Do we need governments? Do they provide anything useful to mankind, or are they only parasites that should be removed from planet? I'll start off with some thoughts.
Pros: They enforce rules to maintain peace amongst the people.
Cons: They don't follow their own rules or act peacefully to their own people, or to other governments and their people.
Government, the state, is simply a tool. It matters only who controls the tool.
The centralized US government, an extremely powerful tool, controlled by the sociopathic madmen who make up the ruling class, is a tool being used to impose slavery from above, more closely resembling a monarchy or dictatorship than a democracy or true republic.
On the other hand, a community that gets together and says "In our community murder is punishable" is also government, a much less powerful one.
Government is too broad of a term.
Rule 1: No individual, or group of individuals, has any inherent authority over any other individual, or group of individuals (with the possible exception of parents and children). Therefore, any individual, or group of individuals, has the right to do as they please, so long as they do not harm any other individual, or group of individuals.
Now, a group of people, making up a community, has a right to set up basic rules and protections, implemented democratically, as long as they do not interfere with individual freedom (with the exception of interfering with individuals who desire to harm or steal from other individuals).
Rule 2: An individual, or group of individuals, has a right to implement basic protections against any other individual of group of individuals who wishes to do them harm.
For instance, a community has a right to set up regulations which state that in order to sell food in this community the seller must meet certain standards. This protects individuals in the community and the community as a whole. This is reasonable and does not interfere with individual rights.
If a food seller wishes to sell food which is harmful or contains contaminants, or is otherwise unhealthy to an extreme, and he wishes to conceal this fact, we, the community have a right to protect ourselves from this person. He does not have a right to deceive naive individuals within the community simply because they do not know any better (for example, McDonalds does not have the right to market poisonous food to children).
Implementing regulations of this sort does not contradict my basic Rule 1 (see above) because the regulation only interferes with an individuals desire to do harm to another individual.
Specifics can get very complex.
Ideally, I am against ALL government/regulation. But, realistically there is a need to protect oneself against predators. The current problem (and perhaps the problem of all history) is that the tool meant to be used as protection is in the hands of the predators. People are the problem, not states (because after all, if a powerful state was in the hands of truly benevolent people we would have paradise on earth). Benevolent people cannot compete with the sociopaths who make it to the top of all hierarchies. The only solution is protect oneself as much as possible and help those around you who cannot protect themselves (and scolding or mocking these people may feel good and justified, but it does not help anyone, because some people simply lack the ability to protect themselves, and like it or not, that's the way it is).
So, after that convoluted explanation, yes, we do need basic government. No, we do not need centralized government run by sociopaths.
Fri Aug 27, 2010 3:22 pm
alexclaton
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 817 Location: Hell on earth
Quote:
They enforce rules to maintain peace amongst the people.
This can easily be done by the private sector...
Quote:
They don't follow their own rules or act peacefully to their own people, or to other governments and their people.
This clearly negates the pro... Thank you for pointing out that governments are inherently contradictory right off the bat...
Quote:
Government, the state, is simply a tool. It matters only who controls the tool.
I don't feel humans are adequate at controlling this "tool".
Fact is government is not a tool, its a group of people...
Quote:
The centralized US government, an extremely powerful tool, controlled by the sociopathic madmen who make up the ruling class, is a tool being used to impose slavery from above, more closely resembling a monarchy or dictatorship than a democracy or true republic.
Thank you for showing that government is more a group of people then a tool...
Quote:
On the other hand, a community that gets together and says "In our community murder is punishable" is also government, a much less powerful one.
Not really, because everyone in that community is agreeing, therefore no one is being forced... Also a government is ruling over others, not people ruling themselves... the above is more an example of anarchy...
Why do I say that? because they say "In OUR community" in other words they are not imposing it on others nor are they imposing authority over other communities...
Quote:
Government is too broad of a term.
Rule 1: No individual, or group of individuals, has any inherent authority over any other individual, or group of individuals (with the possible exception of parents and children). Therefore, any individual, or group of individuals, has the right to do as they please, so long as they do not harm any other individual, or group of individuals.
Well for one Rule one negates government all together, if you truly believe government should exist then you are breaking rule 1...
Also there are no such things as rights, they are imaginary like gods...
Quote:
Now, a group of people, making up a community, has a right to set up basic rules and protections, implemented democratically, as long as they do not interfere with individual freedom (with the exception of interfering with individuals who desire to harm or steal from other individuals).
thats anarchy... and if someone steals/murders there's self defense and other options to deal with such...
Quote:
Rule 2: An individual, or group of individuals, has a right to implement basic protections against any other individual of group of individuals who wishes to do them harm.
For instance, a community has a right to set up regulations which state that in order to sell food in this community the seller must meet certain standards. This protects individuals in the community and the community as a whole. This is reasonable and does not interfere with individual rights.
If a food seller wishes to sell food which is harmful or contains contaminants, or is otherwise unhealthy to an extreme, and he wishes to conceal this fact, we, the community have a right to protect ourselves from this person. He does not have a right to deceive naive individuals within the community simply because they do not know any better (for example, McDonalds does not have the right to market poisonous food to children).
Implementing regulations of this sort does not contradict my basic Rule 1 (see above) because the regulation only interferes with an individuals desire to do harm to another individual.
Rule 2 is self defense
The problem with your example is that it interferes with the sellers individual "rights" and and again no one has to buy from that seller... In a truly free market if people do not like what you're selling they simply won't buy and you can either go out of business or change to meet demand... no need for imposing stupid rules and regulations... If people do not care whats in the food they eat that is still their choice to be ignorant...
There is an old roman maxim "let those who would be deceived, be deceived." basically it is up to the individual to be aware ,I however have no problem with you informing others that the food is potentially harmful in which case the food seller would disclose the info to stay in business... again no need for force...
And even if people still buy from the seller, its voluntary because they are choosing to do so...
Quote:
Specifics can get very complex.
Don't make excuses
Quote:
Ideally, I am against ALL government/regulation. But, realistically there is a need to protect oneself against predators. The current problem (and perhaps the problem of all history) is that the tool meant to be used as protection is in the hands of the predators. People are the problem, not states (because after all, if a powerful state was in the hands of truly benevolent people we would have paradise on earth). Benevolent people cannot compete with the sociopaths who make it to the top of all hierarchies. The only solution is protect oneself as much as possible and help those around you who cannot protect themselves (and scolding or mocking these people may feel good and justified, but it does not help anyone, because some people simply lack the ability to protect themselves, and like it or not, that's the way it is).
How are you protecting yourself against the current government that lies about things like aspartame being safe? you trust corrupt fuks to help you? sorry but that's rather foolish, instead of giving them more power you should try harder to find solutions to things you feel are a problem...
Also the "but some people can't protect themselves" argument is invalid, they have the option to get someone else to protect them, and if they can't make decisions they can pay someone to decide for them...
Forcing someone who is not forcing others makes you no better than the people you are protecting against...
Quote:
So, after that convoluted explanation, yes, we do need basic government. No, we do not need centralized government run by sociopaths.
So who should run it? and what makes you feel they are qualified? and how do you know sociopaths wont fill it up again?
Fact is we do not need a government and I've yet to see any rational or logical reason for one...
Now if I misunderstood you then clarify and try to give better examples or reasons for why we need a government. or rulers in general for that matter...
Quote:
It's a trade off. One organized criminal network for another.
Why is the "private sector" any better than the public sector?
Quote:
Not really, because everyone in that community is agreeing, therefore no one is being forced... Also a government is ruling over others, not people ruling themselves... the above is more an example of anarchy...
Why do I say that? because they say "In OUR community" in other words they are not imposing it on others nor are they imposing authority over other communities...
Maybe everyone is agreeing. A democratic vote generally does not require 100% approval. What if only 90% approve? Can the remaining 10% then claim the right to murder at will? Does the 90% not have the right to impose their will of punishing murder? Again, we are only talking about interfering with someones desire to cause harm, that is the only legitimate interference into someones life.
It is not anarchy. I'm familiar with both the actual meaning of the word anarchy and the philosophy of anarchy. The term anarchy is misleading because the technical meaning of the word differs from the definition of the philosophy. The fact is that what Bakunin or Proudhon calls anarchy is in fact self government. Which is still government, it's just on a very small scale. A local, community government will indeed have to impose their will on a few individuals within the community, and once again, this is only legitimate if they are ONLY interfering with a persons wish to do harm (not including self defense).
Quote:
Rule 2 is self defense
Right, rule 2 is self defense. Perhaps I should add to rule 1 "with the exception of self defense."
Quote:
The problem with your example is that it interferes with the sellers individual "rights"
The seller does not have the right to harm someone. And if he is harming someone the community government has a right to interfere.
Quote:
If people do not care whats in the food they eat that is still their choice to be ignorant...
Yeah, true. What about children? Is it ok for McDonalds to market to children? Is that not intentional harm? You might say it's up to the parents, and that's true, but what if the parents don't know or don't care? Are we to let the children of the community be poisoned and just watch because their parents are morons?
Quote:
There is an old roman maxim "let those who would be deceived, be deceived."
That's a logical fallacy called Appeal to Tradition. Just because the ancient Romans had a saying doesn't mean it's right.
Quote:
And even if people still buy from the seller, its voluntary because they are choosing to do so...
If people still desire to eat poison after they know it's poison, then hey, wtf? Let them eat it.
Quote:
How are you protecting yourself against the current government that lies about things like aspartame being safe?
I stay well informed and do not use these products.
Quote:
you trust corrupt fuks to help you? sorry but that's rather foolish, instead of giving them more power you should try harder to find solutions to things you feel are a problem...
I don't trust anyone to help me, especially the government that rules over us. I don't give them any power because I do not participate in any of their traps (debt, for instance).
Quote:
Now if I misunderstood you then clarify and try to give better examples or reasons for why we need a government. or rulers in general for that matter...
It seems I have been somewhat unclear in my position. I see no need for what we commonly call government, that is overwhelming centralized power which imposes it's will on near slaves, with a power than covers the globe. Absolutely unnecessary, and highly detrimental. We do, however, need to protect ourselves from predators. Self governance, or anarchy, whichever term you prefer, is my ideal. It is still government, we can have a semantics debate if you'd like, but it is still some form of government.
To clarify:
Rule 1: No individual, or group of individuals, has any inherent authority over any other individual, or group of individuals, with the possible exception of parents and children, and with the definite exception of self defense against harm or theft. Therefore, any individual, or group of individuals, has the right to do as they please, so long as they do not harm any other individual, or group of individuals.
Rule 2: An individual, or group of individuals, has a right to implement basic protections against any other individual of group of individuals who wishes to do them harm. This is self defense.
That's about as far as I will allow for legitimate government. As I said, specifics can get very complex. That's not an excuse, it's a fact. Within the community there would need to be a discussion of what self defense is and how far it can be taken (as in can I shoot someone for stepping foot on my property?)
We do not need rulers, we do not need someone interfering in every detail of our lives. We do have a right to protect ourselves, and a group formed for this purpose is still government because they must impose their will on the minority who wish to do harm (murderers, thieves, rapists, child molesters, etc).
I think we basically agree, but I believe you are an extreme idealist, as am I. But, I also realize that in real life there are always exceptions and sometimes sticking precisely to an extreme position is harmful (although in theory it may be great). We need to be reasonable, we need to protect ourselves (and in fact the types of people we need to protect ourselves from are actually the ones who control our government).
Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:14 am
alexclaton
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 817 Location: Hell on earth
Quote:
Why is the "private sector" any better than the public sector?
The public sector uses violence to get its funds the private sector doesn't...
IE taxes pay for the public sector and is hardly what I would consider voluntary...
Quote:
Maybe everyone is agreeing. A democratic vote generally does not require 100% approval. What if only 90% approve? Can the remaining 10% then claim the right to murder at will? Does the 90% not have the right to impose their will of punishing murder? Again, we are only talking about interfering with someones desire to cause harm, that is the only legitimate interference into someones life.
If the 10% wants to murder then the people can defend themselves against such...
I have no problem with self defense, but until a murderer actually attempts to hurt you what are you proposing?
Saying we need government because you can't come up with a solution is rather silly...
Quote:
It is not anarchy. I'm familiar with both the actual meaning of the word anarchy and the philosophy of anarchy. The term anarchy is misleading because the technical meaning of the word differs from the definition of the philosophy. The fact is that what Bakunin or Proudhon calls anarchy is in fact self government. Which is still government, it's just on a very small scale. A local, community government will indeed have to impose their will on a few individuals within the community, and once again, this is only legitimate if they are ONLY interfering with a persons wish to do harm (not including self defense).
Um self ownership is hardly what I would consider government, government is a group of people imposing their will on others...
Curious how do you interfere with someone trying to cause harm without self defense? you saying you're just gonna beat up anyone you think is gonna hurt you?
Quote:
The seller does not have the right to harm someone. And if he is harming someone the community government has a right to interfere.
I fail to see how the seller is responsible for the actions of others... unless the seller is holding you at gunpoint cramming their product down you're throat you cannot sit here and say they are harming you... ITS YOUR CHOICE TO BUY AND USE THEIR PRODUCTS! You can easily choose NOT to...
Quote:
Yeah, true. What about children? Is it ok for McDonalds to market to children? Is that not intentional harm? You might say it's up to the parents, and that's true, but what if the parents don't know or don't care? Are we to let the children of the community be poisoned and just watch because their parents are morons?
You mean like its been for ages and even now WITH your government?
Again if people are ignorant that's on them, if the parents are ignorant what are you gonna do? take care of the kids yourself? that's a lot of kids...
Its pretty arrogant to sit here and say you know better then a lot of other people... even if you do there are billions of people on this planet, I'm not gonna lose sleep if some die do to poor decision making...
I believe in free will, if people wanna harm themselves with poor decisions that's their choice... Its when they want to harm others via aggression/force where it becomes a problem... mcdonalds is NOT using force...
Quote:
That's a logical fallacy called Appeal to Tradition. Just because the ancient Romans had a saying doesn't mean it's right.
Funny I never said it was right, the point was that I agree with it because its the individuals responsibility to become less ignorant... And you should know I'm hardly for traditions of any kind...
Quote:
If people still desire to eat poison after they know it's poison, then hey, wtf? Let them eat it.
Who are you to tell others what they can or cannot do with their own bodies?
Quote:
I stay well informed and do not use these products.
Good, if you can do it so can others.
Fail to see why you are upset about products you yourself do not use...
Quote:
I don't trust anyone to help me, especially the government that rules over us. I don't give them any power because I do not participate in any of their traps (debt, for instance).
Then don't ask them to force others to do things you want them to do...
Quote:
It seems I have been somewhat unclear in my position. I see no need for what we commonly call government, that is overwhelming centralized power which imposes it's will on near slaves, with a power than covers the globe. Absolutely unnecessary, and highly detrimental. We do, however, need to protect ourselves from predators. Self governance, or anarchy, whichever term you prefer, is my ideal. It is still government, we can have a semantics debate if you'd like, but it is still some form of government.
Technically it is not government... anarchy is the lack of a governing body or force so how can you say its still government...
You're welcome to defend yourself, its called SELF DEFENSE for a reason... you wanna hire thugs to do it for you its fine, the issue is who is making the act of aggression...
Quote:
To clarify:
Rule 1: No individual, or group of individuals, has any inherent authority over any other individual, or group of individuals, with the possible exception of parents and children, and with the definite exception of self defense against harm or theft. Therefore, any individual, or group of individuals, has the right to do as they please, so long as they do not harm any other individual, or group of individuals.
Rule 2: An individual, or group of individuals, has a right to implement basic protections against any other individual of group of individuals who wishes to do them harm. This is self defense.
That's about as far as I will allow for legitimate government. As I said, specifics can get very complex. That's not an excuse, it's a fact. Within the community there would need to be a discussion of what self defense is and how far it can be taken (as in can I shoot someone for stepping foot on my property?)
We do not need rulers, we do not need someone interfering in every detail of our lives. We do have a right to protect ourselves, and a group formed for this purpose is still government because they must impose their will on the minority who wish to do harm (murderers, thieves, rapists, child molesters, etc).
I think we basically agree, but I believe you are an extreme idealist, as am I. But, I also realize that in real life there are always exceptions and sometimes sticking precisely to an extreme position is harmful (although in theory it may be great). We need to be reasonable, we need to protect ourselves (and in fact the types of people we need to protect ourselves from are actually the ones who control our government).
Maybe you don't understand...
No individual, or group of individuals, has any inherent authority over any other individual,
That statement is the exact opposite of government....
Quote:
what self defense is
Self defense is defense of self against aggressors... pretty self explanatory I'd say...
Quote:
a group formed for this purpose is still government because they must impose their will on the minority who wish to do harm
And how will you impose your will on others? through violence/force? how does that make you any different then the people you are claiming to protect against...
Quote:
But, I also realize that in real life there are always exceptions and sometimes sticking precisely to an extreme position is harmful
Funny I never said the world would be perfect with anarchy but I know it would be a lot better then it is now...
Quote:
We need to be reasonable
You've been anything but... You are trying to justify forcing your will on others which is what needs to be done away with...
Quote:
we need to protect ourselves (and in fact the types of people we need to protect ourselves from are actually the ones who control our government)
Funny because you sound just like them...
I'm curious in your "community" is being a part of it voluntary?
If the 10% wants to murder then the people can defend themselves against such...
So you have no want of community. Communities are useful because they help each other. Otherwise it's every man for himself, and that's no community, it's the most primitive form of barbarism one can think of.
Quote:
I have no problem with self defense, but until a murderer actually attempts to hurt you what are you proposing?
Um self ownership is hardly what I would consider government, government is a group of people imposing their will on others...
Curious how do you interfere with someone trying to cause harm without self defense? you saying you're just gonna beat up anyone you think is gonna hurt you?
If someone does murder someone the community has the right to impose their will on the murderer, against the will of the murderer.
If someone is threatening me I may take action before they do, yes. If a man breaks into your home with a gun are you going to wait until he rapes your wife before you attempt to impose your will on him?
Quote:
I fail to see how the seller is responsible for the actions of others... unless the seller is holding you at gunpoint cramming their product down you're throat you cannot sit here and say they are harming you... ITS YOUR CHOICE TO BUY AND USE THEIR PRODUCTS! You can easily choose NOT to...
If you are aware of the risk, yes, you can choose not to. That does not give the the seller the right to purposely deceive naive people. If the community finds out that a food seller is purposely deceiving residents of the community they have a right to take action, that is self defense.
Quote:
You mean like its been for ages and even now WITH your government?
Yes, it's been that way with the government we have. It is not my government. You seem to be confusing my advocation of local self government and self defense with the tyrannical dictatorship that is currently attempting to enslave all of us.
Quote:
Again if people are ignorant that's on them, if the parents are ignorant what are you gonna do? take care of the kids yourself? that's a lot of kids...
So again, you have no sense of community, with you it's every man for himself, fuk your neighbor or your family if they can't look out for themselves. Your grandmother and daughter deserves to be scammed by a con man because they're stupid and weak.
Quote:
Its pretty arrogant to sit here and say you know better then a lot of other people
I'm not saying I know better than other people, but the FACT, and you can't argue this, is that some people really do lack the ability to protect themselves (children for example) and if you wish to have a community you need to have some sort of protection for these people against predators.
Quote:
I believe in free will, if people wanna harm themselves with poor decisions that's their choice... Its when they want to harm others via aggression/force where it becomes a problem... mcdonalds is NOT using force...
All things being equal, yes that is true. But nothing in our current situation is equal. The majority of people are forcibly vaccinated, potentially causing minor brain damage. They are forcibly "educated", forever tainting their ability to think critically. They are forcibly brainwashed and goaded into traps. They are bombarded with propaganda which only a lucky few can evade. They are told by people that they (naively) trust that all is well, keep eating poison. They are tempted to indulge in poisonous "foods" 24 hours a day. Things are not equal. If we do not act to protect our neighbors from dangers they may not even know exist we are all doomed. McDonalds is not using physical force, no. But they are using a more powerful tool, mental force. Everyone knows that if you offer a child a toy they will constantly nag at parents until they get that toy. Yes, the parents are to blame for giving in. Will you watch your community crumble to pieces because of ignorant people?
Quote:
Quote:
If people still desire to eat poison after they know it's poison, then hey, wtf? Let them eat it.
Who are you to tell others what they can or cannot do with their own bodies?
I'm not saying that at all, if people want to eat poison them by all means let them eat poison. But I will absolutely stop a poison seller from telling his consumers that his poison is healthy.
Quote:
Maybe you don't understand...
No individual, or group of individuals, has any inherent authority over any other individual,
That statement is the exact opposite of government....
Of course you left out the part that says "with the exception of self defense". Self defense is absolutely the imposition of your (the defender) will over another's (the aggressor) will.
Quote:
And how will you impose your will on others? through violence/force? how does that make you any different then the people you are claiming to protect against...
Using violence for self defense against an aggressor is the only acceptable form of violence. How can one defend himself against an aggressor without using violence? You support self defense. If someone attacks you or means to do you harm how do defend yourself without violence?
Quote:
Funny I never said the world would be perfect with anarchy but I know it would be a lot better then it is now...
I'm not disagreeing with you, I do not support the government we have.
Quote:
You've been anything but... You are trying to justify forcing your will on others which is what needs to be done away with...
Only in the instance of necessary self defense, which you agree with.
You're really stretching your argument when you imply that I want to force my will on others by advocating defense against predators.
Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:11 pm
alexclaton
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 817 Location: Hell on earth
Quote:
So you have no want of community. Communities are useful because they help each other. Otherwise it's every man for himself, and that's no community, it's the most primitive form of barbarism one can think of.
It is and always has been every man for themselves... just because people group up does not change this fact... I'm all fine and dandy with communities, the issue is whether or not its voluntary to be apart of those communities...
Quote:
If someone is threatening me I may take action before they do, yes. If a man breaks into your home with a gun are you going to wait until he rapes your wife before you attempt to impose your will on him?
Obviously in this scenario they are the aggressor and have invaded your home...
I already said I have no issue with self defense... and what you posted is just that... they have made the action of intruding into your home, that's a form of aggression...
Quote:
If you are aware of the risk, yes, you can choose not to. That does not give the the seller the right to purposely deceive naive people. If the community finds out that a food seller is purposely deceiving residents of the community they have a right to take action, that is self defense.
No its not... because the seller is not forcing you... if you're against it inform the naive...
Quote:
Yes, it's been that way with the government we have. It is not my government. You seem to be confusing my advocation of local self government and self defense with the tyrannical dictatorship that is currently attempting to enslave all of us.
Its the same regardless... either people have authority over others or they don't... make up your mind... and wtf is "local self government"
Quote:
So again, you have no sense of community, with you it's every man for himself, fuk your neighbor or your family if they can't look out for themselves. Your grandmother and daughter deserves to be scammed by a con man because they're stupid and weak.
Like I said, you are more then welcome to try and inform ignorant fuks... the point is that just because stupid people can't look after themselves does not make it ok for you to impose your will on their behalf...
Quote:
I'm not saying I know better than other people, but the FACT, and you can't argue this, is that some people really do lack the ability to protect themselves (children for example) and if you wish to have a community you need to have some sort of protection for these people against predators.
Children have parents and adults can pay for a body guard if they can't defend themselves...
hardly a good reason for government...
Quote:
All things being equal, yes that is true. But nothing in our current situation is equal. The majority of people are forcibly vaccinated, potentially causing minor brain damage. They are forcibly "educated", forever tainting their ability to think critically. They are forcibly brainwashed and goaded into traps. They are bombarded with propaganda which only a lucky few can evade. They are told by people that they (naively) trust that all is well, keep eating poison. They are tempted to indulge in poisonous "foods" 24 hours a day. Things are not equal. If we do not act to protect our neighbors from dangers they may not even know exist we are all doomed. McDonalds is not using physical force, no. But they are using a more powerful tool, mental force. Everyone knows that if you offer a child a toy they will constantly nag at parents until they get that toy. Yes, the parents are to blame for giving in. Will you watch your community crumble to pieces because of ignorant people?
I call bullshit on this...
for one, the government (any government) is what is forcing all these things... and yet you still want that and are even advocating it...
I'm against force and for voluntarism, hence why I'm against government and would only be willing to be apart of a voluntary society/community...
As for me watching "MY" community crumble, I have no community... maybe that would explain why I can care less about it...
Quote:
I'm not saying that at all, if people want to eat poison them by all means let them eat poison. But I will absolutely stop a poison seller from telling his consumers that his poison is healthy.
You're not gonna stop people from lying and violence will do nothing to stop it either...
Like I said you are more then welcome to inform people and after that its entirely up to them...
Quote:
Self defense is absolutely the imposition of your (the defender) will over another's (the aggressor) will.
Maybe you're missing the point... The aggressor made the first move and you are responding... The difference is in self defense you are DENYING the aggressors will... The aggressor is the one imposing it to begin with...
Quote:
Using violence for self defense against an aggressor is the only acceptable form of violence.
I agree
Quote:
How can one defend himself against an aggressor without using violence? You support self defense. If someone attacks you or means to do you harm how do defend yourself without violence?
I never said I was a pacifist... I'm against the initiation of force, IE aggression
Self defense is a RESPONSE to aggression...
Quote:
I'm not disagreeing with you, I do not support the government we have.
The difference between us is I don't support ANY government and reject the notion of authority and rulers...
Quote:
Only in the instance of necessary self defense, which you agree with.
You're really stretching your argument when you imply that I want to force my will on others by advocating defense against predators.
Again, Someone lying is not violently attacking you... Especially when you KNOW they are lying...
You have said you want the government to step in and force them to not lie which is ridiculous to say the least...
Again if people want to be shady if people actively point out their trickery they will quickly lose face and either have to straighten up or leave... you don't have to use violence against them to get what you want... and that is the point I am making...
Also with voluntarism you're going to have to accept that people will make poor choices whether informed or not and whether there's a government or not...
I Support people interacting with each other voluntarily. what they want to do is entirely up to them as long as no one is being forced violently...
I couldn't help but notice you didn't answer my question.
All things being equal, yes that is true. But nothing in our current situation is equal. The majority of people are forcibly vaccinated, potentially causing minor brain damage. They are forcibly "educated", forever tainting their ability to think critically. They are forcibly brainwashed and goaded into traps. They are bombarded with propaganda which only a lucky few can evade. They are told by people that they (naively) trust that all is well, keep eating poison. They are tempted to indulge in poisonous "foods" 24 hours a day. Things are not equal. If we do not act to protect our neighbors from dangers they may not even know exist we are all doomed. McDonalds is not using physical force, no. But they are using a more powerful tool, mental force. Everyone knows that if you offer a child a toy they will constantly nag at parents until they get that toy. Yes, the parents are to blame for giving in. Will you watch your community crumble to pieces because of ignorant people?
I call bullshit on this...
for one, the government (any government) is what is forcing all these things... and yet you still want that and are even advocating it...
It's not "the" government forcing this on people, it's "this" government. A government like the US gov't could just as easily inform 300 million people of the dangers of McDonalds, it certainly has the power to do that. The problem is that it is run by sociopathic people. Yes, any government such as the one in the US will rapidly fill up with sociopaths, as I've already stated I do not support this type of government.
In no way have I stated or implied that I support forced vaccinations, compulsory brainwashing camps (public schools) or cover ups of the population being poisoned. That's ridiculous and you are straining your credibility by comparing as equals advocation of protection against predators to forced innoculations, multimedia brainwashing or goading into debt traps.
I support the same type of government that you support but choose to call a non-government or anarchy. A group of people, voluntarily joined together, protecting themselves against aggressors. The only point we disagree on is the precise definition of aggressor.
Quote:
As for me watching "MY" community crumble, I have no community
And thats' just fine with me, I generally feel the same way. My "community" is a family a few friends. I am mostly a loner.
Quote:
wtf is "local self government"
The very thing you advocate. A group of people, a community, voluntarily joining forces to protect themselves from predators. What you call anarchism I call self government. Same thing.
Quote:
I never said I was a pacifist... I'm against the initiation of force, IE aggression
So am I, again we disagree on the precise definition of the "initiation of force." A person telling my children "Hey eat this, it's good for you" when they know damn well it's poison is an aggressor. Yes, yes, parents must look after their children, but once again, our current real world situation does not always allow for this (due to the government imposing it's will on us for their own benefit), so the community has a right to set standards. I don't actually have children btw.
Quote:
The difference between us is I don't support ANY government and reject the notion of authority and rulers...
That's not true. You support voluntary association for self defense. That is government because it imposes it's will on aggressors (which is of course legitimate).
Quote:
Is being a part of your community voluntary?
Yes of course it is, I never once implied that it wasn't.
Just for clarification, I am 100% opposed to the government we have ruling over us. The ONLY government I advocate is voluntary, democratic association for the purpose of self defense against predators, which you call anarchy. For my purposes "predators" includes con-men who deliberately deceive/take advantage of the weak, relying on our tyrannical government to protect them FROM US. Yes, our government protects the predators. It suppresses the victims ability to respond, and you seem to support the suppression of the victims ability to protect themselves (by not allowing them to impose regulations on the predators, which also, btw, implies that wish to impose YOUR will on the victims by telling them they cannot, or should not, stop a predator from preying on the weak.)
If my community, a community you are free to not be a part of, wishes to impose protections against predators, are you going to impose YOUR will on US by attempting to stop us?
Sat Aug 28, 2010 6:34 pm
alexclaton
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 817 Location: Hell on earth
Ok We are obviously arguing over semantics now so Lets drop the labels since we obviously agree with each other.
when I say initiate force I mean physical violent force. IE Me attacking you because I don't like you or some other ridiculous reason or me stealing your stuff or damaging your property...
Me tricking you is not the same as me throwing a rock at you...
Children aren't as dumb as you think and if you teach them to avoid shady things and to question everything (especially what a stranger is giving them no matter how nice they may seem) they can easily avoid a lot of the stuff people worry about...
Its simple the one who initiates force is wrong, It is ok to respond to that force as you see fit, again I'm speaking about physical not verbal or mental...
if assholes tricking you is a problem then fight ignorance with knowledge instead of violence...
Also I have no problem with the gov informing people of how bad mcdonalds food is, the gov can list the ingredients etc themselves without having to force mcdonalds... and if it doesn't have that info and mcdonalds wants to keep it a secret they can easily state to the entire country that food from this seller is potentially harmful and you should avoid it until they decide they want to be upfront with its contents...
Sadly this is not how the gov operates and that is why I'm against it....
It sounds like we agree that small governments can be made with the express consent of the people.
1. What happens to the people that don't express consent?
2. What happens when an army invades? (The army is many times larger than the consented community.)
Last edited by Truthseeker on Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Sat Aug 28, 2010 7:16 pm
alexclaton
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 817 Location: Hell on earth
1 they have the option to opt out, which simply means they cannot do business in the community and cannot function within it.
2 there are private armies... pay for one to fight for you...
Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:08 pm
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8599 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Trade Unions are like small governments, and I don't like them either.
Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:52 am
alexclaton
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 817 Location: Hell on earth
Quote:
Trade Unions are like small governments, and I don't like them either.
pretty much...
Quote:
It sounds like we agree that small governments can be made with the express consent of the people.
Btw I never said I'm for small governments, history has shown they just grow bigger every chance they get.
I'm for anarchy which is the lack of a governing force and a lack of rulers.
Well, I cant blame you for being so against our current government. It's where you are against small groups of consenting free individuals from forming their own governments, or supporting the proper reformation of our current government, that you lose me.
Does not the existence of people that require governing provide a valid reason for governments to exist? Would you take that away from them? If our current government was reformed to require consent, and started doing the right thing, would you still hate it even after it left you alone?
alexclaton wrote:
TS wrote:
What happens when an army invades? (The army is many times larger than the consented community.)
there are private armies... pay for one to fight for you...
What individual is going to be able to pay for a private army that large? What family? What small community?
