Why do you think it's better to have a monopoly on force?

[mammador]

I never mentioned raping and killing, yet you keep citing it.

 

[Juror No. 8]

I never mentioned raping and killing, yet you keep citing it.

Government, rape, murder... it's all the same. Just people criminally and violently forcing themselves on others.

What's the difference?

 

[mammador]

Yeah, so the state saying not to burn leaves and thus endanger the environment is the same as raping and killing somebody. You may not believe in laws, but whilst some laws are irrational most are not.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Yeah, so the state saying not to burn leaves and thus endanger the environment is the same as raping and killing somebody. You may not believe in laws, but whilst some laws are irrational most are not.

Where do you think the government gets the money to pass and enforce laws with?

Correct answer: By stealing money via taxation/extortion. If the people resist, the government kidnaps them and puts them in a cage. If the people resist being kidnapped, the government executes them on the spot.

Government = Terrorism

 

[CitizenKain]

Where do you think the government gets the money to pass and enforce laws with?

Correct answer: By stealing money via taxation/extortion. If the people resist, the government kidnaps them and puts them in a cage. If the people resist being kidnapped, the government executes them on the spot.

Government = Terrorism

If this big country is asking too much out of you, why don't you leave? Is that too much work for you to manage? Will Mommy and Daddy stop paying for everything then? Be the first lolbertarian to accomplish something and make a go for it.

 

[OverVolt]

BS. Ever heard of economies of scale? This happens in the private sector too. It's the entire reason we have corporations.

Economies of scale decreases if there is too much centralization. There is a clear signal for decentralization in the economy coming from energy prices. Its just going to get more and more expensive to ship goods over long distances.

If things were produced on more of a local level it would help the economy but we are currently so trapped by the economies of scale right now it would "kill the economy" for these enormous corporations to try and decentralize.

Some examples on the east coast half the produce comes from California- 3,000miles for a perishable. Insane.

And a modern corporation these days mostly consists of an office building of white collar workers and China makes the actual goods and they are shipped 18,000 miles. Economies of scale my ass :awe:

 

[Juror No. 8]

If this big country is asking too much out of you, why don't you leave? Is that too much work for you to manage? Will Mommy and Daddy stop paying for everything then? Be the first lolbertarian to accomplish something and make a go for it.

LOL, burn?

 

[mammador]

Where do you think the government gets the money to pass and enforce laws with?

Correct answer: By stealing money via taxation/extortion. If the people resist, the government kidnaps them and puts them in a cage. If the people resist being kidnapped, the government executes them on the spot.

Government = Terrorism

People give consent, whether implicitly or explicitly, to a government.

I personally don't give a shit if government exists. It's the basic social contract.

 

[Juror No. 8]

People give consent, whether implicitly or explicitly, to a government.

No they don't. People no more give consent to a government than they do a Mafia extortion racket. They simply tolerate it, because failure to do so will result in severe bodily injury or death.

I personally don't give a shit if government exists. It's the basic social contract.

There's no such thing as the social contract. It's as big a myth as Santa Claus.

Show me where you signed this social contract.

 

[OverVolt]

No they don't. People no more give consent to a government than they do a Mafia extortion racket. They simply tolerate it, because failure to do so will result in severe bodily injury or death.



There's no such thing as the social contract. It's as big a myth as Santa Claus.

Show me where you signed this social contract.

You signed it when you didn't go buckwild and break laws as you please.

 

[mammador]

No they don't. People no more give consent to a government than they do a Mafia extortion racket. They simply tolerate it, because failure to do so will result in severe bodily injury or death.



There's no such thing as the social contract. It's as big a myth as Santa Claus.

Show me where you signed this social contract.

Most accept a central authority. I would not say all governmental actions are evil.

the term contract is not meant literally. In all human societies, there is implicit collective will to accept the rule of that society. If one dislikes a society or rejects the contract, s/he can seek to change, live with it, or move.

 

[Juror No. 8]

You signed it when you didn't go buckwild and break laws as you please.

Can you show me my signature? Can you show me those terms of the contract you've specified and where they are listed?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Most accept a central authority. I would not say all governmental actions are evil.

And? Most people once accepted that the world was flat, but that doesn't mean it was.

the term contract is not meant literally.

Then it's not a legitimate, binding agreement.

In all human societies, there is implicit collective will to accept the rule of that society.

Obviously this is false, since in every society it's common to find those who continually break the rules of society.

Regardless, societies don't rule, governments do.

If one dislikes a society or rejects the contract, s/he can seek to change, live with it, or move.

So you'd be OK with a Mafia moving into your neighborhood and attempting to enforce an extortion racket social contract, just as long as they allow you the ability to move out of the neighborhood? That's all it takes for the Mafia's actions to be justified?

 

[mammador]

And? Most people once accepted that the world was flat, but that doesn't mean it was.

The world being round is not intrinsic to how humans think or reason.

Then it's not a legitimate, binding agreement.

Yeah, sociological concepts equate with legal principles. Look, in your country most deem it wrong to be racist, or cite racist comments/statements in public. This is not, largely, legally mandated but an explicit and implicit agreement. Government exists in the same manner.

Obviously this is false, since in every society it's common to find those who continually break the rules of society.

And the many punish them. Is the concept of legality immoral to you also? Most in a given community accept the same basic morals. Look, the social contract is sociological fact. Human societies make common rules and the many abide by them. What you've said even supports my point, since because somebody disagrees with something it doesn't mean all others must concur with them.

Regardless, societies don't rule, governments do.



So you'd be OK with a Mafia moving into your neighborhood and attempting to enforce an extortion racket social contract, just as long as they allow you the ability to move out of the neighborhood? That's all it takes for the Mafia's actions to be justified?

lol.. you sound like some autistic fool who doesn't get human emotions, thought or reasoning. The point where you said that humans don't implicitly respect common rules is really telling and frankly comical.

Even in a non-state society, there still would be a social contract by definition.

 

[silverpig]

Economies of scale decreases if there is too much centralization. There is a clear signal for decentralization in the economy coming from energy prices. Its just going to get more and more expensive to ship goods over long distances.

If things were produced on more of a local level it would help the economy but we are currently so trapped by the economies of scale right now it would "kill the economy" for these enormous corporations to try and decentralize.

Some examples on the east coast half the produce comes from California- 3,000miles for a perishable. Insane.

And a modern corporation these days mostly consists of an office building of white collar workers and China makes the actual goods and they are shipped 18,000 miles. Economies of scale my ass :awe:

You don't understand economies of scale.

You're thinking about efficiencies dropping when you add too many unrelated things together and destroy the synergies.

Having a farm and a shipping company stuck together to grow and ship food from California to NYC when you could grow some of that in NY is an example of this. If all you are doing is growing stuff, it's always better to do it on a large farm than in several small ones.

But that's beside the point of this thread. Having a centrally administered and centrally controlled military is more efficient than several small militaries. Why do you need 3 different people creating three different versions of the exact same ammo requisition form 2B in 3 different militaries when you could just have on person do it once?

 

[Juror No. 8]

The world being round is not intrinsic to how humans think or reason.

Neither is monopolistic government.

What's your point?

Yeah, sociological concepts equate with legal principles. Look, in your country most deem it wrong to be racist, or cite racist comments/statements in public. This is not, largely, legally mandated but an explicit and implicit agreement. Government exists in the same manner.

I don't see the comparison. One relies on social ostracization, while the other relies on violent, if not deadly, force.

Apples and oranges.

And the many punish them. Is the concept of legality immoral to you also? Most in a given community accept the same basic morals.

Logical fallacy. Argumentum ad populum, or appeal to the majority.

Look, the social contract is sociological fact.

LOL, wut? Where is it then? Where did I sign? Where did anyone sign?

Human societies make common rules and the many abide by them. What you've said even supports my point, since because somebody disagrees with something it doesn't mean all others must concur with them.

Not really. There's a difference between the common creation of basic social/moral rules and the creation of a monopolistic government. You seem to think they are one and the same, but can't seem to explain why.

lol.. you sound like some autistic fool who doesn't get human emotions, thought or reasoning. The point where you said that humans don't implicitly respect common rules is really telling and frankly comical.

In other words, you can't answer that question about the Mafia. It's much easier for you to deflect.

Nice job.

Even in a non-state society, there still would be a social contract by definition.

Right, and there would be Santa Claus, werewolves, and pots of gold at the end of every rainbow. Whatever imaginary thing you can think up would exist along with the mythical "social contract".

LULZ.

 

[mammador]

Neither is monopolistic government.

What's your point?

it is.

I don't see the comparison. One relies on social ostracization, while the other relies on violent, if not deadly, force.

Apples and oranges.

Yet you dismiss a social contract.

Logical fallacy. Argumentum ad populum, or appeal to the majority.

Yeah.. so common morals in societies don't exist.

LOL, wut? Where is it then? Where did I sign? Where did anyone sign?

Do you know what the word implicit means? If you opt to live in an area, one follows the basic norms of that community.

Not really. There's a difference between the common creation of basic social/moral rules and the creation of a monopolistic government. You seem to think they are one and the same, but can't seem to explain why.

Yet you say common rules don't exist. lol..

In other words, you can't answer that question about the Mafia. It's much easier for you to deflect.

Nice job.

I accept government as required to structure society.

Right, and there would be Santa Claus, werewolves, and pots of gold at the end of every rainbow. Whatever imaginary thing you can think up would exist along with the mythical "social contract".

LULZ.

As said, it's the basis of all human societies. Can you prove categorically that a social contract doesn't exist?

 

[Juror No. 8]

it is.

Not really.

Yet you dismiss a social contract.

Why would I accept it?

Yeah.. so common morals in societies don't exist.

Morality isn't based on what the majority says.

Do you know what the word implicit means? If you opt to live in an area, one follows the basic norms of that community.

What if the "basic norms" of a given community are immoral and perverse? What if the "basic norm" of a given community is owning slaves and euthanizing old people?

I see no reason why anyone should follow such garbage.

Yet you say common rules don't exist. lol..

LOL, "common rules".

It's like talking to a small child.

I accept government as required to structure society.

I don't, and see no reason to.

As said, it's the basis of all human societies. Can you prove categorically that a social contract doesn't exist?

LOL. Can you prove werewolves and vampires don't exist?

If the social contract exists, where is it? Show it to me. Where did I sign?

 

[mammador]

Morals don't exist. But those who do accept their existence assert that the majority do make morality.

As aforecited, the social contract is implicit.

 

[CitizenKain]

Morals don't exist. But those who do accept their existence assert that the majority do make morality.

As aforecited, the social contract is implicit.

You are trying to talk sense to a lolbertarian teenager living off their parents, trying to reason with them is pointless, as they simply lack the ability to understand.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Morals don't exist. But those who do accept their existence assert that the majority do make morality.

As aforecited, the social contract is implicit.

So are you equating morality as being a "social contract" of sorts?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Morals don't exist. But those who do accept their existence assert that the majority do make morality.

So if someone tried to kill you, you wouldn't defend yourself? Since, morals don't exist, it wouldn't be wrong for them to kill you, right? And if it's not wrong for them to kill you, how would you know to defend yourself?

As aforecited, the social contract is implicit.

That's the same kind of reasoning a rapist applies when a woman asks why she's being raped.

"By walking down a dark alley late at night, you implicitly agreed to the rape contract."

"What rape contract? I didn't sign anything."

"It's implicit, lady. Now shut the fuck up."

 

[OverVolt]

I guess one way to look at it is that the social contract is the reason why the military doesn't just run the government by force.

Force is something a politician decides to use, its not like the military has much say in the actual decision making. Why does the military put up with being told what to do when they possess all the force? The social contract is just belief in society and the greater good I guess.

 

[Oceandevi]

The social contract is why you feel safe to leave your home without body armor.

 

[OverVolt]

Yea without the social contract it is truly "every man for himself"