beating people up can be tiresome. Easier to build a metal cage and make people wait it out.
But what about false accusation? The guy in the cage is going to be pretty pissed off at the injustice if we don't get this right -- we want to end violence, not foster revenge. I guess we need a judge then.
Hmmm... how are we gonna pay for this?

What are you babbling about now?

Dude, you just threatened consequences if he enslaved you.
Why u governing him, bro? Why you actin' all like da' po-lice?

Still more nonsense.

Your personal feelings are irrelevant.

But your feelings, that everybody and everything in the world is a "government" are relevant.

LOL.

Violence is a powerful tool. If it is not used to hold violence in check, violence will likely erupt to take advantage of the power vacuum.

It's notable that you couldn't answer my question without changing the subject.

Tested in thousands of experiments and fitting in perfectly with the history of human behavior? Contrasted to yours which fall apart on every single level, coming from a person who assembled his concept of "human behavior in the absence of government," in a room that still contained every single force of governmental authority?

Yep, your premises are still faulty, and YouTube videos aren't going to help you with that.

The government determines legality, it isn't necessarily a monopoly, nor is it necessarily concerned with the initiation of aggressive force.

Yes, governments determine legality, while natural law, which supersedes government law, determines lawfulness. For instance, a government could declare that rape and murder is "legal", but people would still possess the right to fight off rapists and murderers, because under natural law, rape and murder are unlawful violations of individual rights.

If I step on an ant does the government not exist?

Irrelevant question.

Where is the meaningful difference?

Honestly, do you really need me to explain the different between a government ("we rule you!") and basic interactions between people?

LOL.

Yes.
You're not very bright.

LOL, says the guy who derives intellectual amusement from watching cartoons featuring talking rainbow ponies and kittens!

Enjoy jail.

LOL. What does this even mean? "Enjoy jail"? What kind of response is this?

We are the majority power. This is our country. You will live by our rules or suffer the consequences.

Nope, it's not your country. I have just as much right to be here as you do. I'll complain and poke at your phoney system all I like, and there's nothing you can do about it.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Anime Boy is starting to bore me here. Not enough challenge. Anybody else want to step up and take a stab at this?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Anime Boy is starting to bore me here. Not enough challenge. Anybody else want to step up and take a stab at this?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Anime Boy and now Picture Boy. LOL, thanks. I'll take that as a "no", Chuckie.

Anybody else?

 

[Moonbeam]

Anime Boy and now Picture Boy. LOL, thanks. I'll take that as a "no", Chuckie.

Anybody else?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519312002330

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120713-why-all-men-are-not-created-equal

Maybe this paper described a bit in the second link if you don't have the 39 dollars could help. Maybe your assumption that what you call 'natural' isn't natural after all. It's always our assumptions that do us in, our inability to examine them because we assume we already did.

 

[Juror No. 8]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519312002330

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120713-why-all-men-are-not-created-equal

Maybe this paper described a bit in the second link if you don't have the 39 dollars could help. Maybe your assumption that what you call 'natural' isn't natural after all. It's always our assumptions that do us in, our inability to examine them because we assume we already did.

Hey, look, a link-and-run! Just drop a few links, pretend it represents an argument of some kind, and hope nobody notices.

Nice!

 

[Moonbeam]

Hey, look, a link-and-run! Just drop a few links, pretend it represents an argument of some kind, and hope nobody notices.

Nice!

You misunderstand. I am totally impervious to what you think or what you think of me. I wrote you off as totally lost some time ago. But I will never ever give up on the notion that beneath the filth and scum that fills your mind is a decent person and I will never abandon at least a link, if I see something in it, to that person. You have lost your self but you aren't lost to me. I know that all your bluster and self defensive bravado is the other face of your fear. You defend against the monsters of your past but I surrendered and they ate me. I am no longer here. And those links, my dear friend, aren't for you alone. They are there because I think they are interesting. I do everything for the me who couldn't be eaten.

Don't try to understand. I'm not talking to you.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Hey, look, a link-and-run! Just drop a few links, pretend it represents an argument of some kind, and hope nobody notices.

Nice!

So your society revolves around respect of individual freedom? This assumes that everyone would agree and not take advantage of whatever situation may arise. Even if the 'group' shunned this selfish individual there will be other who will not because of need/desire. You cannot stop this entirely. Only way this works if we become Borg.

 

[NoStateofMind]

You misunderstand. I am totally impervious to what you think or what you think of me. I wrote you off as totally lost some time ago. But I will never ever give up on the notion that beneath the filth and scum that fills your mind is a decent person and I will never abandon at least a link, if I see something in it, to that person. You have lost your self but you aren't lost to me. I know that all your bluster and self defensive bravado is the other face of your fear. You defend against the monsters of your past but I surrendered and they ate me. I am no longer here. And those links, my dear friend, aren't for you alone. They are there because I think they are interesting. I do everything for the me who couldn't be eaten.

Don't try to understand. I'm not talking to you.

The Christ within?

 

[Juror No. 8]

You misunderstand. I am totally impervious to what you think or what you think of me.

LOL, is that why you write a novel every time I briefly respond to you?

Just admit it, you're hopelessly obsessed with me.