|
Actually the 1,000 is a guesstimate based off numbers for Ohio I found I semi-baselessly extrapolated for the nation, and that was just for people killed during an attempt at an arrest or other encounter, not while back at the station or lock-up. It was probably a few hundred off and if you add people who die at the station it's for sure more.
As for police, 117 total federal and local LEOs were dying in the line of duty in 2010, 124 in 2009, 140 in 2008, 130 in 2007. The total murdered seems to be about 35%, with the rest dying in accidents. I don't know if the accidents includes ones caused by chases whether in car or on foot. "Line of duty" means they were officially doing police work.
The source is the FBI for the number of LEOs dying
Just for a comparison, during the "Great Terror" in the USSR (about five years of the 1930s) about 1,900,000 million people were arrested and about 650,000 sentenced of those to execution with most of the rest off to the gulag.
The USSR then had about 130,000.000 people, the USA today has about 310,000,000. I think saying that "many" Americans are killed by the government is a gross and unfair exaggeration so I objected to it.
Not saying the USSR had more so the USA is great, but in terms of the numbers, the United States government does not kill "many" of its own citizens.
|
On July 06 2011 06:38 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 08:03 Haemonculus wrote:On July 02 2011 06:55 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:42 Haemonculus wrote:On July 02 2011 06:30 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:19 mcc wrote:
I have no problem admitting something slightly different. Society of the area owns everything in that area. Government as an emergent organizations governs everything in that area. And both of those entities choose to grant some private ownership of property on the level deemed appropriate by them. So basically your case 1. But unlike you I see no problem with it and even if I did I would not have illusions that this can actually be changed. The only thing that can be changed are specific details of that society and government. I can relate to the mindset of thinking it is just the best option, but to say you see no problems with it seems quite delusional IMO. Millions killed in government run wars, massing enough weapons to destroy the entire planet, etc. I really can't tell if your posts in this thread are serious or not. Tell me what you think our country, (the US) would be like were it an anarchy. I'm seriously curious, how would it improve? Inside the US, it would probably be hell for a while. You can't expect generations of people born and bred of the government tit to act calm and rational if that tit was suddenly pulled away from the. Eventually though things would become much better. Outside of the US some places would improve almost overnight. Elaborate, please. How would things become better? All I can see are immediate problems. I live on the east coast. The vast majority of the food that I buy at the supermarket is trucked from the midwest. Are you assuming that the federal government somehow ceases to exist, but our national infrastructure keeps on working magically? There's over 300 *million* people in this country. What happens when the supermarkets out here stop getting food? Do we start our own farms and live off the land? There's not enough fertile farmland in the eastern US to support the current population. Millions would starve, but not before killing each other over the last bits of food. What happens in Japan, a country which imports much of its food and has a population density wayyy higher than the states? It's estimated that in the event of a worldwide disaster, the most important public service to maintain social order is sewage treatment. What happens when your water faucets stop magically pumping out pure healthy, government regulated drinking water? Again, in our imaginary world where the government's vanished, what happens when shit literally starts flowing out of your sink? What happens when the local water treatment plant backs up and becomes little more than a giant lake of festering sewage, spawning all sorts of horrible diseases? What happens when people all of a sudden can't drink? Do we all start bringing buckets of water out of the Potomac? I'm a 24 year old woman. I take for granted being able to walk around outside by myself without getting assaulted. Hell, all of you do. How do I protect myself? Do I buy a gun and keep myself armed 24/7? Is that an improvement on quality of life for you? Do I join up with a local gang or group for protection, or maybe find the biggest toughest bunch of brutes and cling to them for defense? Do I submit myself to whatever rules and law-systems they've come up with? How is this new world of yours going to treat women? Because I can only see us slipping backwards hundreds of years in equality. Do we still use currency? Do banks still operate? What happens to the Dollar without a government to back it up? What's the alternative? Do we go to a barter system? Because I don't have any livestock. I grow my own vegetables, but not enough to subsist off throughout the year. Do we still have modern technology? How do I pay my doctor? Does the free market magically provide ethical doctors who take care of me fairly for a reasonable price? Are there still education systems which pump out these qualified physicians? How do I buy goods on a daily basis? Forget my situation. What happens to you? Where do you live? What do you do for a living? How does that change in this new anarchy? Do you still have all the necessities for a comfortable life? What if the neighbors don't? What do you do when they show up, presumably armed, and want what you have? People *will* resort to acts we currently consider abhorrent when they can't get enough to eat. Do you arm yourself, maybe get some friends or a group together, and defend yourselves? Do you shoot the intruders? If they outnumber you? Ever killed someone before? Cleaned their corpses off your lawn? I know what it's like to romanticize an imagined world. I have a soft spot for the past, and often imagine a life in another time. If it's the medieval era, I'm a noblewoman. If it's the ancient era, I live in a peaceful village. If it's the 1800's, I'm a wealthy aristocrat who wants for nothing. If I was a peasant or something, I like to imagine I'd live in a peaceful village with a loving husband I chose for myself, farm my crops, raise healthy children, all the good stuff with none of the bad. Ask yourself honestly, where do you see yourself in this new world you're promoting? How do you know you wouldn't end up just barely scraping by a living, giving half your crop to the local warlord, having your wife, maybe sister or friend taken by said local warlord, and living in fear for your life on a daily basis? Do you picture your self in some nice big house and that everything's the same as it is today, except you don't have to pay taxes and can own as many assault rifles as you want? Seriously I just don't understand your thought process. Please fill me in. Hey you seem interested? I guess I will try to indulge your questions. First of all, I said it would probably be hell at first. I might be wrong, but that is how I see it. Just because of how dependent people are on the structures of society, combined with how helpless and disarmed most people are. Plenty of room for plenty of suffering while the strong take advantage of the weak. Now it's not necessary to assume that EVERYTHING would stop working, but either way it is okay. It's also worth mentioning that the US makes life complete hell in other areas of the world, but I don't want to get into that too much right now outside of just mentioning it. Why? Well value is subjective, so this is of course based on my own values. They don't have to be yours obviously. Let say you take every zoo in the entire world and release all the animals into the wilderness, each one in an area where they reasonably "should" be able to survive. Of course most of them wouldn't, they've been caged too long, they don't know how, and they lack the will required to endure and learn. Some would survive though, some would even reproduce. It might be a tiny fraction of all of them, but some most certainly would. So some people would say it would be cruelty to release them like that, but I say it is cruel to keep them in the cage. That is just where I place my values. At some point I think people should realize that it's not a question of safety and a long life. We are all going to die. What should be more important is what we want out of the time we have. After all, without all of that horrible shit you described ever happening, everyone will die just the same. Do we still use currencetly, etc? Yeah, human invention and ingenuity does not come from government, how accessible would it be for people who can't understand it and have almost nothing to offer? You can't really predict that. If you want to hear the good side of the idea though, check out some books by Murry Rothbard, he was good at making it sound stable and appealing. What about me? My body is actually pretty weak and fucked up, like I wouldn't even be able to hold or pull the trigger on a gun, so no point in owning any of them. So if the shit hits the fan, how I would be able to survive would depending entirely on the people around me and how well we are able and willing to work together. Pretty much the same as it is for me right now, I was born in a successful part of the world with people around me who like to cooperate. There is definitely no way to predict what would happen to me if government disappeared overnight, but it is clear that I would be pretty helpless and would have to just roll with whatever opportunities or misfortunes that came my way. Fine with me. I am at the point were I would rather suffer than involuntarily cause suffering. I'm not romanticizing about anything and I'm certainly not here trying to sell a new world. I am definitely not an anarchist, I am just a slave who doesn't enjoy being a slave. The reason I was debating in this thread, is because it bothers me when people throw around reckless arguments in support of government that are blatantly false. I actually don't see a big difference between government and anarchy. All of the horrible things from anarchy exist in this world. All of the horrible things from government exist in this world. Historically we think anarchy came first, but government is not externally imposed on us, collectively at some point in history we made it this way. So if you want to look for the success or failure that will flow from an anarchist state, you only have to look at the current situation of the world. Success or failure simply based on your values and views of civilization. So as much as I hate government, if it disappeared overnight we would likely just end up in the same situation eventually - without some transcendence of human thought occurring in a critical mass of humans, enough to really change how we live and interact with each other. As long as government is here, schooling everyone, I don't see that happening. Even if it was possible to teach humans to live peacefully without the need for a violent authority, would they do it? No of course not, they have no incentive to - they have every incentive not to, it would destroy them. Everyone looks out for number one. So it's totally not worth it to go through all of the suffering that may be brought by sudden removal of government if we would go through all that only to eventually end up in the same shit situation we are in now, which is why I am not an anarchist. Thanks for getting back to me actually. I thought you'd abandoned the thread or something. But it sounds like we're in agreement. There would be a *lot* of suffering for a lonnggg time. And as I've said before, I'm sure people living in lawless hunter-gatherer tribes thousands of years ago were indeed "Freer" than we are today. But the standard of living and equality that I enjoy in a modern structured society is not worth giving up to feel "free" in that sense.
Here's a potentially interesting question to ask at this point. Let's assume you do in fact truly enjoy your standard of living and what you feel is equality under the current system, to use Treemonkeys's example, you enjoy your cage and have no desire to leave it. What about the fact that the enjoyment of your cage implicitly requires that I remain in mine, regardless of how I feel about it? Is this right? Is the system justified by your enjoyment, despite my suffering?
|
Good. If an anarchist dude starts preaching to me I'll tell him to go to Somalia.
|
On July 06 2011 19:04 Chalker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:38 Haemonculus wrote:On July 06 2011 06:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 08:03 Haemonculus wrote:On July 02 2011 06:55 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:42 Haemonculus wrote:On July 02 2011 06:30 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:19 mcc wrote:
I have no problem admitting something slightly different. Society of the area owns everything in that area. Government as an emergent organizations governs everything in that area. And both of those entities choose to grant some private ownership of property on the level deemed appropriate by them. So basically your case 1. But unlike you I see no problem with it and even if I did I would not have illusions that this can actually be changed. The only thing that can be changed are specific details of that society and government. I can relate to the mindset of thinking it is just the best option, but to say you see no problems with it seems quite delusional IMO. Millions killed in government run wars, massing enough weapons to destroy the entire planet, etc. I really can't tell if your posts in this thread are serious or not. Tell me what you think our country, (the US) would be like were it an anarchy. I'm seriously curious, how would it improve? Inside the US, it would probably be hell for a while. You can't expect generations of people born and bred of the government tit to act calm and rational if that tit was suddenly pulled away from the. Eventually though things would become much better. Outside of the US some places would improve almost overnight. Elaborate, please. How would things become better? All I can see are immediate problems. I live on the east coast. The vast majority of the food that I buy at the supermarket is trucked from the midwest. Are you assuming that the federal government somehow ceases to exist, but our national infrastructure keeps on working magically? There's over 300 *million* people in this country. What happens when the supermarkets out here stop getting food? Do we start our own farms and live off the land? There's not enough fertile farmland in the eastern US to support the current population. Millions would starve, but not before killing each other over the last bits of food. What happens in Japan, a country which imports much of its food and has a population density wayyy higher than the states? It's estimated that in the event of a worldwide disaster, the most important public service to maintain social order is sewage treatment. What happens when your water faucets stop magically pumping out pure healthy, government regulated drinking water? Again, in our imaginary world where the government's vanished, what happens when shit literally starts flowing out of your sink? What happens when the local water treatment plant backs up and becomes little more than a giant lake of festering sewage, spawning all sorts of horrible diseases? What happens when people all of a sudden can't drink? Do we all start bringing buckets of water out of the Potomac? I'm a 24 year old woman. I take for granted being able to walk around outside by myself without getting assaulted. Hell, all of you do. How do I protect myself? Do I buy a gun and keep myself armed 24/7? Is that an improvement on quality of life for you? Do I join up with a local gang or group for protection, or maybe find the biggest toughest bunch of brutes and cling to them for defense? Do I submit myself to whatever rules and law-systems they've come up with? How is this new world of yours going to treat women? Because I can only see us slipping backwards hundreds of years in equality. Do we still use currency? Do banks still operate? What happens to the Dollar without a government to back it up? What's the alternative? Do we go to a barter system? Because I don't have any livestock. I grow my own vegetables, but not enough to subsist off throughout the year. Do we still have modern technology? How do I pay my doctor? Does the free market magically provide ethical doctors who take care of me fairly for a reasonable price? Are there still education systems which pump out these qualified physicians? How do I buy goods on a daily basis? Forget my situation. What happens to you? Where do you live? What do you do for a living? How does that change in this new anarchy? Do you still have all the necessities for a comfortable life? What if the neighbors don't? What do you do when they show up, presumably armed, and want what you have? People *will* resort to acts we currently consider abhorrent when they can't get enough to eat. Do you arm yourself, maybe get some friends or a group together, and defend yourselves? Do you shoot the intruders? If they outnumber you? Ever killed someone before? Cleaned their corpses off your lawn? I know what it's like to romanticize an imagined world. I have a soft spot for the past, and often imagine a life in another time. If it's the medieval era, I'm a noblewoman. If it's the ancient era, I live in a peaceful village. If it's the 1800's, I'm a wealthy aristocrat who wants for nothing. If I was a peasant or something, I like to imagine I'd live in a peaceful village with a loving husband I chose for myself, farm my crops, raise healthy children, all the good stuff with none of the bad. Ask yourself honestly, where do you see yourself in this new world you're promoting? How do you know you wouldn't end up just barely scraping by a living, giving half your crop to the local warlord, having your wife, maybe sister or friend taken by said local warlord, and living in fear for your life on a daily basis? Do you picture your self in some nice big house and that everything's the same as it is today, except you don't have to pay taxes and can own as many assault rifles as you want? Seriously I just don't understand your thought process. Please fill me in. Hey you seem interested? I guess I will try to indulge your questions. First of all, I said it would probably be hell at first. I might be wrong, but that is how I see it. Just because of how dependent people are on the structures of society, combined with how helpless and disarmed most people are. Plenty of room for plenty of suffering while the strong take advantage of the weak. Now it's not necessary to assume that EVERYTHING would stop working, but either way it is okay. It's also worth mentioning that the US makes life complete hell in other areas of the world, but I don't want to get into that too much right now outside of just mentioning it. Why? Well value is subjective, so this is of course based on my own values. They don't have to be yours obviously. Let say you take every zoo in the entire world and release all the animals into the wilderness, each one in an area where they reasonably "should" be able to survive. Of course most of them wouldn't, they've been caged too long, they don't know how, and they lack the will required to endure and learn. Some would survive though, some would even reproduce. It might be a tiny fraction of all of them, but some most certainly would. So some people would say it would be cruelty to release them like that, but I say it is cruel to keep them in the cage. That is just where I place my values. At some point I think people should realize that it's not a question of safety and a long life. We are all going to die. What should be more important is what we want out of the time we have. After all, without all of that horrible shit you described ever happening, everyone will die just the same. Do we still use currencetly, etc? Yeah, human invention and ingenuity does not come from government, how accessible would it be for people who can't understand it and have almost nothing to offer? You can't really predict that. If you want to hear the good side of the idea though, check out some books by Murry Rothbard, he was good at making it sound stable and appealing. What about me? My body is actually pretty weak and fucked up, like I wouldn't even be able to hold or pull the trigger on a gun, so no point in owning any of them. So if the shit hits the fan, how I would be able to survive would depending entirely on the people around me and how well we are able and willing to work together. Pretty much the same as it is for me right now, I was born in a successful part of the world with people around me who like to cooperate. There is definitely no way to predict what would happen to me if government disappeared overnight, but it is clear that I would be pretty helpless and would have to just roll with whatever opportunities or misfortunes that came my way. Fine with me. I am at the point were I would rather suffer than involuntarily cause suffering. I'm not romanticizing about anything and I'm certainly not here trying to sell a new world. I am definitely not an anarchist, I am just a slave who doesn't enjoy being a slave. The reason I was debating in this thread, is because it bothers me when people throw around reckless arguments in support of government that are blatantly false. I actually don't see a big difference between government and anarchy. All of the horrible things from anarchy exist in this world. All of the horrible things from government exist in this world. Historically we think anarchy came first, but government is not externally imposed on us, collectively at some point in history we made it this way. So if you want to look for the success or failure that will flow from an anarchist state, you only have to look at the current situation of the world. Success or failure simply based on your values and views of civilization. So as much as I hate government, if it disappeared overnight we would likely just end up in the same situation eventually - without some transcendence of human thought occurring in a critical mass of humans, enough to really change how we live and interact with each other. As long as government is here, schooling everyone, I don't see that happening. Even if it was possible to teach humans to live peacefully without the need for a violent authority, would they do it? No of course not, they have no incentive to - they have every incentive not to, it would destroy them. Everyone looks out for number one. So it's totally not worth it to go through all of the suffering that may be brought by sudden removal of government if we would go through all that only to eventually end up in the same shit situation we are in now, which is why I am not an anarchist. Thanks for getting back to me actually. I thought you'd abandoned the thread or something. But it sounds like we're in agreement. There would be a *lot* of suffering for a lonnggg time. And as I've said before, I'm sure people living in lawless hunter-gatherer tribes thousands of years ago were indeed "Freer" than we are today. But the standard of living and equality that I enjoy in a modern structured society is not worth giving up to feel "free" in that sense. Here's a potentially interesting question to ask at this point. Let's assume you do in fact truly enjoy your standard of living and what you feel is equality under the current system, to use Treemonkeys's example, you enjoy your cage and have no desire to leave it. What about the fact that the enjoyment of your cage implicitly requires that I remain in mine, regardless of how I feel about it? Is this right? Is the system justified by your enjoyment, despite my suffering?
You can always leave your cage, all you have to do is go somewhere in the middle of nowhere and live of plants, and that's still a richer lifestyle then the success of somalia lol.
|
way to completely miss his point...
|
On July 06 2011 19:04 Chalker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 06:38 Haemonculus wrote:On July 06 2011 06:27 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 08:03 Haemonculus wrote:On July 02 2011 06:55 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:42 Haemonculus wrote:On July 02 2011 06:30 Treemonkeys wrote:On July 02 2011 06:19 mcc wrote:
I have no problem admitting something slightly different. Society of the area owns everything in that area. Government as an emergent organizations governs everything in that area. And both of those entities choose to grant some private ownership of property on the level deemed appropriate by them. So basically your case 1. But unlike you I see no problem with it and even if I did I would not have illusions that this can actually be changed. The only thing that can be changed are specific details of that society and government. I can relate to the mindset of thinking it is just the best option, but to say you see no problems with it seems quite delusional IMO. Millions killed in government run wars, massing enough weapons to destroy the entire planet, etc. I really can't tell if your posts in this thread are serious or not. Tell me what you think our country, (the US) would be like were it an anarchy. I'm seriously curious, how would it improve? Inside the US, it would probably be hell for a while. You can't expect generations of people born and bred of the government tit to act calm and rational if that tit was suddenly pulled away from the. Eventually though things would become much better. Outside of the US some places would improve almost overnight. Elaborate, please. How would things become better? All I can see are immediate problems. I live on the east coast. The vast majority of the food that I buy at the supermarket is trucked from the midwest. Are you assuming that the federal government somehow ceases to exist, but our national infrastructure keeps on working magically? There's over 300 *million* people in this country. What happens when the supermarkets out here stop getting food? Do we start our own farms and live off the land? There's not enough fertile farmland in the eastern US to support the current population. Millions would starve, but not before killing each other over the last bits of food. What happens in Japan, a country which imports much of its food and has a population density wayyy higher than the states? It's estimated that in the event of a worldwide disaster, the most important public service to maintain social order is sewage treatment. What happens when your water faucets stop magically pumping out pure healthy, government regulated drinking water? Again, in our imaginary world where the government's vanished, what happens when shit literally starts flowing out of your sink? What happens when the local water treatment plant backs up and becomes little more than a giant lake of festering sewage, spawning all sorts of horrible diseases? What happens when people all of a sudden can't drink? Do we all start bringing buckets of water out of the Potomac? I'm a 24 year old woman. I take for granted being able to walk around outside by myself without getting assaulted. Hell, all of you do. How do I protect myself? Do I buy a gun and keep myself armed 24/7? Is that an improvement on quality of life for you? Do I join up with a local gang or group for protection, or maybe find the biggest toughest bunch of brutes and cling to them for defense? Do I submit myself to whatever rules and law-systems they've come up with? How is this new world of yours going to treat women? Because I can only see us slipping backwards hundreds of years in equality. Do we still use currency? Do banks still operate? What happens to the Dollar without a government to back it up? What's the alternative? Do we go to a barter system? Because I don't have any livestock. I grow my own vegetables, but not enough to subsist off throughout the year. Do we still have modern technology? How do I pay my doctor? Does the free market magically provide ethical doctors who take care of me fairly for a reasonable price? Are there still education systems which pump out these qualified physicians? How do I buy goods on a daily basis? Forget my situation. What happens to you? Where do you live? What do you do for a living? How does that change in this new anarchy? Do you still have all the necessities for a comfortable life? What if the neighbors don't? What do you do when they show up, presumably armed, and want what you have? People *will* resort to acts we currently consider abhorrent when they can't get enough to eat. Do you arm yourself, maybe get some friends or a group together, and defend yourselves? Do you shoot the intruders? If they outnumber you? Ever killed someone before? Cleaned their corpses off your lawn? I know what it's like to romanticize an imagined world. I have a soft spot for the past, and often imagine a life in another time. If it's the medieval era, I'm a noblewoman. If it's the ancient era, I live in a peaceful village. If it's the 1800's, I'm a wealthy aristocrat who wants for nothing. If I was a peasant or something, I like to imagine I'd live in a peaceful village with a loving husband I chose for myself, farm my crops, raise healthy children, all the good stuff with none of the bad. Ask yourself honestly, where do you see yourself in this new world you're promoting? How do you know you wouldn't end up just barely scraping by a living, giving half your crop to the local warlord, having your wife, maybe sister or friend taken by said local warlord, and living in fear for your life on a daily basis? Do you picture your self in some nice big house and that everything's the same as it is today, except you don't have to pay taxes and can own as many assault rifles as you want? Seriously I just don't understand your thought process. Please fill me in. Hey you seem interested? I guess I will try to indulge your questions. First of all, I said it would probably be hell at first. I might be wrong, but that is how I see it. Just because of how dependent people are on the structures of society, combined with how helpless and disarmed most people are. Plenty of room for plenty of suffering while the strong take advantage of the weak. Now it's not necessary to assume that EVERYTHING would stop working, but either way it is okay. It's also worth mentioning that the US makes life complete hell in other areas of the world, but I don't want to get into that too much right now outside of just mentioning it. Why? Well value is subjective, so this is of course based on my own values. They don't have to be yours obviously. Let say you take every zoo in the entire world and release all the animals into the wilderness, each one in an area where they reasonably "should" be able to survive. Of course most of them wouldn't, they've been caged too long, they don't know how, and they lack the will required to endure and learn. Some would survive though, some would even reproduce. It might be a tiny fraction of all of them, but some most certainly would. So some people would say it would be cruelty to release them like that, but I say it is cruel to keep them in the cage. That is just where I place my values. At some point I think people should realize that it's not a question of safety and a long life. We are all going to die. What should be more important is what we want out of the time we have. After all, without all of that horrible shit you described ever happening, everyone will die just the same. Do we still use currencetly, etc? Yeah, human invention and ingenuity does not come from government, how accessible would it be for people who can't understand it and have almost nothing to offer? You can't really predict that. If you want to hear the good side of the idea though, check out some books by Murry Rothbard, he was good at making it sound stable and appealing. What about me? My body is actually pretty weak and fucked up, like I wouldn't even be able to hold or pull the trigger on a gun, so no point in owning any of them. So if the shit hits the fan, how I would be able to survive would depending entirely on the people around me and how well we are able and willing to work together. Pretty much the same as it is for me right now, I was born in a successful part of the world with people around me who like to cooperate. There is definitely no way to predict what would happen to me if government disappeared overnight, but it is clear that I would be pretty helpless and would have to just roll with whatever opportunities or misfortunes that came my way. Fine with me. I am at the point were I would rather suffer than involuntarily cause suffering. I'm not romanticizing about anything and I'm certainly not here trying to sell a new world. I am definitely not an anarchist, I am just a slave who doesn't enjoy being a slave. The reason I was debating in this thread, is because it bothers me when people throw around reckless arguments in support of government that are blatantly false. I actually don't see a big difference between government and anarchy. All of the horrible things from anarchy exist in this world. All of the horrible things from government exist in this world. Historically we think anarchy came first, but government is not externally imposed on us, collectively at some point in history we made it this way. So if you want to look for the success or failure that will flow from an anarchist state, you only have to look at the current situation of the world. Success or failure simply based on your values and views of civilization. So as much as I hate government, if it disappeared overnight we would likely just end up in the same situation eventually - without some transcendence of human thought occurring in a critical mass of humans, enough to really change how we live and interact with each other. As long as government is here, schooling everyone, I don't see that happening. Even if it was possible to teach humans to live peacefully without the need for a violent authority, would they do it? No of course not, they have no incentive to - they have every incentive not to, it would destroy them. Everyone looks out for number one. So it's totally not worth it to go through all of the suffering that may be brought by sudden removal of government if we would go through all that only to eventually end up in the same shit situation we are in now, which is why I am not an anarchist. Thanks for getting back to me actually. I thought you'd abandoned the thread or something. But it sounds like we're in agreement. There would be a *lot* of suffering for a lonnggg time. And as I've said before, I'm sure people living in lawless hunter-gatherer tribes thousands of years ago were indeed "Freer" than we are today. But the standard of living and equality that I enjoy in a modern structured society is not worth giving up to feel "free" in that sense. Here's a potentially interesting question to ask at this point. Let's assume you do in fact truly enjoy your standard of living and what you feel is equality under the current system, to use Treemonkeys's example, you enjoy your cage and have no desire to leave it. What about the fact that the enjoyment of your cage implicitly requires that I remain in mine, regardless of how I feel about it? Is this right? Is the system justified by your enjoyment, despite my suffering?
This is kind of the whole reason why we have representative government. The idea is that we need government, but obviously we don't want tyranny, so we make our own government. Government isn't perfect by any means, but the idea that Government "cages" us is a completely far-fetched, and honestly is kind of insulting to people who have been slaves.
Look, it's nice to have theoretical conversations about what could happen if we abandoned all government, but in the real world, in somalia and several places thoroughout history, it pretty much sucks.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
I believe Somalia devolved into tribalism on a radically decentralized scale. I don't know if Mogadishu is entirely irrelevant, but there appear to be multiple power organizations mutually coexisting in the same geographical area. In international relations terminology, Somalia is a failed state. The irony is that the failed state is a bit more successful and peaceful.
|
On July 06 2011 18:06 Chalker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 17:00 Nightfall.589 wrote:On July 03 2011 10:35 Harrow wrote:On July 03 2011 10:32 Slakter wrote:On July 03 2011 10:05 HellRoxYa wrote:On July 03 2011 09:23 Focuspants wrote:On July 03 2011 09:17 Slakter wrote:On July 03 2011 09:01 Focuspants wrote:On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote:
anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change. Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless. It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe. I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead. So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it? Why do we have to keep old nations borders? So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to? No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief. Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state. On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
[quote]
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now.
On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead. How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule? If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality. Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens. How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes. So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now. Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this". On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly. I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun. I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say. I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now. For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that I guess we evolved past the cave part. People haven't evolved, they are just better conditioned. Sorry, but this is really a terrible argument against anarchism. At least, most anarchists I know don't advocate a society where people can shoot each other in the face and nothing happens... And communists in the Soviet Union didn't advocate a society where everything was tightly rationed, and the nation lived in poverty. And, much like anarchists, they haven't figured out how to prevent that from happening, under their proposed system. Good on you for pointing out the problems of centralised government... And then turning a blind eye to their counterparts in an anarchy. What exactly would prevent the storeowner from getting shot over 5$, in your utopia, again? Hired protection? So, if you don't hire Guys With Guns, you're on your own? And those Guys With Guns will never make mistakes? Kill innocent people? Ever? You should really hold your proposed utopia up to the same level of criticism you apply to others. You make it seem like anarchists must find the secret to all encompassing peace and love among mankind before it's a viable ethic. That's a little unfair. What anarchists (market anarchists/"Anarcho-Capitalists") do have is a consistent ethical framework of liberty, which allows for the maximum individual liberty for everyone. Anarchy won't necessarily eliminate every bad person, chances are there will always be bad people; what it does allow, as far as your example is concerned, is for an individual to protect his or herself, his or her property, and the people they care about from those bad people. So for instance, what's preventing the store owner from getting shot over $5 in an anarchic society? I can think of a number of things. Perhaps the store owner is armed, heavily, and isn't afraid to advertise it? Or perhaps he or she has hired Guys With Guns, who may very well make mistakes. Do Guys With Guns make very few mistakes? Very many mistakes? Is it time to hire Chicks With Guns? If there's a market for protection services then that competition will, like usual, drive prices down and quality up. What an anarchist society undoubtedly would be, is far safer, happier and freer than anything we have now. PS: Wish I had the time to go back to the Libertarian Americans thread, there's great unfinished stuff in there... 
Holy shit really? It would for one definently, 100%, be less safe than what you have right now. And even less so than what my society has. The scenario you described where you need to arm yourself and show it creates both tension and violence. And as you realize yourself when violence is unregulated it's easier to see as a legitimate option to obtain what you want - meaning that there will be more violence. Even if there wasn't, you'd be stuck with less trust because of the way you need to act (flaunt your defense). On top of this everyone who can't afford a massive weapon or who is in some way weak (handicapped people etc) would have major problems in your perfect society. Hardly my biggest problem with all of this but still.
Let's move on to happier. What is happiness? Living in peace or being free to kill anyone you want? I'll take my high living standard over a "free" Somaila any day. I'm not delusional enough to argue that there is any way that an anarchic society would be superior to a structured one.
Now lastly, freer, I'll give you that. There's more freedom, but also less freedom because anyone can infringe on your freedoms at any time and only you can defend them. Uncertainty and fear, yaaay.
Edit: And this is saying it'd even work. It wouldn't. Small groups form instantly, start pushing people around, this grows in to larger groups. Eventually you'll be stuck with a new state. Most probably of the tyrannical nature.
|
On July 06 2011 19:32 xM(Z wrote:
way to completely miss his point...
Which point ? That he wants to live in a society with freedom, but not just any society, he wants to live in this same one and denie other people's freedom to live simple safe lives because he needs more "freedom".
There's no point to be missed, everybody can live in absolute freedom, just not next to people who don't care to regress back to the tribal ages ;p
|
On July 06 2011 18:06 Chalker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 17:00 Nightfall.589 wrote:On July 03 2011 10:35 Harrow wrote:On July 03 2011 10:32 Slakter wrote:On July 03 2011 10:05 HellRoxYa wrote:On July 03 2011 09:23 Focuspants wrote:On July 03 2011 09:17 Slakter wrote:On July 03 2011 09:01 Focuspants wrote:On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:On July 03 2011 03:16 white_horse wrote:
anarchists get their argument totally thrown in the garbage here and now ther squirming to rationalize their shit by trying to twist the definition of anarchy.
it's good to work towards an ideal - but at one point it becomes stupidity. Daydreaming that a governmentless, lawless society could work is about the dumbest cock-a-bullshit that someone could think about. Really, the fact that using somalia as an example of a successful anarchy just reflects on the anarchists' ability to think. Get back to reality.
but hey, if you want to keep raging about how evil government is, feel free to continue stressing yourselves out - or better yet, move to somalia - because nothing's going to change. Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless. It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe. I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now. On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead. So youre going to get the 35 million people in Canada together to make every decision? Or even worse, youre going to get the 300 million people in the US together to make every decision? No, thats not possible, youre going to have to elect people to represent you in this decision making process. This sounds awfullly familiar doesnt it? Why do we have to keep old nations borders? So the world is going to unite unanimously? How are we going to decide who were alligned with? Everyone is going to agree with your new arbitrary state lines? Who gets to decide who is in and who is out? Whats going to happen when some groups get left out by others, or some groups get better land than others? If I was living on shit land, while a neighbouring group had rich fertile land, why wouldnt I find a way to take it from them? Why is it fair that they get that and I get the shaft? Whos going to protect you from my invasion? Do you not see, that every proposal you guys make, lead to thousands of problems, problems you cant offer effective solutions to? No, they don't. They genuinly believe that the state is holding themselves and everyone else back and are blinded by this belief. Edit: The opposite is true, you have the freedom you have now, and the livingstandard you have now, due to living in a successful and well-run state. On July 03 2011 08:40 Slakter wrote:On July 03 2011 08:28 HellRoxYa wrote:On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:On July 03 2011 07:31 Harrow wrote:On July 03 2011 07:21 Slakter wrote:
[quote]
Once again, an anarchy does not mean lawless.
It also doesnt necessarily mean "tax-less". The difference is that the tax would be decided by the people themselves instead of letting a state choose how your money gets spent. And no, I dont mean that in the libertarian way where My money = I choose what to put my taxes in but what I mean is My money gets put where my people as a collective thinks it is needed the most, be it food or infrastructure. An Anarchy should in an uberutopia (awesome word) also abolish the idea of money but I am of the opinion that that is just too far hehe.
I hope people will be able to differentiate between Anarchists and Extreme Libertarians now.
On the political scale Anarchism fits between Socialism and Liberalism while Somalia fits in straight in the Libertarian corner with a little taste of Fascism where the man with the greatest guns rules and anyone who opposes tastes lead. How does the collective decide where the money goes? Does every decision need to be unanimous? If it's put to a vote, how do you enforce that the dissenting opinion follows along with the majority rule? If you're just talking about utopia here, then fine, sounds like fun. But I think it's more worthwhile to try and work within reality. Depends on where you are and what the collective decides. I cannot tell you since it will vary from area to area if an anarchist revolution ever happens. How it would be enforced however most people believe that people will not need to be enforced since they will respect the collectives needs. In the society we live in now this could never be the case since, as we already have said, at the moment people are assholes. So you subscribe to Rosseau then I presume? Humans were the nicest beings ever before society? It's just not realistic. Look, people don't respect collective needs, they respect what's best for them and their family - specifically for them and their family in the short term. Doesn't matter if the collective needs coincide with their own in the long term. As other people have stated what you said can only realistically come to terms within a very small community. The ones we don't have and haven't had for a good while now. Edit: Also, concider that, just as society is now, even if most people actually do see to the collective needs it's very improbable that noone would go "Hmm... I could exploit the shit out of this". On July 03 2011 07:39 Slakter wrote:
Another idea is that the people themselves will enforce it. People police themselves and if anyone notices that someone does something shitty they tell the rest of the collective and they act accordingly. I've always been a fan of lynching. Did you ever play that one game, Mafia? You should try it, it's even on B.net these days. Great fun. I do not believe people were better before society, however I believe that we have to evolve past todays society, and in my opinion the natural evolution of society is to a more compassionate way of living. Also, what you´re saying is only true for people now, and even now people misstrust people way too much in my opinion. The human being is not naturally evil, we´ve just not evolved the shitty part yet you might say. I never said anything about humans being evil. They're oppurtunistic and egotistical. This will lead to major problems in the anarchy fantasy. It's funny that you say people should evolve when it should be perfectly clear to you that people don't "evolve" unless millions of years pass. We have to work with what we have right now. For instance we dont rape women and pull them by the hair into caves anymore, we have evolved from that I guess we evolved past the cave part. People haven't evolved, they are just better conditioned. Sorry, but this is really a terrible argument against anarchism. At least, most anarchists I know don't advocate a society where people can shoot each other in the face and nothing happens... And communists in the Soviet Union didn't advocate a society where everything was tightly rationed, and the nation lived in poverty. And, much like anarchists, they haven't figured out how to prevent that from happening, under their proposed system. Good on you for pointing out the problems of centralised government... And then turning a blind eye to their counterparts in an anarchy. What exactly would prevent the storeowner from getting shot over 5$, in your utopia, again? Hired protection? So, if you don't hire Guys With Guns, you're on your own? And those Guys With Guns will never make mistakes? Kill innocent people? Ever? You should really hold your proposed utopia up to the same level of criticism you apply to others. You make it seem like anarchists must find the secret to all encompassing peace and love among mankind before it's a viable ethic. That's a little unfair. What anarchists (market anarchists/"Anarcho-Capitalists") do have is a consistent ethical framework of liberty, which allows for the maximum individual liberty for everyone. Anarchy won't necessarily eliminate every bad person, chances are there will always be bad people; what it does allow, as far as your example is concerned, is for an individual to protect his or herself, his or her property, and the people they care about from those bad people.
So for instance, what's preventing the store owner from getting shot over $5 in an anarchic society? I can think of a number of things. Perhaps the store owner is armed, heavily, and isn't afraid to advertise it? Or perhaps he or she has hired Guys With Guns, who may very well make mistakes. Do Guys With Guns make very few mistakes? Very many mistakes? Is it time to hire Chicks With Guns? If there's a market for protection services then that competition will, like usual, drive prices down and quality up.
Cream isn't the only thing that rises to the top. It also doesn't matter how armed you personally are - guns are indeed the great equalizer. In your system, nothing stops anyone from getting one, walking into a store, and surprising someone. Guarantee it, storeowner won't draw fast enough. Oh, and the best part? Murderer will just walk away - nobody else will do anything about it. (Who are they to infringe on his freedom?)
Also, what stops someone from performing confidence scams - and skipping town once he gets the money? The threat that I will hire people to do a hit on him? He'll be long gone by then. All you'll end up, is a society where everyone's pointing a gun at eachother. And let me tell you, accidents will happen - far more accidents then there currently are police-related deaths.
|
On July 06 2011 14:59 Treemonkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 07:42 Haemonculus wrote:On July 06 2011 06:42 Treemonkeys wrote:
Modern standard of living fucked me over pretty hard personally, I wonder what I would think if it was not for that? Could you care to elaborate on that? No pressure of course. I had horrible asthma as a child. I was rushed to the emergency room numerous times before my first birthday. Had I been born 70-80 years earlier, I likely would have died an infant. I'm perfectly healthy today, but without modern medicine it's very unlikely I'd even be alive. I know nothing of your condition, but would being born in a non-modern world have helped you live a better life? But as bad as the consequence may or may not be, what about the consequences of massive government? Never mind the millions or billions that have been killed in government run wars, lets just say they were all worth our nice standard of living. What about the future and survivability of the human species and planet as a whole? Is government really taking us in a good direction? Now that they have amassed enough weapons to kill nearly the entire planet? Now as they continue to search for more ways of bigger and bigger destruction? Have you ever looked into how many nuclear explosions the US government has set of for the sole purpose of "testing". That shit doesn't just float into the atmosphere and disappear. They have set off over 1000 of them, for no good reason at all, just the US alone. Add in all the other countries and I think it easily goes over 3000. All of this with only about 60 years of nuclear technology. What will the earth be like 100 years from now? 1000? They are basically psychopathic kids with an obsession for burning ants with a magnifying glass only instead of a magnifying glass they have nukes. It's not like we are immune to going extinct, and it's not like we as individuals have any control over the direction we live towards either. Long term I don't think there is anything about our standard of living that is sustainable. Yeah maybe technology will be discovered to take recycling to a whole new level and things like that, but in my lifetime it definitely seems like problems are growing much faster than solutions are. We have entire billion dollar industries designed around motivating people to buy new shit and then throw it away for an upgrade a few years later.
Those billion dollar industries you're talking about? That's commercialism. That's capitalism. That has nothing to do with the government. That's makeup *companies* telling you you're ugly, and need their product. That's weight loss companies telling you you're fat, and need their product. That's Apple or Microsoft telling you that your current computer is garbage, and that you need to upgrade asap. It's car companies telling you how much better the latest model is than the old one. The government has nothing to do with the way they push their product, and I think you're finding faults with a commercialized society. What the government *does* do in those cases, is enforce certain safety standards so the product you're buying doesn't give you cancer. And you can bet your ass the companies that push those cancer-causing products will fight to the end to reassure you that they're perfectly safe.
Nuclear tests? I'm all for getting rid of nukes. No one should be able to level cities from across the world. Maybe such weapons deter attacks, but yes, I am very against nuclear weapons. (except in video games, BRING IT ON GHANDI, FINISHING STONEHENGE BEFORE ME! ) I disagree however that a world without a central government would be a world without nuclear weapons. What's to stop a powerful corporation from building a few for themselves?
The future of the planet? That should absolutely be a top priority of any and all governments. Again I think you're finding fault with the current administrations around the world, and not necessarily the system. Do you think that a non-government state would treat the planet better? Hint: The biggest enemies of the EPA are not governments. I find it hard to believe that companies would adhere to environmentally friendly standards were they not forced to. Recycling industrial waste is expensive. Dumping it in the river is cheap.
War is horrible, no one will contest that. I just find it unrealistic to think that no government = no wars. We've been killing each other since the dawn of humanity.
Is our way of life sustainable? I have no idea. The way the world is set up right now is far from ideal. There are villagers in Africa who instead of growing food crops for themselves, are growing peanuts so that I, (and everyone else in the first world), can go to the supermarket and buy a bottle of peanut oil for $3. The policies which support such a system were put in place because agricultural companies lobbied the government.
Also, regarding free markets:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Has anyone mentioned the way that we got governments in the first place? It's not like our ancestors said "Let's saddle ourselves up with this obviously terrible system!"
First, there was anarchy. Then, people started buying (one way or another) the services of the biggest and strongest so that they could feel safe. Once the protector hires a clerk to keep track of his dues, you have the beginnings of a structured society.
According to the free market, anarchy is the worst form of government.
|
This isn't absolute success. Technically, in some aspects it can be considered "progress" but the "progress" is only relative to Somalia's surrounding countries. On a humanitarian front, anarchy is never success. Warlords and drug-trafficking pirates control the country, and I don't see how that's fruitful for the futur of the Somalian youth.
|
In the past we had democracy vs fascism/communism clashes. In the future I believe corporations vs anarchy is going to be the dominant clash.
As far as Somalia, this is not anarchy. Anyone trying to showcase Somalia as a successfull anarchy is an idiot or is trying to confuse people about anarchy on purpose
|
You make it seem like anarchists must find the secret to all encompassing peace and love among mankind before it's a viable ethic. That's a little unfair. What anarchists (market anarchists/"Anarcho-Capitalists") do have is a consistent ethical framework of liberty, which allows for the maximum individual liberty for everyone. Anarchy won't necessarily eliminate every bad person, chances are there will always be bad people; what it does allow, as far as your example is concerned, is for an individual to protect his or herself, his or her property, and the people they care about from those bad people.
No it isn't a little unfair. You advocate a political system that requires every citizen / family to become their own law enforcement agency, or, instead of setting up a police system through voting for a government and paying it taxes, instead paying a private firm to police your community.
The latter situation is indistinguishable from having a government, you just imagine that it is fundamentally different because there's more liberty or some such thing (no, there isn't, replacing votes and taxes with commercial transactions doesn't make anyone freer, it just turns a community into a pure small-d democracy, the bad kind honestly), and the former situation is heavily dependent on peace and love suddenly going on a big, big upswing, as unfortunately not many people are too keen on the idea of being the first, last, and only line of defense for themselves and their family.
They're simply incapable mentally, emotionally, or physically of defending themselves and their property, and we shouldn't put that burden on them just because we have a "consistent ethical framework." Yes, it is consistent; consistently devolved towards the "state of nature" down the line.
Your framework that allows for max liberty for each individual is a smokescreen; you're not broadening freedom. All you're doing is demanding that extremely long-settled political questions be reopened and everyone decides what political system they want in their community. All this is is a recipe for destroying institutions that already exist and then building them back up.
If a peaceful "anarchy" experiment ever came about on a national scale it would last about two weeks until communities effectively organized law enforcement organizations from their own ranks and the old trappings of government would soon follow.
The vast majority of people do not want to take the time or effort to make and then solidify political decisions that they are quite happy to delegate to other people that they vote for.
|
On July 06 2011 20:56 Cyba wrote:Which point ? That he wants to live in a society with freedom, but not just any society, he wants to live in this same one and denie other people's freedom to live simple safe lives because he needs more "freedom". There's no point to be missed, everybody can live in absolute freedom, just not next to people who don't care to regress back to the tribal ages ;p
his point was purely theoretical and was based on the symbiotic relation between those 2 cases. he said/stated that it exists (doesnt matter why).
so, if the sad/suffering dude would just leave his cage (as you said), it would mean that the happy dude would stop enjoying his standard of living/equality/cage.
(he actually said it the other way arround but i cant see why it wouldnt go both ways. he went with pity(hoping to get it from the happy dude), i went with contempt assuming the phrase "implicitly requires that i..." goes both ways ).
|
On July 06 2011 18:19 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Actually the 1,000 is a guesstimate based off numbers for Ohio I found I semi-baselessly extrapolated for the nation, and that was just for people killed during an attempt at an arrest or other encounter, not while back at the station or lock-up. It was probably a few hundred off and if you add people who die at the station it's for sure more.
As for police, 117 total federal and local LEOs were dying in the line of duty in 2010, 124 in 2009, 140 in 2008, 130 in 2007. The total murdered seems to be about 35%, with the rest dying in accidents. I don't know if the accidents includes ones caused by chases whether in car or on foot. "Line of duty" means they were officially doing police work.
The source is the FBI for the number of LEOs dying
Just for a comparison, during the "Great Terror" in the USSR (about five years of the 1930s) about 1,900,000 million people were arrested and about 650,000 sentenced of those to execution with most of the rest off to the gulag.
The USSR then had about 130,000.000 people, the USA today has about 310,000,000. I think saying that "many" Americans are killed by the government is a gross and unfair exaggeration so I objected to it.
Not saying the USSR had more so the USA is great, but in terms of the numbers, the United States government does not kill "many" of its own citizens.
For your interest.
"And you are lynching Negroes" Russian Propaganda
|
On July 07 2011 02:51 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 20:56 Cyba wrote:On July 06 2011 19:32 xM(Z wrote:
way to completely miss his point... Which point ? That he wants to live in a society with freedom, but not just any society, he wants to live in this same one and denie other people's freedom to live simple safe lives because he needs more "freedom". There's no point to be missed, everybody can live in absolute freedom, just not next to people who don't care to regress back to the tribal ages ;p his point was purely theoretical and was based on the symbiotic relation between those 2 cases. he said/stated that it exists (doesnt matter why). so, if the sad/suffering dude would just leave his cage (as you said), it would mean that the happy dude would stop enjoying his standard of living/equality/cage. (he actually said it the other way arround but i cant see why it wouldnt go both ways. he went with pity(hoping to get it from the happy dude), i went with contempt assuming the phrase "implicitly requires that i..." goes both ways ).
And my point was it's a bad example and if anything it shows anarchism can't exist since there's more happy caged ppl then unhappy ones.
Raining outside implies my car will get wet, my car is wet doesn't imply it was raining.
|
On July 07 2011 00:01 Haemonculus wrote:
Those billion dollar industries you're talking about? That's commercialism. That's capitalism. That has nothing to do with the government. That's makeup *companies* telling you you're ugly, and need their product. That's weight loss companies telling you you're fat, and need their product. That's Apple or Microsoft telling you that your current computer is garbage, and that you need to upgrade asap. It's car companies telling you how much better the latest model is than the old one. The government has nothing to do with the way they push their product, and I think you're finding faults with a commercialized society. What the government *does* do in those cases, is enforce certain safety standards so the product you're buying doesn't give you cancer. And you can bet your ass the companies that push those cancer-causing products will fight to the end to reassure you that they're perfectly safe.
Captialism and government completely go hand in hand. The capitalism we see in the US would not be possible without the goverment enforced fiat curreny that fuels it. It is entirely designed for the extreme levels of growth, consolidiation, and debt. Stop and think about how many "mom and pop" stores are around today compared to 20 years ago. That isn't a random chain of events, rather it is the direct and inevitable result of the fiat currency that was forced on the entire country back in 1913 by the government. All developed countries of the world use the same basic rules of fiat currency enforced by their governments (because it works so well in terms of gaining power and control), and for most of then it is the same group of bankers running the whole show. Government is run for corporations and corporations are run in government, they are two arms of the same beast. As far as safety standards? Like safety standards that made the US the most obese country in the world? Like safety standards that made the US have the highest cancer rates in the world? Going back to my own problems with how society is detrimental for me, the majority of the food supply in the US is basically poison to me and everyone else with my condition. I have to go way out of my way and spend extra money to get food that doesn't destroy me. Only I grew up like you, trusting the goverment stamp of approval on food, so much damage has already been done that cannot be undone. With a healthy food supply I never would have had this condition to begin with.
Organic food that has not been genetically modified to include pesticides and other things is clearly better for you, but it costs more and is less accessable, do you know why? There are two main reasons, among others. First, the genetically modified food is subsidized by the goverment - making it less exepensive. In other words, government is stealing money from taxpayers, giving it to food corporations that are growing unhealthy food, and then feeding it back to those same taxpayers telling them it is perfectly safe. Second, to be allowed to advertise your food as organic and non-modifed, you have to pay extra money to have it "certified" to show you aren't lying - further increasing the cost. This is an expense imposed by the government. Whatever you think of the government's true intentions with doing all of this, the results of it are clear.
Nuclear tests? I'm all for getting rid of nukes. No one should be able to level cities from across the world. Maybe such weapons deter attacks, but yes, I am very against nuclear weapons. (except in video games, BRING IT ON GHANDI, FINISHING STONEHENGE BEFORE ME! ) I disagree however that a world without a central government would be a world without nuclear weapons. What's to stop a powerful corporation from building a few for themselves?
I agree with you that if "government" did not develop nuclear weapons, someone else "might". But dealing with our current reality, it was government that developed them, it was government that built them, and it was government that continues to test them. Like slaves, there is seemingly nothing we can do to stop this. Once again I am not arguing "for" anarchy, I am arguing against government. I see the evils of anarchy and goverment as the same thing, or rather the evils of humans dominating each other with violence and deception. Personally I think we are simply fucked BUT if there is to be any hope at all, it has to start with us - as common people - to realize and acknowledge how horrendously evil the people who are at the tip top of our society, running the whole show, truly are.
The future of the planet? That should absolutely be a top priority of any and all governments. Again I think you're finding fault with the current administrations around the world, and not necessarily the system. Do you think that a non-government state would treat the planet better? Hint: The biggest enemies of the EPA are not governments. I find it hard to believe that companies would adhere to environmentally friendly standards were they not forced to. Recycling industrial waste is expensive. Dumping it in the river is cheap.
While they may or may not be looking out for the planet, I can be damn sure that when the shit hits the fan they will not be looking out for the billions of people in the world. They will use every resource they have stolen to make themselves safe and comfortatble. I mean we see this already, who are the ones with vast underground complexes in the event of nuclear war? It's us that paid for those things, but it will be them hidden away safely inside.
War is horrible, no one will contest that. I just find it unrealistic to think that no government = no wars. We've been killing each other since the dawn of humanity.
Yeah, people would probably still fight. But it is the people's willingness to let the government take endless sums of labor and use it to create massive military and weapons of destruction that takes it to the scale it has been at for modern times.
You were on to something when you mentioned that agricultural companies lobbied to get what they want, that isn't an isolated event, it is the standard for all legistlation that goes through.
|
I don't have any background in economics, so I can't really argue your first point. However it sounds like your problem is more with the government currently looking out for the interests of the rich and powerful corporations. That is another point we can agree on. I still do not see how abolishing government entirely solves that. The current administrations around the world have slowly been hijacked by corporate interests. Our lobbying system is horridly flawed.
I'd also argue about food standards making us fat. More of a cultural thing. Countries around the world have been catching up to us in terms of obesity as they adopt more of our diet. Saying the government makes us fatties seems a bit silly to me.
Then again everything I write here I say coming from the point of view of someone lucky enough to be born into a life of relative comfort. I'm not rich by any means, but growing up I never had to worry about having enough to eat or anything like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nkEqK.jpg)
