Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-05-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 03:04 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 01:55 PM)Charis Wrote:  I personally do think that making it illegal is good. People murder a lot too, despite murder being illegal. But its illegality is why we're able to apprehend the person to punish them for what they've done and to prevent them from doing it again anytime soon. Illegalizing drunk driving, like murder, is (I think) a good protective measure for everyone.

Disclaimer: I am not saying that drunk driving is on the same level as outright murder. I just used murder because it was the most obviously illegal and harmful act that I could think of at the moment.
The difference perhaps is that every time you murder someone, someone gets hurt?
Anyway as I said I'm not advocating for the legalization of drunk driving. I'm simply not convinced that it is prevented by laws. I happen to think that murder isn't pervented by laws either. But you do have a good point about apprehending law breakers.
I notice you used the word "punish." So as I said earlier it's about vengeance? Educate the person and he is also likely to no reoffend.
I think that we are too caught up in punishing people to see that there is a better answer.

Consider the fact that without a law, there is virtually nothing that can be done about a dangerous act.

Unless there are no laws at all, in which case there's nothing to deter me from executing drunk drivers. Or people who cut me off in traffic. Or gingers. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 03:34 PM (This post was last modified: 23-05-2014 03:38 PM by Drunkin Druid.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 03:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 03:04 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  The difference perhaps is that every time you murder someone, someone gets hurt?
Anyway as I said I'm not advocating for the legalization of drunk driving. I'm simply not convinced that it is prevented by laws. I happen to think that murder isn't pervented by laws either. But you do have a good point about apprehending law breakers.
I notice you used the word "punish." So as I said earlier it's about vengeance? Educate the person and he is also likely to no reoffend.
I think that we are too caught up in punishing people to see that there is a better answer.

Consider the fact that without a law, there is virtually nothing that can be done about a dangerous act.

Unless there are no laws at all, in which case there's nothing to deter me from executing drunk drivers. Or people who cut me off in traffic. Or gingers. Dodgy
I'm with you on the gingers! Lol.
Once again I'm not actually railing against law. I saying that law is not effective in preventing crime. I believe education is the better tool.
Besides killing people is directly hurting others and you will notice that I stated that government can stick their noses in when a person hurts another. But again I don't think vengeance is the answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
I've only just realized that I've been sucked (nobody's fault but mine) into an internet argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
I will give what you've all said some consideration. While I'm doing that I'll be in some other thread making lame jokes and not taking things seriously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 04:11 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 03:34 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 03:26 PM)Chas Wrote:  Consider the fact that without a law, there is virtually nothing that can be done about a dangerous act.

Unless there are no laws at all, in which case there's nothing to deter me from executing drunk drivers. Or people who cut me off in traffic. Or gingers. Dodgy
I'm with you on the gingers! Lol.
Once again I'm not actually railing against law. I saying that law is not effective in preventing crime. I believe education is the better tool.
Besides killing people is directly hurting others and you will notice that I stated that government can stick their noses in when a person hurts another. But again I don't think vengeance is the answer.

Yabut, it has been demonstrated that laws reduce the occurrence of the proscribed behavior. So, there's that.

It is not "the government".

It is our society that makes rules that are instituted and enforced by our representatives who constitute a government.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 04:13 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 03:41 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I've only just realized that I've been sucked (nobody's fault but mine) into an internet argument.

Heh, heh. Laughat

I'll drink to that. Thumbsup

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 01:03 AM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 07:24 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 04:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yabut, it has been demonstrated that laws reduce the occurrence of the proscribed behavior. So, there's that.

It is not "the government".

It is our society that makes rules that are instituted and enforced by our representatives who constitute a government.
Yabut, it has been demonstrated that laws reduce the occurrence of the proscribed behavior. So, there's that.

It is not "the government".

It is our society that makes rules that are instituted and enforced by our representatives who constitute a government.
Yeah, laws reduce occurrence of something, unless they're drug laws, which causes exactly the opposite. We have to stay empirical and see what works. Especially, we need to say empirically what is society. Because everywhere I look, I see only individuals. Some realize they're individuals, some don't.

It's good to have laws, but it's not so good to have a central authority that is above the law and can write laws as they please. They'll always end up selling these laws to rich corporations as privileges. Authority that enforces these laws is also above the law. So people who believe in the government are as much in favor of superior people's exceptions and privileges, as for the laws themselves. Empirically speaking, people who believe in gun control believe in using guns violently by one group of people to take guns away from another group of people. The only peaceful option is not taking things from people, even if it's guns - this position is called "pro-guns" for some reason.

It is not our society that makes the laws. In my country there are about 5 groups of people who have the legislative intiative, that is, they can suggest laws and the Parliament passes them.
Nevertheless, the "society" faces a problem. Laws are made to be broken. With advancement of technologies it is easier to break laws. Lawmakers respond with more laws. Eventually there are so many laws that not even judges can know them and nobody can obey them all, anybody can be found guilty at any time.

Law is a code, it obeys the same logic as a computer code. But the system somehow requires we create an exact virtual reality to our world, so that even small aspects of life are subject to law. Criminals adapt and so law must adapt.
In my opinion as a programmer, if a problem requires excessive amounts of code to cover explicitly, then the whole underlying engine is wrong. If the engine does not allow to prevent some problems natively, then describing reality into detail will slow down and can never keep up with criminals in real life. It is the same problems as in trying to prevent all exploits and possible virus mechanisms in Microsoft Windows. Other systems such as Linux or Microsoft Singularity are designed to be natively resistant to such exploits by their inner logic.

I have studied Austrian school of economy as a means to make rules and resolve disputes without the state. Most legal problems exist simply because the decision-making is taken away from the people and given over to all-powerful lawmakers for no rational or empirical reasons, simply because someone feels that way politically.
What worse, when decisions are made uni-laterally by sovereign lawmakers, there is no way in the universe to ensure they are made according to science and reason!!! There is absolutely no way to watch the watchmaker. (pun intended)

My lessons included these people:
Charles Murray
Milton Friedman
Murray Rothbard (Economy of state interventions)
James Tooley
Ronald Coase - his famous example that radio frequencies don't have to be given out by the state, market will sort them out

Chas, you should really skim over tables of contents in these books. You will see that rules can be made and disputes resolved on free market without the state. It involves just some slightly more advanced contract-making and insurance policies, which is no problem without government regulations.
https://freedomainradio.com/free/#ea
https://freedomainradio.com/free/#pa

Gradually, I came to see that the state is like God. There is God of the gaps and so there is Government of the gaps. People believe government has to do this or that, therefore the government must exist. But still more and more things turns out to have been done privately before the government (and better), are being done privately today or can be done privately. The gap for government role in society is getting small and I would even say it is non-existent, a Hobbesian delusion of "people would murder and rape each other on streets, if there was no government!" Well, they wouldn't. They would come up with hundreds of new ways of safety, just like they came up with hundreds of agricultural inventions after slavery was abolished.
People are parroting Thomas Hobbes and his horrid outlook on human nature all the time, not realizing he is the antithesis of modern social sciences. If people were indeed so evil and disorganized, it would be incapable to organize them on great scale, albeit for destructive purposes. People can organize under the state, because they are good - or rather they desperately want to be good, what they consider to be good. If people were truly evil, then we'd have a a crowd of evil people trying to command each other, instead of one evil person commanding and many obeying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 08:58 AM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 09:11 AM by Chas.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(24-05-2014 01:03 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Chas, you should really skim over tables of contents in these books. You will see that rules can be made and disputes resolved on free market without the state. It involves just some slightly more advanced contract-making and insurance policies, which is no problem without government regulations.

What is it with people like you and frankie? You think anyone who isn't a True Believer™ hasn't investigated your version of political thought?

I have delved quite deeply into libertarian thought. It's pie-in-the-sky.

"advanced contract-making" without regulation? Seriously?
I borrow $20,000 from you with a promise to repay it at some future date certain.
That date arrives, you demand repayment, I tell you to fuck off.
What do you do next? Call me names?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
24-05-2014, 10:49 AM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 11:00 AM by Drunkin Druid.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(24-05-2014 08:58 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 01:03 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Chas, you should really skim over tables of contents in these books. You will see that rules can be made and disputes resolved on free market without the state. It involves just some slightly more advanced contract-making and insurance policies, which is no problem without government regulations.

What is it with people like you and frankie? You think anyone who isn't a True Believer™ hasn't investigated your version of political thought?

I have delved quite deeply into libertarian thought. It's pie-in-the-sky.

"advanced contract-making" without regulation? Seriously?
I borrow $20,000 from you with a promise to repay it at some future date certain.
That date arrives, you demand repayment, I tell you to fuck off.
What do you do next? Call me names?
I guess he could line you up with the drunk drivers, people who cut you off (apparently though you do the cutting off as you drive a BMW) and gingers... Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 11:08 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 03:04 PM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 01:55 PM)Charis Wrote:  I personally do think that making it illegal is good. People murder a lot too, despite murder being illegal. But its illegality is why we're able to apprehend the person to punish them for what they've done and to prevent them from doing it again anytime soon. Illegalizing drunk driving, like murder, is (I think) a good protective measure for everyone.

Disclaimer: I am not saying that drunk driving is on the same level as outright murder. I just used murder because it was the most obviously illegal and harmful act that I could think of at the moment.
The difference perhaps is that every time you murder someone, someone gets hurt?
Anyway as I said I'm not advocating for the legalization of drunk driving. I'm simply not convinced that it is prevented by laws. I happen to think that murder isn't pervented by laws either. But you do have a good point about apprehending law breakers.
I notice you used the word "punish." So as I said earlier it's about vengeance? Educate the person and he is also likely to no reoffend.
I think that we are too caught up in punishing people to see that there is a better answer.
When I say punish, I mean to impose a penalty.
When you say vengeance, I think emotional type of wrath.

I DO mean punish to impose a penalty, yes. If your definition of vengeance is also to impose a penalty, then yes, I would be wanting THAT form of "vengeance" I suppose, if that's what you meant by it.
Being too caught up in punishing people would be one extreme, if we were all obsessed with punishment to the exclusion of everything else. The solution to it, however, is not to abolish punishment/penalties for what people deliberately and knowingly do (driving drunk, murder, etc)

A person very dear to me was badly hurt through a misunderstanding and miscommunication. For this, I am sorry, and he knows it. That said, any blaming me for malicious intent is for the birds. I will not wear some scarlet letter, I will not be anybody's whipping girl, and I will not lurk in silence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: