Why the belief in "authority" is so dangerous.

[Londo_Jowo]

You're free to do whatever you choose to do, just be ready to pay the consequence if you violate the law or someone else's rights/freedom.

 

[NoStateofMind]

You're free to do whatever you choose to do, just be ready to pay the consequence if you violate the law or someone else's rights/freedom.

You see how thick the blindness is? You do not even know you are advocating what you are warning me not to do. But again the excuse, at least for you, is that you do as you're told, not what is right. The dissociation of responsibility is strong with you.

 

[justoh]

 

[NoStateofMind]

Just cos.

Great argument.

 

[justoh]

Great argument.

It just can't work. Can you think of any successful governments based on anarchy?

 

[NoStateofMind]

It just can't work. Can you think of any successful governments based on anarchy?

Contradictory of terms there. An anarchist "government" could not possibly exist. You can't have a ruling body and yet not have one at the same time.

I think you meant an anarchist society. If thats what you meant then I cant think of one that's ever been tried. Can you?

 

[justoh]

Contradictory of terms there. An anarchist "government" could not possibly exist. You can't have a ruling body and yet not have one at the same time.

I think you meant an anarchist society. If thats what you meant then I cant think of one that's ever been tried. Can you?

Exactly. Anarchy is internally inconsistent (contradicts itself). I'm glad we're in agreement on this.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You see how thick the blindness is? You do not even know you are advocating what you are warning me not to do. But again the excuse, at least for you, is that you do as you're told, not what is right. The dissociation of responsibility is strong with you.

Let me guess, you're an only child who always got their way by holding their breath and stomping their feet who is now extremely frustrated that it doesn't work in the real world.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Exactly. Anarchy is internally inconsistent (contradicts itself). I'm glad we're in agreement on this.

No I think you don't understand the terms. I suggest you read them and find out what they mean.

 

[justoh]

No I think you don't understand the terms. I suggest you read them and find out what they mean.

link?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Let me guess, you're an only child who always got their way by holding their breath and stomping their feet who is now extremely frustrated that it doesn't work in the real world.

Classic deflecting of responsibility. Instead of either refuting the claim or acknowledging that it is a problem within themselves, bred statists often try to redirect the conversation "but but you're this and that". The "real world" as you say is dominated by rulers of which you are their "yes man" which renders you unable to think rationally.

 

[NoStateofMind]

link?

You can do your own homework. Would you care to explain how Anarchy contradicts itself?

 

[justoh]

You can do your own homework. Would you care to explain how Anarchy contradicts itself?

I'm willing to trade. Otherwise, you can do your own homework, imo. You don't have the authority to compel me to disclose.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I'm willing to trade. Otherwise, you can do your own homework, imo. You don't have the authority to compel me to disclose.

You made the claim that anarchy contradicts itself. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[justoh]

You made the claim that anarchy contradicts itself. The burden of proof is on you.

I reject any would be burdens imposed upon me by you or any other group trying to dictate norms of reasoned discourse, due to it being dangerous. That kind of organizational mandate undermines my freedoms as an individual. Why should i submit to consensus, community evidentiary standards regarding the making of claims?

Look, people do things. It's a fact.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I reject any would be burdens imposed upon me by you trying to dictate norms of reasoned discourse, due to it being dangerous. That kind of organizational mandate undermines my freedoms as an individual. Why should i submit to consensus, community evidentiary standards regarding the making of claims?

Look, people do things. It's a fact.

So you have no argument. Why are you even posting?

 

[Jhhnn]

Name one "government" that didn't subdue its people. China is a republic and we know how well that's working out for those who intend to be free. The fact is it doesn't matter which type of "government" is instituted we always end up enslaved due to the belief that a select few have the "right" to rule. Doesn't matter whether it be socialist, democratic, republic, communist or a combination of all, the very fact there is a ruling class means that good people will be "law abiding" and cause harm to others and attribute their actions to the state. Disassociating themselves from responsibility and morality. That's why the belief in "authority" is so dangerous.

Kee-rist. Government will exist and has always existed since ancient times, with democratic republics just being the best of what there is.

If you were enslaved or in danger of it, you dolt, you wouldn't be posting fatuous tripe on an internet forum, bet on that.

 

[Agent11]

Anarchy would be Darwinism. The weak would perish, and the unprepared. It would only last until the most powerful took control for themselves to protect those they cared for and exploit those who they do not. And then you would have feudalism.

Anarchy is for mentally lazy dreamers.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Kee-rist. Government will exist and has always existed since ancient times, with democratic republics just being the best of what there is.

You were just filling space here. I said as much in the opening post. I guess you just posted without reading. "Best of what there is" may be when comparing different human cattle farms but that doesn't make anyone free.

If you were enslaved or in danger of it, you dolt, you wouldn't be posting fatuous tripe on an internet forum, bet on that.

Do you own your labor or property? Answer: No. "government" expects a portion of your labor. You cannot own property without paying an "extortion fee". Since neither of these are exclusively yours then that means "government" owns a portion of you. I know this is not easy for you to understand as you are perfectly free to walk to your neighborhood weed shop but if you don't recognize you own yourself and the land you supposedly purchased than you remain under the insane illusion of freedom.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Anarchy would be Darwinism. The weak would perish, and the unprepared. It would only last until the most powerful took control for themselves to protect those they cared for and exploit those who they do not. And then you would have feudalism.

Incorrect. A moral society would not have a ruling class. Any attempt from a megalomaniac would be immediately seen as immoral and he would either be ostracized or conform.

Anarchy is for mentally lazy dreamers.

Actually statists are the lazy ones. They choose not to think but instead disassociate themselves from their actions. One who votes for "obamacare" for example imagines he is good because he is going to ensure that others get healthcare. The mental disconnect happens when they fail to realize that that money will come by the force of a gun to supply that healthcare. Effectively giving better health to some while jeopardizing it for everyone else. This applies to sorts of things statists don't want to think about but would rather some mythical entity take care of for them.

 

[cubby1223]

Reading this thread makes me think I'm in bizarro world right now...


Seriously, threads on this experiment (that was your reason for posting?) come up couple times every year. It's been discussed. There's nothing new to talk about.

 

[brycejones]

Reading this thread makes me think I'm in bizarro world right now...


Seriously, threads on this experiment (that was your reason for posting?) come up couple times every year. It's been discussed. There's nothing new to talk about.

You just can't handle the truth man....

 

[NoStateofMind]

Reading this thread makes me think I'm in bizarro world right now...


Seriously, threads on this experiment (that was your reason for posting?) come up couple times every year. It's been discussed. There's nothing new to talk about.

You just can't handle the truth man....

Actually I did search for it. Hadn't seen a reference to Milgram for a couple years. Not that I couldn't have missed it but I did make an effort.

There is something to talk about as long as people continue to believe in "authority". If you know about it, great, I hope you recognize that when dealing with "law enforcers". Now go forth and spread the word.

 

[Atreus21]

Why not?

Because anarchy means might makes right.

 

[Caravaggio]

......They may even express discomfort in "following orders", protest that its "not right" but the majority of people, a staggering and quite frightening 2/3's of "law abiding citizens", continue their torture or murder at the behest of the "authority figure"

The results were even bleaker than you outline. The "two thirds" figure applies to the proportion of subjects willing to administer what they believed were lethal shocks to the victim in the basic experiment. Nearly all subjects gave increasing shocks up to the point where the learner began to complain of pain and refused to continue. So the majority were so obedient that they actually shocked a man they believed might have had a heart attack.
When Milgram moved from Yale to Bridgeport the level of obedience fell considerably, implying that a scientific context in an institution of great reputation made the subjects more compliant.