Rock the non-vote

[Train]

Govt isnt the fallcy, anarchism is.

It has never worked, and never will. No amount of biased "theory" can change that. Hell even communism looked good on paper, but we all know in the real world it fails, the same with anarchy, its just another dream of a utopia.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train
Govt isnt the fallcy, anarchism is.

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

It has never worked, and never will.

Wrong again.

No amount of biased "theory" can change that.

Good thing there are books documenting historical cases of anarchy working.

Hell even communism looked good on paper,

Wrong again. Ludwig von Mises refuted communism on 'paper.'

but we all know in the real world it fails, the same with anarchy, its just another dream of a utopia.

I find your statement ironic in light of the fact that one must believe the most utopian of utopian beliefs about bureaucrats and politicians in order to believe that the government is for the 'common good.'

 

[Train]

in the year or so I've been debating your chaos dream with you, you have still never shown a single instance in which there was not a government of some kind.

IT NEVER HAPPENED.

Wether it be a king, an elected official or body of officials, a warlord, a cheif, village elder, or even a preist or cleric, someone is ALWAYS in charge.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train
in the year or so I've been debating your chaos dream with you, you have still never shown a single instance in which there was not a government of some kind.

IT NEVER HAPPENED.

Wether it be a king, an elected official or body of officials, a warlord, a cheif, village elder, or even a preist or cleric, someone is ALWAYS in charge.

Authoritarianism is a very popular religion. This I cannot deny. The fact that people believe in a higher power here on Earth and they want this higher power to exist and fix their problems says absolutely nothing about the state of affairs in absence of such a 'higher power.' It is just like many philosophers wanted God to exist so they tried to come up with absolute proofs of his existence. People want the state.

Show me a single place on Earth where people do not want the state. Granted there are places where the state simply cannot exist due to lack of all around order, such as Somalia. But show me some civilized place on Earth where people do not believe in a state. It doesn't exist. The religion is simply too pervasive. The non-existence of such a place is based on people's beliefs, not on anything that has to do with any real valid reason.

 

[Train]

Somolia is ruled by warlords, and its not because people believe they have to have a "higher power" They are ruled because the warlords took control of the guns and the food.

Still waiting for that example....

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train
Somolia is ruled by warlords, and its not because people believe they have to have a "higher power" They are ruled because the warlords took control of the guns and the food.

Still waiting for that example....

The U.S. government is in anarchy with the Canadian government.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train
Somolia is ruled by warlords, and its not because people believe they have to have a "higher power" They are ruled because the warlords took control of the guns and the food.

Still waiting for that example....

The U.S. government is in anarchy with the Canadian government.

hahaha i've been sitting this one out, but your best example of anarchy in action is a government that is ignoring signed contracts with another government (contracts which, btw, are aimed at reducing government control of international trade, not that i necessarily support NAFTA) in order to impose trade restrictions? And you personally support anarchy?

come on now

 

[Train]

:roll: And Virginia is in Anarchy with Delaware, right? now your just being delusional.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Train
:roll: And Virginia is in Anarchy with Delaware, right? now your just being delusional.

Well, he's right if you change his definition of anarchy from 'private contractualism' to 'do whatever you want, with or without a contract'.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train
:roll: And Virginia is in Anarchy with Delaware, right? now your just being delusional.

It is indeed in anarchy with delaware, but in an indirect way. You see, the government is in anarchy towards itself at all times. There is no higher power to reign in government (unless you believe we are all secretly being ruled by martians). Where does the government go if it has an internal dispute? To the government of course. This is the very definition of anarchist dispute resolution.

Where would I go if I had a dispute with my neighbor in anarchy? We would both go to our home owner's association that we contracted with, having our dispute resolved by the very entity that we are a part of.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train
Somolia is ruled by warlords, and its not because people believe they have to have a "higher power" They are ruled because the warlords took control of the guns and the food.

Still waiting for that example....

The U.S. government is in anarchy with the Canadian government.

hahaha i've been sitting this one out, but your best example of anarchy in action is a government that is ignoring signed contracts with another government (contracts which, btw, are aimed at reducing government control of international trade, not that i necessarily support NAFTA) in order to impose trade restrictions? And you personally support anarchy?

come on now

Hey, my car was made in Canada. There must be some trade going on.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Hey, my car was made in Canada. There must be some trade going on.

I just assumed your anarchy comment was referring to the obviously illegal softwood lumber tarrifs

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train
:roll: And Virginia is in Anarchy with Delaware, right? now your just being delusional.

It is indeed in anarchy with delaware, but in an indirect way. You see, the government is in anarchy towards itself at all times. There is no higher power to reign in government (unless you believe we are all secretly being ruled by martians). Where does the government go if it has an internal dispute? To the government of course. This is the very definition of anarchist dispute resolution.

Where would I go if I had a dispute with my neighbor in anarchy? We would both go to our home owner's association that we contracted with, having our dispute resolved by the very entity that we are a part of.

So essentially your HMO is the Govt.

It still leaves someone in charge.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train
:roll: And Virginia is in Anarchy with Delaware, right? now your just being delusional.

It is indeed in anarchy with delaware, but in an indirect way. You see, the government is in anarchy towards itself at all times. There is no higher power to reign in government (unless you believe we are all secretly being ruled by martians). Where does the government go if it has an internal dispute? To the government of course. This is the very definition of anarchist dispute resolution.

Where would I go if I had a dispute with my neighbor in anarchy? We would both go to our home owner's association that we contracted with, having our dispute resolved by the very entity that we are a part of.

So essentially your HMO is the Govt.

It still leaves someone in charge.

Who is 'in charge' of government? The only answer that makes any sense is the government.

Hence, my point is that the governmet has reserved anarchy only for itself.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train
:roll: And Virginia is in Anarchy with Delaware, right? now your just being delusional.

It is indeed in anarchy with delaware, but in an indirect way. You see, the government is in anarchy towards itself at all times. There is no higher power to reign in government (unless you believe we are all secretly being ruled by martians). Where does the government go if it has an internal dispute? To the government of course. This is the very definition of anarchist dispute resolution.

Where would I go if I had a dispute with my neighbor in anarchy? We would both go to our home owner's association that we contracted with, having our dispute resolved by the very entity that we are a part of.

So essentially your HMO is the Govt.

It still leaves someone in charge.

Who is 'in charge' of government? The only answer that makes any sense is the government.

Depends on the govt, if its a monarchy, the Monarch, if its a Theocracy, the Preist, if its a Dictatorship, the Dictator, if its a Democracy, its the Mayor, Prime Minister, President, or whatever the position may be.

And if its a homeownerassociationacy, the "president" of that HOA, or whatever his title may be. Its still a govt, you cant get rid of authority by changing its name.

The only way to truly rule yourself is to go live in the woods with zero human contact. But then you might get "ruled" by a horny bear. Its up to you.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train
:roll: And Virginia is in Anarchy with Delaware, right? now your just being delusional.

It is indeed in anarchy with delaware, but in an indirect way. You see, the government is in anarchy towards itself at all times. There is no higher power to reign in government (unless you believe we are all secretly being ruled by martians). Where does the government go if it has an internal dispute? To the government of course. This is the very definition of anarchist dispute resolution.

Where would I go if I had a dispute with my neighbor in anarchy? We would both go to our home owner's association that we contracted with, having our dispute resolved by the very entity that we are a part of.

So essentially your HMO is the Govt.

It still leaves someone in charge.

Who is 'in charge' of government? The only answer that makes any sense is the government.

Depends on the govt, if its a monarchy, the Monarch, if its a Theocracy, the Preist, if its a Dictatorship, the Dictator, if its a Democracy, its the Mayor, Prime Minister, President, or whatever the position may be.

Whoever is the ultimate decionmaker in government does not matter. When the government agencies joined the government, they voluntarily agreed to be bound by the government's rulings. Who in government actually issues these rulings doesn't matter. All that matters is that those in government are voluntarily bound by them. Not even dictators force people to work in their regimes (except maybe the military).

And if its a homeownerassociationacy, the "president" of that HOA, or whatever his title may be. Its still a govt, you cant get rid of authority by changing its name.

The HOA is voluntary, it certainly isn't a government.

The only way to truly rule yourself is to go live in the woods with zero human contact. But then you might get "ruled" by a horny bear. Its up to you.

You are conflating 'being ruled' and living under a code of law. The two are not synonymous.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Whoever is the ultimate decionmaker in government does not matter.

incorrect, the ultimate decision maker (in your case your HOA man) IS the govt.

The HOA certainly is a govt. Its Voluntary because you can move away? Well I can move to Canada, does that make my participation in US govt voluntary? No.

Dude, I can go all day, no matter what you say I can poke a hole in it. When will you just figure out anarchism is I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E

Anarchism is the social equivalent of dividing by zero.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train
The HOA certainly IS a govt. Its Voluntary because you can move away?

No, it is voluntary because when you move there you agree to its terms. Did you sign the U.S. Constitution immediately after you were born? I doubt it.

Well I can move to Canada, does that make my participation in US govt voluntary? No.

Well, I agree with you there.

Dude, I can go all day, no matter what you say I can poke a hole in it. When will you just figure out anarchism is I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E

If it wasn't then we would have all been dead long ago.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Dude, I can go all day, no matter what you say I can poke a hole in it. When will you just figure out anarchism is I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E

If it wasn't then we would have all been dead long ago.

If it wasn't impossible we'd all be dead?

Well, might be true. but no way to know since it is.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Dude, I can go all day, no matter what you say I can poke a hole in it. When will you just figure out anarchism is I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E

If it wasn't then we would have all been dead long ago.

If it wasn't impossible we'd all be dead?

Well, might be true. but no way to know since it is.

I highly doubt that cavemen had 'government.'

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train
The HOA certainly IS a govt. Its Voluntary because you can move away?

No, it is voluntary because when you move there you agree to its terms. Did you sign the U.S. Constitution immediately after you were born? I doubt it.

Well I can move to Canada, does that make my participation in US govt voluntary? No.

Well, I agree with you there.

Unfortunately, these two positions conflict badly:

Currently you can choose what country to live in (in fact, someone as educated as you, once you finish college, can probably live and work almost anywhere in the world).

But even under anarchy, you have to live somewhere; just like you can choose a government to live under now, once you're an adult, you would be able to choose an 'HOA' then. Until then, you live under the HOA chosen by your parents, from whatever options were available, that they could afford.

There's no fundamental difference, just a difference of control, and possibly an increase in variety of choice (but there's no reason to assume this - what HOA would choose 'rules' less (profit) or more (competition) advantageous to itself than any other?)

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Train
The HOA certainly IS a govt. Its Voluntary because you can move away?

No, it is voluntary because when you move there you agree to its terms. Did you sign the U.S. Constitution immediately after you were born? I doubt it.

Well I can move to Canada, does that make my participation in US govt voluntary? No.

Well, I agree with you there.

Unfortunately, these two positions conflict badly:

Currently you can choose what country to live in (in fact, someone as educated as you, once you finish college, can probably live and work almost anywhere in the world).

The fact that I can move away doesn't excuse the fact that the government unjustly rules a good portion of north America. If there is a group of thugs violating people's rights somewhere are you going to tell them: "Well, you could always move away." No, the violators should be exiled. Where did the U.S. government get the initial right to rule North America? Nowhere from what I can see.

But even under anarchy, you have to live somewhere; just like you can choose a government to live under now, once you're an adult, you would be able to choose an 'HOA' then. Until then, you live under the HOA chosen by your parents, from whatever options were available, that they could afford.

My parents (the authoritarians that they are) didn't choose the U.S. government.

There's no fundamental difference, just a difference of control, and possibly an increase in variety of choice (but there's no reason to assume this - what HOA would choose 'rules' less (profit) or more (competition) advantageous to itself than any other?)

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The fact that I can move away doesn't excuse the fact that the government unjustly rules a good portion of north America. If there is a group of thugs violating people's rights somewhere are you going to tell them: "Well, you could always move away." No, the violators should be exiled. Where did the U.S. government get the initial right to rule North America? Nowhere from what I can see.

Sure - the US government is a conglomeration of states that decided to band together in a type of federalism. If the federal government has overstepped it's original mandate (which many Americans believe to be the case) then correct this problem; that can be done from within the system.

If your HOA (which you have admitted would be controlled by the owner) chose to merge with a neighboring one, and harmonize rules, would that be 'not allowed' under anarchy? I think not.

My parents (the authoritarians that they are) didn't choose the U.S. government.

Yes they did. More importantly, they chose to live in the US; under an HOA system, they would still have chosen to live somewhere; there may be a difference of scale (and then again, there may not) but the choice is fundamentally the same.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The fact that I can move away doesn't excuse the fact that the government unjustly rules a good portion of north America. If there is a group of thugs violating people's rights somewhere are you going to tell them: "Well, you could always move away." No, the violators should be exiled. Where did the U.S. government get the initial right to rule North America? Nowhere from what I can see.

Sure - the US government is a conglomeration of states that decided to band together in a type of federalism. If the federal government has overstepped it's original mandate (which many Americans believe to be the case) then correct this problem; that can be done from within the system.

Who said states were legitimate?

If your HOA (which you have admitted would be controlled by the owner) chose to merge with a neighboring one, and harmonize rules, would that be 'not allowed' under anarchy? I think not.

My parents (the authoritarians that they are) didn't choose the U.S. government.

Yes they did. More importantly, they chose to live in the US; under an HOA system, they would still have chosen to live somewhere; there may be a difference of scale (and then again, there may not) but the choice is fundamentally the same.

Not really. What HOA taxes people's incomes or forces young people to fight overseas?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Dissipate

The fact that I can move away doesn't excuse the fact that the government unjustly rules a good portion of north America. If there is a group of thugs violating people's rights somewhere are you going to tell them: "Well, you could always move away." No, the violators should be exiled. Where did the U.S. government get the initial right to rule North America? Nowhere from what I can see.

Sure - the US government is a conglomeration of states that decided to band together in a type of federalism. If the federal government has overstepped it's original mandate (which many Americans believe to be the case) then correct this problem; that can be done from within the system.

Who said states were legitimate?

If your HOA (which you have admitted would be controlled by the owner) chose to merge with a neighboring one, and harmonize rules, would that be 'not allowed' under anarchy? I think not.

My parents (the authoritarians that they are) didn't choose the U.S. government.

Yes they did. More importantly, they chose to live in the US; under an HOA system, they would still have chosen to live somewhere; there may be a difference of scale (and then again, there may not) but the choice is fundamentally the same.

Not really. What HOA taxes people's incomes or forces young people to fight overseas?

If I'm not mistaken, states were set up, generally, with minimal control; certainly 'state' governments were more livable than the private equivalents, like the Hudson's Bay Company. That being said, you don't have a right, under anarchy, to live anywhere you want AND choose the terms of living there; any HOA is going to have membership dues, (or they'll be hidden in the rent) to cover the arbitration and other services they need to provide. There are plenty of countries that have low tax rates and provide little or no service to their citizens. For the most part these countries are extremely poor; you may think this a coincidence.

Very few countries force people to fight overseas; that part is ridiculous.