2

3/12/2010 2:04:53 PM

How many soldiers would really turn guns on their fellow citizens? I'm sure some will take any order they're given, but I have to expect that a large number would refuse.

3/12/2010 2:05:53 PM

I don't think a violent rebellion is necessary. I simply think we need to recognize that the government is immoral and therefore should begin taking away its power, instead of constantly giving it more.

3/12/2010 2:06:55 PM

^^If ordered to mass slaughter for no reason, yes, that's probably true.

But, anything short of that, I doubt we would see a single refusal. If it were just martial law, curfews, disarmament, etc. in a time of "crisis" - they will all do as they are told.

3/12/2010 2:09:23 PM

Quote :

"I don't think a violent rebellion is necessary. I simply think we need to recognize that the government is immoral and therefore should begin taking away its power, instead of constantly giving it more."

But who defines the morality? immoral according to whom?

Also, how? Anything beyond voting or lobbying would require guns.

And how did you come to the conclusion that a government being immoral means we should begin taking away it's power?

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2010 2:13:39 PM

Immoral to the majority of Americans, assuming they think tyranny to be wrong. If Americans recognized the government to be tyrannical, it would not take a violent revolution to dismantle it. We would just need to vote people in who would shrink government and give power back to the people.

Quote :

"And how did you come to the conclusion that a government being immoral means we should begin taking away it's power?"

If government is immoral, or tyrannical, why wouldn't we want less of it?

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ^]

3/12/2010 2:17:27 PM

IF a majority of Americans thought this was a tyranny, THEN we would have armed rebellion.

SINCE we do not have armed rebellion THEN a majority of Americans DO NOT think we are in a tyranny.

People trust the gov't because it gives them clean water, a place to spawn new people, and freedoms. And it protects them from other countries.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Also, I love "wouldn't we want less"? How much less? If it's immoral (according to you), how far would you shrink it? 75%? Why stop there? It's still not based on any actual moral authority, so you'd have to keep shrinking it until it's gone by your argument.

What you're doing is making up an imaginary objective moral authority, saying that the current US government doesn't align perfectly to that, so it must be dismantled.

This doesn't make sense because A) there is no objective moral authority B) there's no rule saying that governments that don't appeal to a moral authority should not exist.

3/12/2010 2:26:50 PM

Fear is the mother of morality - Nietzsche





That is to say: a majority are afraid of living in a system without government, than a system with government and they align their morality to reflect as much.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 2:35 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2010 2:31:49 PM

Yes, if it is immoral it should be completely eliminated. But that doesn't have to happen overnight. It can happen through a gradual process so that disruption to society can be minimal.

Quote :

"What you're doing is making up an imaginary objective moral authority, saying that the current US government doesn't align perfectly to that, so it must be dismantled. "

I'm not making up anything. I am saying that if you believe in equal human rights, or natural rights, I don't see how government can be justified in the context of these rights. If you do not believe in these rights, then government is still tyrannical if they are forcing their view of morality onto you using coercion. In either case, if government is tyrannical, I don't see why anyone would want to give it more power. Instead, the logical thing to do would be work to take away its power and eventually eliminate it altogether.

^ Thank you. That actually makes sense. Government lives off of fear, and fear can cause people to be irrational. I would hope that maybe reason could be used to overcome fear eventually.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 2:37 PM. Reason : ^]

3/12/2010 2:34:32 PM

Quote :

"Government lives off of fear, and fear can cause people to be irrational. I would hope that maybe reason could be used to overcome fear eventually. "

Except that the only thing people are more afraid of than government, is not having a government






(not saying this is true for everyone, it obviously isn't, just trying to frame the american majorities opinion)

3/12/2010 2:45:13 PM

Clearly it's not true for this guy.

Try to work in the word tyranny a few more times.

3/12/2010 2:48:59 PM

"Equal rights" are a fabrication of society, enforced by the government. Specifically Non-Islamic governments. Specifically Non-Islamic governments only recently after accepting women and black people as equals.

3/12/2010 3:10:36 PM

This guy is obviously a nutjob. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be salisburyboy.

3/12/2010 3:20:55 PM

Are you referring to me? What about anything I've said indicates that I'm obviously a nutjob? Or is it just that anyone who thinks government is illegitimate is "obviously a nutjob"?

Also me being or not being a "nutjob" does not impact the validity of my claims. So maybe you should explain to me where I'm wrong. I would actually like to find a reason to think that government is legitimate. Unfortunately I don't see it.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 3:29 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2010 3:26:13 PM

You living in a dream world makes you a nutjob. You think you have any rights? What is a right, to begin with? Define a right. They're a concept and nothing more. If someone breaks in your house with a gun and wants to anally sodomize you with a cactus, where are your rights?

A right is a mythical concept that's a lot of fun to think about, but when it comes down to it, they don't exist. So your little thread that seems like nothing but a setup for a rant against government or authority, which you seem to think is only "legitimate" if YOU like it and these rights that don't exist and whether they're being taken away in a tyrannical fashion is fucking LAUGHABLE.

So go eat a dick and try to think of something original to spew rather than this salisburyboy-esque bullshit.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 3:53 PM. Reason : *]

3/12/2010 3:53:11 PM

So I'm a nutjob for thinking that people should not be forced to conform to other's views. I guess that means that normal now is believing that it is ok for you to treat anyone else however you feel like it with no regard for their well-being at all? I don't think that is really the view of most people.

So let me get this straight, there is no absolute right or wrong, so obviously government must be right and I must be wrong? I must say I'm not convinced.

3/12/2010 4:05:24 PM

^ Where the fuck did you get that from what I said?

Whatever, nutjob. I'm through with you.

Next idiot, you're up.

3/12/2010 4:22:27 PM

Quote :

"So let me get this straight, there is no absolute right or wrong,"

Yes.

Quote :

" so obviously government must be right and I must be wrong"

lolwut?

3/12/2010 4:30:10 PM

Ok.

So I'm still wondering, whether you believe in natural rights, equal rights, or no rights at all, can anyone explain how government can be seen as anything but tyrannical? Or explain why we should be supportive of a tyrannical government?

So far it seems the best answer is that people are generally afraid of anarchy and so dismiss logical thought in order to accept government (and their laws) as being legitimate. That is inadequate for me personally, but I can definitely see how people could think that way.

What I'm looking for is more of an argument for why we should accept being forced to go along with what government says. What gives them the right to initiate violence against us to make us conform to their will? Yes, I understand that they have guns. But if we only do what they say because they have guns, why would we want to strengthen that institution instead of weakening it?

3/12/2010 4:37:57 PM

Quote :

"So far it seems the best answer is that people are generally afraid of anarchy and so dismiss logical thought in order to accept government (and their laws) as being legitimate. That is inadequate for me personally, but I can definitely see how people could think that way. "

This is where many disagree with you. They don't come to the same conclusion that anarchy is better than the order government provides. They think that the protections government provides against rights infringement is more of a positive than the negatives associated with not having a government. Like most things government is neither good or evil, but falls somewhere in the middle (with some governments being better than others). Its a pretty debatable topic, and sorta comes down to opinion, I think we know where you stand from the other thread.

3/12/2010 5:31:38 PM

Quote :

"So on what moral basis should these governments be compared?"

You don't have to have a basis to compare things. For example, I am able to say "thing A tastes better than thing B" without having to be able to say, thing A is the definition of something that tastes good.

Quote :

"I simply think we need to recognize that the government is immoral and therefore should begin taking away its power, instead of constantly giving it more."

Again, we stated, you consider the laws of the government immoral, and that goes against the fact that laws and morals are not the same thing.

Quote :

"Immoral to the majority of Americans, assuming they think tyranny to be wrong. If Americans recognized the government to be tyrannical, it would not take a violent revolution to dismantle it. We would just need to vote people in who would shrink government and give power back to the people."

You've missed a step there. Explain how "no government" is moral.

3/12/2010 5:42:52 PM

Quote :

"You've missed a step there. Explain how "no government" is moral."

If government is immoral, then the absence of it would be moral. That does not mean there would be no evil in the world, but government would not be part of it, simply because government would not exist.

As I have reiterated, I believe in natural rights, and I believe government violates these natural rights, which makes it immoral. It also appears to me that most of our society also believes in natural rights, so why do they not see government as immoral?

You do not believe in natural rights, but does that mean that you think it is not unjust for others to force their values and beliefs onto you, even though these values are not based in anything objective?

3/12/2010 6:10:24 PM

Quote :

"If government is immoral, then the absence of it would be moral."

No it isn't. Not only is it false bivalence, but it's just plain stupid.

3/12/2010 6:12:40 PM

Quote :

"I'm not making up anything. I am saying that if you believe in equal human rights, or natural rights, I don't see how government can be justified in the context of these rights. If you do not believe in these rights, then government is still tyrannical if they are forcing their view of morality onto you using coercion. In either case, if government is tyrannical, I don't see why anyone would want to give it more power. Instead, the logical thing to do would be work to take away its power and eventually eliminate it altogether."

Except that everyone's view of what is right and moral is different. If you were to eliminate the gov. so that people could have their natural rights (or whatever it is you seem to want), someone who feels it's their right to amass power is just going to take over and become the government.

If YOU feel the gov. is immoral, then you are currently free through various means to try and change it. But if you can't convince enough other people that your one idea of morality is right, you're going to look like a terrorist.

The gov., as has been noted many times throughout this thread, provides the members of a society a means to settle disputes without having to resort to a despotism or anarchy-like system where each individual enforces their rights by force. This is simply easier, safer, more convenient, and more conducive to the advancement of society, science, and technology (the things i view as the moral imperative of a government).

3/12/2010 6:14:34 PM

^^ Of course it is. If initiating force is immoral, then not initiating force is moral. Or at least more moral, since there would be less immorality.

Quote :

"The gov., as has been noted many times throughout this thread, provides the members of a society a means to settle disputes without having to resort to a despotism or anarchy-like system where each individual enforces their rights by force. This is simply easier, safer, more convenient, and more conducive to the advancement of society, science, and technology (the things i view as the moral imperative of a government)."

Ok, but someone has to enforce the rights by force. It may be easier, safer, and more convenient to let someone else enforce their values in our society instead of us having to do it, but easier, safer, and more convenient does not mean better. If we are entrusting our lives to the values of some other group that we have no control over, that seems dangerous to me.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 6:33 PM. Reason : -]

3/12/2010 6:32:50 PM

Quote :

"If we are entrusting our lives to the values of some other group that we have no control over, that seems dangerous to me."

what the fuck do you think would happen if there were no government?

You'd still be at the mercy of groups of other people, who potentially have a greater means for violence, that you have no control over, who could choose to impose their values on you at any time they please.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 6:36 PM. Reason : .]

3/12/2010 6:35:58 PM

Quote :

"If initiating force is immoral, then not initiating force is moral. Or at least more moral, since there would be less immorality."

Now you've put quantifiers on it. Let's use X. X is immoral. Now you would say that !X is more moral than X. Now !X could still be immoral, so this means that !(!X) is more moral than !X. Thus we have just proved that X is more moral than !X as well as proving that !X is more moral than X.

3/12/2010 6:46:21 PM

^But I was just referring to eliminating something immoral. I don't see how an immoral force or institution ceasing to exist could ever be immoral.

^^I'm not against the government per se. I'm just against them claiming a monopoly on violence or using coercion to force people to do what they want. I feel that people should be free to choose not to be involved with this government if they so choose. Of course, this would lead to competing "governments", which would really turn into several industries... defense, courts, etc. As long as people are choosing to support such institutions voluntarily because they believe they are benefiting from them, I don't have a problem with it. I just don't understand how it is right for us to be forced to conform to one institution's ideas of how society should operate.

[Edited on March 12, 2010 at 6:53 PM. Reason : ^]

3/12/2010 6:48:23 PM

Quote :

"But I was just referring to eliminating something immoral. I don't see how an immoral force or institution ceasing to exist could ever be immoral."

The whole kill one to save ten kind of thing.

Quote :

"I'm just against them claiming a monopoly on violence or using coercion to force people to do what they want."

Well better a democratic government than anyone else right? Because someone will always have a monopoly on force, and that person will always be able to determine the real-world rights of anyone else.

Quote :

"I feel that people should be free to choose not to be involved with this government if they so choose."

You have that right. This government will let you leave.

Quote :

"As long as people are choosing to support such institutions voluntarily because they believe they are benefiting from them, I don't have a problem with it."

And who is going to enforce that?

3/12/2010 6:58:14 PM

Quote :

"Well better a democratic government than anyone else right? Because someone will always have a monopoly on force, and that person will always be able to determine the real-world rights of anyone else."

Why must someone always have a monopoly on force? The only reason it exists currently is because society views it as legitimate. If society decided it did not want a monopoly of violence, there is no reason such a society could not be maintained.

Quote :

"You have that right. This government will let you leave."

But one should not have to leave. This country is not a private business owned by the federal government. Why should they be able to say what is allowed and is not allowed inside the borders?

Quote :

"And who is going to enforce that?"

It would be the responsibility of those in the society to protect their society, as it should be, and as it is now.

3/12/2010 7:06:47 PM

Quote :

"If we are entrusting our lives to the values of some other group that we have no control over, that seems dangerous to me"

True, except we have a fair amount of control over our gov. the way it’s designed.

Someone in Iran, for example, because of their religious theocracy, can’t say the same thing.

3/12/2010 7:07:00 PM

Quote :

"If society decided it did not want a monopoly of violence, there is no reason such a society could not be maintained"

Yes there is, if you decide you don't want a monopoly on force, and I decide I do, then all I need to do is to take the monopoly on force, then I decide the rules.

Quote :

"Why should they be able to say what is allowed and is not allowed inside the borders?"

Because they own it. You do believe in ownership of property, right? You should come in my other thread.

Quote :

"It would be the responsibility of those in the society to protect their society, as it should be, and as it is now."

They would succumb easily to a monopoly on force. Just look at Somalia, they have no government, and the person who decides the rules is the person with the most guns.

3/12/2010 8:34:55 PM

I'm convinced that ghotiblue is a troll. There's no way anyone could possibly want to go back to city-states.

There are fucking nuclear weapons aimed at us 24/7. welcome to the real world.

3/12/2010 10:00:44 PM

I'm really not trying to be ridiculous here... I just think this is an interesting discussion to have. If you are not interested in it, feel free to ignore the thread.

So far it seems that nobody is arguing for the legitimacy of government, only that along with the bad, it also provides good services and so it is necessary for a healthy society. This goes back to the commonly stated, "government is a necessary evil". So let me ask a different question:
If it were possible for society to provide the benefits of government without requiring the use of coercion to achieve these benefits, would that not be preferable? I'm not asking whether or not you think it is possible, I'm just wondering if there is any reason that people would not prefer a voluntary society to a forced governmental society if the voluntary society were able to provide the security, defense, etc. that governments do.

3/13/2010 12:30:57 PM

Quote :

"So far it seems that nobody is arguing for the legitimacy of government"

No one would because it is stupid. We can't have a moral government without a god to tell us exactly what the morals are.

Quote :

"If it were possible for society to provide the benefits of government without requiring the use of coercion to achieve these benefits, would that not be preferable?"

Sure, it would be great to live in magical fantasy land.

3/13/2010 1:03:09 PM

^ Then you agree, holding everything else equal, taxation makes the situation worse.

3/13/2010 1:20:13 PM

Well we would have to be in fantasyland.

3/13/2010 1:23:13 PM

So then given the choice between services supported voluntarily, and services supported through coercion, you agree that the voluntary approach is better. It is generally assumed that defense can only be provided through a state monopoly, but I don't see why that must be true. But before we even get to defense, there are many services that the government provides currently which could very obviously be provided through voluntary means. I see no justification for forcing people (by threat of violence) to support programs and services that could easily be provided voluntarily if they were wanted.

3/15/2010 1:23:43 PM

Citizenship is optional.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

3/15/2010 1:55:08 PM

Quote :

"So then given the choice between services supported voluntarily, and services supported through coercion, you agree that the voluntary approach is better."

No, given the choice between having to pay for a service and getting it for free, I would choose getting it for free, but this is the real world, and we don't have that choice. If we didn't pay for it we wouldn't get it.

3/16/2010 5:42:02 PM

Those weren't the options. The options are, services provided by forcing people to pay for them, or services provided by giving people the choice to pay for them if they would like. Government uses the first option, while the market uses the second.

If I have a lawn care business that requires everyone who lives in Raleigh (whether or not they even have a lawn in the first place) to pay for this service or else be imprisoned, no one would go for that. Yet that's exactly what we get with government. Forced monopolies and services supported by the threat of violence. So why is this better than allowing people to decide for themselves what services they want and who they would like to provide these services?

3/17/2010 10:42:20 AM

Quote :

"Government uses the first option, while the market uses the second. "

This is where it breaks down for me. I'll admit that there is some coercion and violence related to government. I support some libertarian ideas, and I definitely recognize a need for their voices to be heard in our government.


But I also happen to believe that a trully free market (w/ zero government) can be just as coercive and violent as government.

[Edited on March 17, 2010 at 12:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/17/2010 12:38:05 PM

Quote :

"Government uses the first option, while the market uses the second."

The market doesn't work without the first option, what's going to make me pay if I could just take it?

3/17/2010 12:49:05 PM

^^ Anyone can be violent and coercive with or without government. The difference is that it is legitimized in the form of government and so people accept it and don't fight against it. I see no difference between the government doing it and a corporation doing it.

^ What would you "just take"? Private companies charge for their services. If you do not pay, you don't receive the service. That's the way markets work.

3/17/2010 1:44:09 PM

NM

[Edited on March 17, 2010 at 2:14 PM. Reason : NMNMNMNMNMNMNMMMNMNMNMNMMNMNMNMNMN]

3/17/2010 2:10:35 PM

The only thing stopping me from "just taking it" without the gov't would be guns. If the market has enough guns to control everyone from not taking things, then their violence will become legitimized and accepted and they'll basically be the gov't again.

3/17/2010 2:19:20 PM

You're already jumping into anarchy. What about all of the other services the government forces us to pay for besides defense?

Quote :

"It is generally assumed that defense can only be provided through a state monopoly, but I don't see why that must be true. But before we even get to defense, there are many services that the government provides currently which could very obviously be provided through voluntary means."

3/17/2010 2:26:14 PM

But isn't the whole point of your stupid thread the violence that the gov't is authorized to use against you?

You're arguing for privatizing all services the government provides except protection against crime? Then the situation doesn't change. The gov't still has the guns, they still get to tell you what to do.

3/17/2010 2:34:05 PM

The point is that the use of coercion should be minimized as much as possible. I think it may be possible for defense to be privatized, but that becomes complex and we're a long way from that point. But it is certainly possible for many other instances of coercion to be cut out.

Citizens have guns as well, and can defend themselves against unjustified actions by those in power. The problem becomes much worse when those in power are viewed as legitimate rulers because it takes a much greater violation of rights before people decide action needs to be taken. By that point, it is harder to regain control.

[Edited on March 17, 2010 at 2:46 PM. Reason : ]

3/17/2010 2:41:34 PM

No the real point is it doesn't do any fucking good to go round and round with you about any of this shit because it's all based in LALA-Land.

3/17/2010 2:49:24 PM