|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 23 2012 03:27 TerribleNoobling wrote:Show nested quote +Look we don't give a shit if you want to ignore social contract theory. Go find an unclaimed piece of land and start a anarcho-capitalist commune. It's your choice to live in your country. If you don't want to live in your country, live somewhere else. It's a relatively free national market. Tax and regulation are the terms you accept by living in a specific area. Government is no more of a thief than any other lessor. Government owns the land, government takes care of the land, government rents it out to you and every business in the land.
Contrary to popular belief, government did not arise from social contract. Instead as Oppenheimer points out in The State government arose through the conquest of one tribe by another. The state was born in conquest and exists to perpetuate exploitation. One could easily turn that species argument around on you - if you love the state so much, why don't you move to North Korea? There's no anti government nuts there!
You are mixing two things. How states came to be and what they do. All of them came to be by societal contract as that is the basis of the functioning of individual tribes and later they conquered other "states". Plus states evolve, thus your argument would still be invalid even if they did not come to be through societal contract. They are based on it now.
|
And you again lie as government are not responsible for every atrocity. On topic is government responsible for the shooting in the school ? No, thus disproving your claim.
It's only disproving my claim by means of a semantic argument. By atrocity I am referring to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Perhaps you can tell me a non state actor that has ever murdered 100,000+? Because I can't even count on all my fingers or toes the times that governments have done this.
|
You are mixing two things. How states came to be and what they do. All of them came to be by societal contract as that is the basis of the functioning of individual tribes and later they conquered other "states". Plus states evolve, thus your argument would still be invalid even if they did not come to be through societal contract. They are based on it now.
False! You really need to read Oppenheimer's work on this subject. It's available online for free. He completely demolished this thesis over a hundred years ago.
|
On December 23 2012 03:33 iplayBANJO wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:04 mcc wrote:On December 23 2012 02:43 AmericanNightmare wrote:On December 23 2012 02:27 docvoc wrote:On December 23 2012 01:38 Aukai wrote:
Media? You are incredibly delusional dude, not only that, the world isn't some 1984 dystopia. The government isn't out to get us, furthermore, a few small arms aren't going to stop a government from steamrolling you. The reason guns should be heavily limited in America is because of the ease of getting them, we can no longer bear arms against a government of our magnitude. So because we could never compete with our government should they ever possibly turn against it's people.. we should just roll over and allow them infringe on our rights now? Slowly our ability to defend ourselves against the government has been taken away from us because people like you are to delusional to understand... The government might not be "out to get us" but from speaking from personal experience.. it's certainly not trying to help us.. You can try and take these few lines I've posted and dissect them to try and understand what kind of person I am.. but you'll never be able to because we were brought up in different areas.. taught by different people... learned through different means.. I've learned through the years.. my first lesson was when I was 5.. that you never take what people in power say at face value.. and Law Enforcement should always be questioned.. The only way to prevent totalitarianism is to prevent rampant poverty and instability. Otherwise it is human nature that big enough number of people will in their desperation support anyone who promises improvement in their situation and will be willing to murder for that. And when government has support of big chunk of population, you might fight, but you will lose. At that point it is too late. What you should do instead is to try to prevent that. That is not to say that you should do anything government tells you to. Governments are corrupt to lesser or bigger degree, but the way to go is to try to improve them, not to dive into unproductive fearmongering. This sounds a lot like the reasoning used against gun control, and I agree with the sentiment. What is most important in preventing most social tragedies is prevention of poverty, as it seems to me to be the most common source of human suffering. Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:26 Jormundr wrote:
"In spite of the fact that guns will not help combat a tyrannical government presence, I still believe that people need guns for the express purpose of combating a tyrannical government presence."
~Aukai
Timeless wisdom "What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~ Thomas Jefferson
"Methods of killing will always be the same; therefore please quote me in regards to gun control for all of eternity. Amen"-Thomas Jefferson.
|
On December 23 2012 03:29 TerribleNoobling wrote:Show nested quote + Plus you use word rob. Robbing makes sense only after laws/ethics are established. So government does not rob, it taxes and equating that with robbery is pretty typical example of "1984" new-speak that anarcho-capitalists use. Most of their arguments are based on rewriting meanings of words. Laws exist even if the state does not define them. There is natural law which one can ascertain through the use of one's own reason. Robbery is when you take by force. If you don't pay your taxes (submit to the robbery) they will lock you in a cage where you get raped by a dude named Bubba (the force). How is this NOT robbery? Just because you call it taxation instead of robbery? Who is using the Orwellian doublespeak now?
There is no natural law as you understand it. Try to prove to me that it exists.
|
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human.
|
On December 23 2012 03:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human.
No, you know this because you grew up in society. In nature, there is no morality beyond necessity.
|
On December 23 2012 03:35 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:24 TerribleNoobling wrote:
What really gets me about these gun control advocates, is if they are so against guns, why do they never seek to take guns away from the military or the police? Really they are not against guns, they are against individuals having guns to protect themselves. They are all for the government having guns, despite the fact that governments are responsible for every atrocity that has ever happened anywhere. And that's when you stopped being credible. Congratulations on finishing your first semester of college. You have a long way to go if you want to be taken seriously as an anarchist. Anyway, as for labeling the pro gun control crowd, can we at least agree that in modern politics that the pro-gun control crowd is majority liberal and the anti-gun control crowd is majority conservative? As far as I understand, the general sentiment is that the liberal camp wants less guns in the hands of citizens and less money in the hands of the military. That would seem to contradict your claim that the pro-gun control crowd doesn't want to take away guns from the military. As to not wanting to take away guns from the police, you got me there. Don't know of many people who want to take guns away from the police.
Sorting people into homogeneous groups and giving them labels is the opposite of what these discussions should be doing. What we should be doing is trying to understand the viewpoints that are not our own, whether they be in general agreement with ours or not. As we come to understand the multitude of opinions on the topic we can come to see the whole of the problem and better understand even our own views on it. Limiting the amount of opinions by grouping and labeling them is counterproductive to that goal, and short circuits the discussion into a more concrete misconception of what we have come together in an attempt to understand.
|
On December 23 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human. No, you know this because you grew up in society. In nature, there is no morality beyond necessity.
But, if we are unable to determine morality except by following others, we would never have discovered this concept originally.
|
On December 23 2012 03:45 TerribleNoobling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human. No, you know this because you grew up in society. In nature, there is no morality beyond necessity. But, if we are unable to determine morality except by following others, we would never have discovered this concept originally.
Being amongst others and following others are entirely different things.
|
|
|
On December 23 2012 03:46 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:45 TerribleNoobling wrote:On December 23 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human. No, you know this because you grew up in society. In nature, there is no morality beyond necessity. But, if we are unable to determine morality except by following others, we would never have discovered this concept originally. Being amongst others and following others are entirely different things.
You're missing the point completely. If I cannot determine, through the exercise of my own intellectual facilities what is right and what is wrong, then how on Earth was morality discovered in the first place? Face it, there are obvious moral rules which one can determine just by thinking about things.
|
On December 23 2012 03:49 TerribleNoobling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:46 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:45 TerribleNoobling wrote:On December 23 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human. No, you know this because you grew up in society. In nature, there is no morality beyond necessity. But, if we are unable to determine morality except by following others, we would never have discovered this concept originally. Being amongst others and following others are entirely different things. You're missing the point completely. If I cannot determine, through the exercise of my own intellectual facilities what is right and what is wrong, then how on Earth was morality discovered in the first place? Face it, there are obvious moral rules which one can determine just by thinking about things.
What sorts of things figure into the creation and operation of sufficient intellectual facilities?
|
On December 23 2012 03:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human.
I really wanted to respond to this but I can't stop laughing. Your cultural background, your government (which likely provided your education), and your upbringing had no effect on your morality because morality is universal. Why don't you go tell that to child soldiers in sudan, to women in Iran, to the Jews in Germany.
|
Genetics, nutrition, access to a good library? Is your question germane to our discussion?
|
On December 23 2012 03:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:49 TerribleNoobling wrote:On December 23 2012 03:46 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:45 TerribleNoobling wrote:On December 23 2012 03:43 farvacola wrote:On December 23 2012 03:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human. No, you know this because you grew up in society. In nature, there is no morality beyond necessity. But, if we are unable to determine morality except by following others, we would never have discovered this concept originally. Being amongst others and following others are entirely different things. You're missing the point completely. If I cannot determine, through the exercise of my own intellectual facilities what is right and what is wrong, then how on Earth was morality discovered in the first place? Face it, there are obvious moral rules which one can determine just by thinking about things. What sorts of things figure into the creation and operation of sufficient intellectual facilities?
oOoH ooh
I got it
Free markets
Hard work
Guns
and uh
The american dream
|
On December 23 2012 03:51 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human. I really wanted to respond to this but I can't stop laughing. Your cultural background, your government (which likely provided your education), and your upbringing had no effect on your morality because morality is universal. Why don't you go tell that to child soldiers in sudan, to women in Iran, to the Jews in Germany.
You would be better served by actually making your point instead of strawmanning me.
|
On December 23 2012 03:51 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Genetics, nutrition, access to a good library? Is your question germane to our discussion?
Genetics and nutrition aid in the upkeep of and the capacity for an intellect, but they do not "start" the process of knowledge seeking. Who do you suppose writes the books in the library?
Look at this way, if a man has genetics, nutrition, but no contact with a single iota of another aspect of humanity, what does his intellect look like? And don't use words, because he won't have them.
|
On December 23 2012 03:54 TerribleNoobling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 03:51 Jormundr wrote:On December 23 2012 03:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human. I really wanted to respond to this but I can't stop laughing. Your cultural background, your government (which likely provided your education), and your upbringing had no effect on your morality because morality is universal. Why don't you go tell that to child soldiers in sudan, to women in Iran, to the Jews in Germany. You would be better served by actually making your point instead of strawmanning me.
Try reading The Ethics of Identity by Appiah before making ridiculous claims about a universal, and yet by some fancy magic, purely individualist morality.
|
On December 23 2012 03:35 TerribleNoobling wrote:
mcc : So basically your argument is, when the government takes my money without my consent, with the threat of violence, that's not robbery, because they're the government so it's okay, it's taxation, but if I take your money without your consent that is robbery, because I'm not the government?
Yes, exactly.
On December 23 2012 03:37 TerribleNoobling wrote:Show nested quote +And you again lie as government are not responsible for every atrocity. On topic is government responsible for the shooting in the school ? No, thus disproving your claim.
It's only disproving my claim by means of a semantic argument. By atrocity I am referring to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Perhaps you can tell me a non state actor that has ever murdered 100,000+? Because I can't even count on all my fingers or toes the times that governments have done this.
Than you should have said so that you limit yourselves to some arbitrary amount of people. But even then you are incorrect. Number of victims is proportional to the power wielded by the actor. Any organization with power will cause atrocities if not limited by organization with even bigger power. Many non-state actors in history caused atrocities on the scale of states. Rebels, trade organizations, companies, you name it. Plus you do not differentiate between different kinds of states. All of them behave terribly towards other states (caused by the fact that there is no organization above them), but some behave well towards their own population and some do not. Existence of states in some form is inevitable as it stems from deeper biological roots. The only way you can do is influence how the state you live in will look like. Or go off the grid and do not interact with the society.
On December 23 2012 03:38 TerribleNoobling wrote:Show nested quote +You are mixing two things. How states came to be and what they do. All of them came to be by societal contract as that is the basis of the functioning of individual tribes and later they conquered other "states". Plus states evolve, thus your argument would still be invalid even if they did not come to be through societal contract. They are based on it now.
False! You really need to read Oppenheimer's work on this subject. It's available online for free. He completely demolished this thesis over a hundred years ago.
Then quote relevant argument from him or even better paraphrase them as that would show you know what you are talking about. Referencing other works is not a valid argument unless you do so for referencing evidence and in that case you are obliged to provide exact place where the evidence can be found.
On December 23 2012 03:40 TerribleNoobling wrote:
Perhaps you would feel no remorse for murdering an innocent person, even if there was no government to tell you it was wrong, but just by thinking it through I can determine it is wrong to murder, to steal, to aggress against another. I don't need the government to tell me this. I know it because I am human.
I am the furthest person from legalist viewpoint you can find. I am saying that natural law as you understand it does not exist. Morality exists, and that prevents me from killing others. Morality is not based on reason in its basic form. It is an instinct humans have. It is based on fairness and empathy. That instinct is pretty complex and has no absolute bans on taking someone else's property. Taxation is easily moral in many circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
