Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Government Can’t Help; It Can Only Hurt
Topic Started: Jun 2 2016, 04:24 PM (725 Views)
estonianman
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Jun 3 2016, 11:24 AM
estonianman
Jun 3 2016, 11:12 AM
Opinionated
Jun 3 2016, 11:08 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepevery single timehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic
^^ "It is because I want it to be! Waaah!"

No, that's not it. It's because you lack the convictions necessary to actually DO something about it. You could go form your own society. You could go join another society more to your liking. Instead, you stay here and do nothing but piss and moan about how horrible government is.

We don't care. We know you don't really believe it's that bad, or you wouldn't stay here. You'd flee the horrors of oppressive government. Since you don't, we know you're full of it. As are pretty much every hardcore libertarian I've ever encountered.

Syrian refugees? THEY know what oppressive government is. You, you're just a whiner. You've got nothing but 1st world problems.
Jesus christ mate - accept that you can't answer the question and move on.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

estonianman
Jun 3 2016, 11:30 AM
Opinionated
Jun 3 2016, 11:24 AM
estonianman
Jun 3 2016, 11:12 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepevery single timehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic
No, that's not it. It's because you lack the convictions necessary to actually DO something about it. You could go form your own society. You could go join another society more to your liking. Instead, you stay here and do nothing but piss and moan about how horrible government is.

We don't care. We know you don't really believe it's that bad, or you wouldn't stay here. You'd flee the horrors of oppressive government. Since you don't, we know you're full of it. As are pretty much every hardcore libertarian I've ever encountered.

Syrian refugees? THEY know what oppressive government is. You, you're just a whiner. You've got nothing but 1st world problems.
Jesus christ mate - accept that you can't answer the question and move on.
There is no question. We know the answer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Jun 3 2016, 11:39 AM
estonianman
Jun 3 2016, 11:30 AM
Opinionated
Jun 3 2016, 11:24 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepevery single timehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic
Jesus christ mate - accept that you can't answer the question and move on.
There is no question. We know the answer.
I'll repost then - it was my first response to you in this thread.

Quote:
 
Society when it gets to a certain level always creates the mafia, or certain other sub-cultures.

So by your logic - does this justify the mafia's existence?
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr. Tik
Member Avatar

estonianman
Jun 3 2016, 11:08 AM
Adolph Hipster
Jun 3 2016, 11:04 AM
estonianman
Jun 3 2016, 01:31 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepAs long as human are eusocial animals, we will always have government.
In a perfect world with a perfect species maybe.
Try running a corporation without management.
That's a good point. Although I would argue that a corporation always answers to both its consumers and investors. So instead of a pyramid - the accountability is circular.

Curious where the marxists "classless" society fits into eusociality. Could it be that the most eusocial compatible ideology is actually the least compatible?
Ask a marxist because I am not one despite what you may want to think. For better or worse, we humans are hardwired for hierarchy.
You may be a conservative republican..if you are pro life until you get your mistress knocked up
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Adolph Hipster
Jun 3 2016, 11:51 AM
estonianman
Jun 3 2016, 11:08 AM
Adolph Hipster
Jun 3 2016, 11:04 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepAs long as human are eusocial animals, we will always have government.In a perfect world with a perfect species maybe.
Try running a corporation without management.
That's a good point. Although I would argue that a corporation always answers to both its consumers and investors. So instead of a pyramid - the accountability is circular.

Curious where the marxists "classless" society fits into eusociality. Could it be that the most eusocial compatible ideology is actually the least compatible?
Ask a marxist because I am not one despite what you may want to think. For better or worse, we humans are hardwired for hierarchy.
I do not think you are a Marxist. I was just asking a general question.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robertr2000
Member Avatar

jeffersonCarter
Jun 3 2016, 01:48 AM
Let me guess. All you anti-government (anarchist) live in the hills or the country, a hundred miles from no-where?
Pretty much, ya. :cool:

Posted Image
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

Robert lives in Discovery Bay?
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

estonianman
Jun 3 2016, 11:42 AM
Opinionated
Jun 3 2016, 11:39 AM
estonianman
Jun 3 2016, 11:30 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepevery single timehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic
There is no question. We know the answer.
I'll repost then - it was my first response to you in this thread.

Quote:
 
Society when it gets to a certain level always creates the mafia, or certain other sub-cultures.

So by your logic - does this justify the mafia's existence?
If, as you believe, not having a government was so great, it would logically follow that human beings would have tried it, found how great it is, and insisted on it being the standard.

Do you know why it's not so great? Because human beings are hierarchical. We require structure within our societies and we want to know our place within that structure. And, when there is a leadership vacuum, someone always steps up to fill that vacuum and the rest of us almost always follow them.

This has been going on since the dawn of time. As a rule we don't function well as a species in an environment such as you advocate. Perhaps if we were primarily lone predators, like sharks, we would have never developed societies and then the governments to go with them. Perhaps if we were hive animals, more like bees, we'd have no problem with government since it would be innate.

But we're omnivores, which basically means hunters/scavengers/gatherers. We need team work to work well as hunters, yes we can hunt as individuals with the appropriate tools, but originally we hunted in packs or small groups. We would take down prey smaller than us and would use numbers to overwhelm them. As we became more advanced, the size of the prey we would hunt became larger, which meant we had to cooperate even more. All through our development, we've found that cooperation within a society generates greater accomplishments. The problem is, there are always those within any society who will, if given the opportunity, prey on others with that society. Which is almost always why government takes hold. Someone has to say that taking your neighbors food/supplies/family members is wrong, and then enforce it. Otherwise, those who are stronger always take from those who are weaker. It's one of our least admirable aspects as a species, but there you are.

Without government there is anarchy, not utopia as you believe. And while there is good government and bad government, having no government is always bad government.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Jun 3 2016, 12:29 PM
If, as you believe, not having a government was so great, it would logically follow that human beings would have tried it, found how great it is, and insisted on it being the standard.

My only problem is that government is morally reprehensible. It commits theft to fund itself, murder to justify its territory and kidnapping to keep dissent in line. Furthermore, government officials appear to be above the law - meaning that they are only accountable for these morally reprehensible acts if it is politically expedient. The funny thing is - if you want an example of anarchy, look at government.

If a government can show that it can exist without these things, I have no problem.


Do you know why it's not so great? Because human beings are hierarchical. We require structure within our societies and we want to know our place within that structure. And, when there is a leadership vacuum, someone always steps up to fill that vacuum and the rest of us almost always follow them.

I can see this same argument coming King Charles I, justifying his existence. In order for humans to evolve culturally, accountability for flaws is required - which doesn't necessarily require a hierarchy, rather - it could be a trade between a corporation and a customer.

White washing immoral actions as is common when justifying government leadership; is a step backwards in my opinion.


This has been going on since the dawn of time. As a rule we don't function well as a species in an environment such as you advocate. Perhaps if we were primarily lone predators, like sharks, we would have never developed societies and then the governments to go with them. Perhaps if we were hive animals, more like bees, we'd have no problem with government since it would be innate.

Human beings have shown an innate resistance to collectivism.

But we're omnivores, which basically means hunters/scavengers/gatherers. We need team work to work well as hunters, yes we can hunt as individuals with the appropriate tools, but originally we hunted in packs or small groups. We would take down prey smaller than us and would use numbers to overwhelm them. As we became more advanced, the size of the prey we would hunt became larger, which meant we had to cooperate even more. All through our development, we've found that cooperation within a society generates greater accomplishments. The problem is, there are always those within any society who will, if given the opportunity, prey on others with that society. Which is almost always why government takes hold. Someone has to say that taking your neighbors food/supplies/family members is wrong, and then enforce it. Otherwise, those who are stronger always take from those who are weaker. It's one of our least admirable aspects as a species, but there you are.

I agree - but this still does not justify government, it only justifies the marketplace - which has shown to be the most efficient and productive version of "hunting and gathering" to date.

Without government there is anarchy, not utopia as you believe. And while there is good government and bad government, having no government is always bad government.

Good government cannot exist as long as it commits theft, murder and kidnapping - all while operating above the law.

MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Human beings have shown an innate resistance to collectivism.


Not so much, when looked at closely. If you mean Soviet Union style collectivism, yes. But most villages and small towns around the world throughout the ages, even unto today, have a lot more collectivism than would ever make you content.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
estonianman
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Jun 3 2016, 01:33 PM
Quote:
 
Human beings have shown an innate resistance to collectivism.


Not so much, when looked at closely. If you mean Soviet Union style collectivism, yes. But most villages and small towns around the world throughout the ages, even unto today, have a lot more collectivism than would ever make you content.
The only place that I see collectivism as being successful is the military - where collectivism is essentially required.

Other then that you have some isolated examples like Marinaleda, Spain and perhaps a Hudderite colony in Alberta Canada.

All in all individuals are resistant to sacrificing themselves for the common good. This will be a common trend into the future - where goods and services can be produced with very little effort.
MEEK AND MILD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robertr2000
Member Avatar

estonianman
Jun 3 2016, 01:44 PM
Opinionated
Jun 3 2016, 01:33 PM
Quote:
 
Human beings have shown an innate resistance to collectivism.


Not so much, when looked at closely. If you mean Soviet Union style collectivism, yes. But most villages and small towns around the world throughout the ages, even unto today, have a lot more collectivism than would ever make you content.
The only place that I see collectivism as being successful is the military - where collectivism is essentially required.

Other then that you have some isolated examples like Marinaleda, Spain and perhaps a Hudderite colony in Alberta Canada.

All in all individuals are resistant to sacrificing themselves for the common good. This will be a common trend into the future - where goods and services can be produced with very little effort.
If no one contributed to the "common good" - Wars would end.
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic »
Add Reply