Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2014, 05:07 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2014 05:14 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(26-05-2014 02:28 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  Luminon,

We can't give you negative statistics and facts about a stateless society because there hasnt been one in recorded history, its hard to argue empirically (which is what you want) against something that has never been tried in the real world and not just in the mind of idealogues like Molyneaux. How about all Anarchists and FDR junkies pull some money and buy some island in the Atlantic and try a stateless society there? Then we'll have something to compare and contrast. Until then statistics and facts are meaningless if you have no empirical falsifying or negative evidence to Monlyneaux societal theory.
There has been a stateless society all the time, it is called a civil society. State does not get to define all our lives. We can argue empirically, only we must do two things.
- Identify the state as coercion (violence). Violence is the main difference that sets the state apart from everything else.
- Measure well-being according to amount of coercion in people's interactions.
Voluntary interaction has been tried in real world for a long time with a great success. We trade and we marry who we want and if we don't want, we say no.
We have a stateless society with our girlfriends and with salesmen, restaurant owners, shopkeepers and so on. Even with our employers.
Yet we are forced to tolerate a money-rape called taxes.
Why is that so? Because in 90 % of cases we don't have a coercion-free or violence-free "stateless" society with our children. We are allowed to assault our children and we as children were in 90 % regularly assaulted and our property rights were not respected. That is what we consider as normal, but this of course can not work in daily life. I think Molyneux has a damn strong case.

Molyneux is not an ideologue, he is a philosopher who derives his arguments from undeniable first principles, that's the difference. If you say he doesn't tell the truth, you say there is such a thing as truth and that it is Universally Preferable to say it. If you say there are multiple truths, then why should I prefer yours?

Why should all the anarchists buy an island and move there? They're not the ones who suck. Those who suck are those who initiate violence.
I think being exiled to an island, isolated from our home, relatives, friends, jobs and the rest of the economy is a terrible act of violence. Why do you want to act violently against anarchists? (I'd say it's a punishment, but they're not guilty of anything)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 06:55 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 05:07 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(26-05-2014 02:28 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  Luminon,

We can't give you negative statistics and facts about a stateless society because there hasnt been one in recorded history, its hard to argue empirically (which is what you want) against something that has never been tried in the real world and not just in the mind of idealogues like Molyneaux. How about all Anarchists and FDR junkies pull some money and buy some island in the Atlantic and try a stateless society there? Then we'll have something to compare and contrast. Until then statistics and facts are meaningless if you have no empirical falsifying or negative evidence to Monlyneaux societal theory.
There has been a stateless society all the time, it is called a civil society. State does not get to define all our lives. We can argue empirically, only we must do two things.
- Identify the state as coercion (violence). Violence is the main difference that sets the state apart from everything else.
- Measure well-being according to amount of coercion in people's interactions.
Voluntary interaction has been tried in real world for a long time with a great success. We trade and we marry who we want and if we don't want, we say no.
We have a stateless society with our girlfriends and with salesmen, restaurant owners, shopkeepers and so on. Even with our employers.
Yet we are forced to tolerate a money-rape called taxes.
Why is that so? Because in 90 % of cases we don't have a coercion-free or violence-free "stateless" society with our children. We are allowed to assault our children and we as children were in 90 % regularly assaulted and our property rights were not respected. That is what we consider as normal, but this of course can not work in daily life. I think Molyneux has a damn strong case.

Molyneux is not an ideologue, he is a philosopher who derives his arguments from undeniable first principles, that's the difference. If you say he doesn't tell the truth, you say there is such a thing as truth and that it is Universally Preferable to say it. If you say there are multiple truths, then why should I prefer yours?

Why should all the anarchists buy an island and move there? They're not the ones who suck. Those who suck are those who initiate violence.
I think being exiled to an island, isolated from our home, relatives, friends, jobs and the rest of the economy is a terrible act of violence. Why do you want to act violently against anarchists? (I'd say it's a punishment, but they're not guilty of anything)

But but but what do you mean back up the bullshit that spews from my mouth with empirical testing?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 07:00 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(26-05-2014 04:26 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-05-2014 05:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'm done - you are saying nothing that every other libertarian True Believer™ who comes here hasn't said,
and you are saying it in the same ranting, whining, childish voice,
and doing the same cherry-picking and twisting of facts,
and making the same kinds of errors of fact.

You 'know' things that simply aren't true.
You're done, but in a different manner. I answered all your (f)actual questions and provided all the information. You're supposed to back down now, or perhaps in a better world, read some Molyneux, Mises and Rothbard and re-consider your position.
Well, considering I'm an European and I have never read Ayn Rand, there must be some independent logical way to arrive at the same conclusion. It's called Austrian school of economy and it's a science.

I'd be worried about this place if we couldn't scrounge up somebody to drink the kool-aid.

"My subjective personal opinions are exclusively correct and superior" is a pathetic attitude. Did you know that?

And do you know what its counterpart is? "Everyone who disagrees with me is actually in denial". Another woefully pathetic mindset - but you better believe it's the true sign of the True Believer.

(26-05-2014 04:26 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Thanks! My ranting was inspired by the deepest sarcasm of atheist videos on Youtube.
Just tell me what exactly do I Truly Believe in, I would call myself a non-believer in starting violence and institutions which do that, such as government.

Facetious horseshit, and you know it.

If you doctor your simplistic and invalid definitions of "initiation of violence" such that they don't quiiiiiite apply to the inevitable social coercion and law enforcement to be found in your proposed "alternatives"... yeah, sure.

(26-05-2014 04:26 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Churches initiate violence against everyone, making them believe they're sinful and they need a salvation.

That doesn't even make sense.

Telling people something is not violence.

(26-05-2014 04:26 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Governments do the same, making people believe they're evil, wild monsters and that without government we'd start killing each other and not help anybody and so we need government to protect us from violent human nature by the use of violent humans in costumes.

What the actual fuck?

No, citation needed, buddy. You can't just make things up.

Do you know what the actual reason for law enforcement is?
We can't assume everybody will magically follow all the rules forever.

(26-05-2014 04:26 AM)Luminon Wrote:  A bunch of people with make-believe rules and both have some good roles and good passages in their books.
Government is a secular Church. Church is a spiritual government.
Let that sink in!

Yeah, vapidly echoing glib and meaningless phrases doesn't actually count as substance.




... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
27-05-2014, 07:39 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2014 07:51 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 06:55 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  But but but what do you mean back up the bullshit that spews from my mouth with empirical testing?
When people say what is actually wrong with what I say. I am a childish immature hypocrital simplistic exaggerating gulligle kool-aid drinking bastard - but none of that is an argument. Keep talking and people are going to ask you why.

(27-05-2014 07:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I'd be worried about this place if we couldn't scrounge up somebody to drink the kool-aid.

"My subjective personal opinions are exclusively correct and superior" is a pathetic attitude. Did you know that?

And do you know what its counterpart is? "Everyone who disagrees with me is actually in denial". Another woefully pathetic mindset - but you better believe it's the true sign of the True Believer.
I'll start worrying when atheists start behaving any different towards Christians Tongue

[Image: 50117424.jpg]

(27-05-2014 07:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Facetious horseshit, and you know it.

If you doctor your simplistic and invalid definitions of "initiation of violence" such that they don't quiiiiiite apply to the inevitable social coercion and law enforcement to be found in your proposed "alternatives"... yeah, sure.
If denial of service (insurance or sale) is coercion, then saying no to a sexual offer is coercion, it's punishing the guy by not giving him sex. (which is what Elliot Rodger said before he murdered 3 women and 4 men) If you think you are somehow entitled to tell people to give you money and pussy or you shoot them, you might want to consider political career.

(27-05-2014 07:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That doesn't even make sense.

Telling people something is not violence.
Oh, who's rallying against indoctrination and scaring children with Hell?
Who's listening to stories about ex-Christians still having Hell nightmares?
Of course telling people something may be violence, it's something we actively do. Violence is force or threats or lies.

(27-05-2014 07:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What the actual fuck?

No, citation needed, buddy. You can't just make things up.

Do you know what the actual reason for law enforcement is?
We can't assume everybody will magically follow all the rules forever.
Such as... politicians and policemen? Circular logic much? Laugh out load

(27-05-2014 07:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  

Nice point, except I don't actually advise against rage. If rage is real, keep it real and look for the bastards who actually, really caused it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 07:49 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 07:39 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 06:55 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  But but but what do you mean back up the bullshit that spews from my mouth with empirical testing?
When people say what is actually wrong with what I say. I am a childish immature hypocrital simplistic exaggerating gulligle kool-aid drinking bastard - but none of that is an argument. Keep talking and people are going to ask you why.

You have never come anywhere close enough to a rational point to need a counter argument. The fact that as soon as Chas started pushing you in your insane fantasy your first response was to go to men with guns shows you have no moral authority to call out initiation of force on any other form of government. You have no plan no response to basic fact of life issues and frankly are as credible in this as you are in your retarded magical field bullshit.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
27-05-2014, 08:05 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 07:49 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You have never come anywhere close enough to a rational point to need a counter argument. The fact that as soon as Chas started pushing you in your insane fantasy your first response was to go to men with guns shows you have no moral authority to call out initiation of force on any other form of government. You have no plan no response to basic fact of life issues and frankly are as credible in this as you are in your retarded magical field bullshit.
What plan? I don't need to have everything planned. Do you want me to plan your life? Or tell you how to solve your basic life issues? People don't need me for that, they have their own mind. Government plans your life with thousands of laws, not me.

My contribution is simple, you can't morally justify initiation of violence. There's no way around that, no matter how hard you try thinking. Defense is OK.

Any law or rule that people would make after that, we can freely accept or reject, all I need to do is asking, will you shoot me if I disobey? I thought that was a silly question, but then, I never tried asking that someone from the government.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 08:06 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2014 08:11 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 07:39 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 07:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Facetious horseshit, and you know it.

If you doctor your simplistic and invalid definitions of "initiation of violence" such that they don't quiiiiiite apply to the inevitable social coercion and law enforcement to be found in your proposed "alternatives"... yeah, sure.
If denial of service (insurance or sale) is coercion, then saying no to a sexual offer is coercion, it's punishing the guy by not giving him sex. (which is what Elliot Rodger said before he murdered 3 women and 4 men).

Indeed. No shit it's coercive. It's exerting influence on another person through control of the fulfillment of their desires. This is indeed inevitable, since nobody can always have everything they always want.

I happen to disagree with Elliot Rodger. But it's self-evident that the world was not responding to him as he'd've liked it to. And?

So. fucking. what?

You really need to follow up on your shallow emotionally-loaded histrionics. Fatuous herrings don't count for jack. So far there's still no substance there.

Or are you still working under the assumption that magical wishful thinking will prevent anyone from ever breaking any rule or having any disagreement about anything ever?

(27-05-2014 07:39 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If you think you are somehow entitled to tell people to give you money and pussy or you shoot them, you might want to consider political career.

You know, I actually find that smarmy, fuckwitted, disingenuous, passive-aggressive and self-righteous insults are not productive.

But, uh, good luck with that.

(27-05-2014 07:39 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 07:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That doesn't even make sense.

Telling people something is not violence.
Oh, who's rallying against indoctrination and scaring children with Hell?
Who's listening to stories about ex-Christians still having Hell nightmares?
Of course telling people something may be violence, it's something we actively do. Violence is force or threats or lies.

Ah, so you are just making magical special pleading arguments.

You think you're ever going to do away with threats and lies, eh?

(27-05-2014 07:39 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 07:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What the actual fuck?

No, citation needed, buddy. You can't just make things up.

Do you know what the actual reason for law enforcement is?
We can't assume everybody will magically follow all the rules forever.
Such as... politicians and policemen? Circular logic much? Laugh out load

That's as vapid as it is facetious. Top form!

Any society is bound by agreements. Literally and explicitly by definition.

And unenforced agreement is worth precisely nothing.

Magical thinking does not maintain order.

I still have very little idea of just what incoherent splutter you're on about, but the part where you savagely denigrated the universal character and integrity of any person ever elected to any government at any level in any nation ever was pretty good proof that we're not going to get a genuine conversation out of this.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 08:09 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 08:05 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(27-05-2014 07:49 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You have never come anywhere close enough to a rational point to need a counter argument. The fact that as soon as Chas started pushing you in your insane fantasy your first response was to go to men with guns shows you have no moral authority to call out initiation of force on any other form of government. You have no plan no response to basic fact of life issues and frankly are as credible in this as you are in your retarded magical field bullshit.
What plan? I don't need to have everything planned. Do you want me to plan your life? Or tell you how to solve your basic life issues? People don't need me for that, they have their own mind. Government plans your life with thousands of laws, not me.

My contribution is simple, you can't morally justify initiation of violence. There's no way around that, no matter how hard you try thinking. Defense is OK.

Any law or rule that people would make after that, we can freely accept or reject, all I need to do is asking, will you shoot me if I disobey? I thought that was a silly question, but then, I never tried asking that someone from the government.

Still nothing that needs a counter-argument as it is incoherent and in no way a response to what I said. Thanks for playing.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2014, 09:39 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 05:07 AM)Luminon Wrote:  There has been a stateless society all the time, it is called a civil society. State does not get to define all our lives. We can argue empirically, only we must do two things.
- Identify the state as coercion (violence). Violence is the main difference that sets the state apart from everything else.
- Measure well-being according to amount of coercion in people's interactions.
Voluntary interaction has been tried in real world for a long time with a great success. We trade and we marry who we want and if we don't want, we say no.
We have a stateless society with our girlfriends and with salesmen, restaurant owners, shopkeepers and so on. Even with our employers.
Yet we are forced to tolerate a money-rape called taxes.
Why is that so? Because in 90 % of cases we don't have a coercion-free or violence-free "stateless" society with our children. We are allowed to assault our children and we as children were in 90 % regularly assaulted and our property rights were not respected. That is what we consider as normal, but this of course can not work in daily life. I think Molyneux has a damn strong case.

Molyneux is not an ideologue, he is a philosopher who derives his arguments from undeniable first principles, that's the difference. If you say he doesn't tell the truth, you say there is such a thing as truth and that it is Universally Preferable to say it. If you say there are multiple truths, then why should I prefer yours?

Why should all the anarchists buy an island and move there? They're not the ones who suck. Those who suck are those who initiate violence.
I think being exiled to an island, isolated from our home, relatives, friends, jobs and the rest of the economy is a terrible act of violence. Why do you want to act violently against anarchists? (I'd say it's a punishment, but they're not guilty of anything)

Interesting you sound off the same doctrinal catchphrases Molyneux uses.

Even if I were to follow your two premises (of which the first is fallactious), it doesnt necessarily follow that abolishing the state would therefore cause less coercion or violence in society in general. Even though Molyneux knows a little about clasical economics he forgets that economists have to consider tradeoffs and incentives. I really doubt he has really objectively considered the incentives and negative tradeoffs his stateless society would create. He tries to fill up the governmental vacuum by imagining these private Conflict Resolution Organization would be erected that have never existed and imagines that somehow they will be unbiased and uncorruptible (Robespierre comes to mind, but i digress). He also doesnt explain how his stateless society would create incentives for virtue aside from his Tabula Rasa theory of human development.

Dont take me wrong, I empathize with the free market and free trade economists like Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell, but even they recognize some limitations of the free market to create a stable society.

It's quite a jump from saying that free markets generally decrease poverty and increase economic opportunities to saying that freedom from government would create a utopian society. FDR church members really are comparing apples to oranges here.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djkamilo's post
27-05-2014, 09:45 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(27-05-2014 08:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. No shit it's coercive. It's exerting influence on another person through control of the fulfillment of their desires. This is indeed inevitable, since nobody can always have everything they always want.

I happen to disagree with Elliot Rodger. But it's self-evident that the world was not responding to him as he'd've liked it to. And?

So. fucking. what?

You really need to follow up on your shallow emotionally-loaded histrionics. Fatuous herrings don't count for jack. So far there's still no substance there.

Or are you still working under the assumption that magical wishful thinking will prevent anyone from ever breaking any rule or having any disagreement about anything ever?
No, you work under that assumption, it's called the Constitution of the United States of America.
People won't obey rules on paper, so let's make more rules on paper. How about no???

(27-05-2014 08:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Ah, so you are just making magical special pleading arguments.

You think you're ever going to do away with threats and lies, eh?
I don't think so either! Especially not in the government! So let's not have government! I can deal with threats and lies, but not with the government. Nobody can deal with government, that's why it's called government.

[Image: 50121975.jpg]

(27-05-2014 08:06 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's as vapid as it is facetious. Top form!

Any society is bound by agreements. Literally and explicitly by definition.

And unenforced agreement is worth precisely nothing.

Magical thinking does not maintain order.

I still have very little idea of just what incoherent splutter you're on about, but the part where you savagely denigrated the universal character and integrity of any person ever elected to any government at any level in any nation ever was pretty good proof that we're not going to get a genuine conversation out of this.
I don't know the people elected and I don't have to. All I need to know is the principle.

Politicians are elected to alter human behavior. They do that by writing words and enforcing them at gunpoint. But this mechanism does not apply on them. Who is going to change their behavior - and how? If humanity is corrupt and needs watching, who is going to watch the watchmen? This is a problem of infinite regression. More committees of watchers means more committees to watch.

That is literally an ancient question. Plato said, let's have philosophers rule with iron hand. Well, that's just another version of might makes right. If he's so right, why can't he explain that to others? Anyone could say that, I'm too intelligent to explain myself, just obey me.

Aristotle said, those who have enough time to pursue virtue, should rule, they should be secured without the need for money or power. Well, good luck getting sponsorship.

Socrates had actually a good case for criticizing the government. But he was brow-beaten into killing himself by posing an empty YET moral category called "the state" and then saying he owes "the state" everything. I guess he paid his bills like everyone else.

All of these guys had pretty low opinions of democracy. Might doesn't make right and neither does voting.

None of these philosophers said, let's not force people at gunpoint or swordpoint, let them refuse service if they disagree.
The right not to be raped is the right to say no.
The right not to be taxed is the same.
Am I allowed to say no? What happens if I say no? What happens if I say no a dozen times to everything you say? Will I get any closer to a posse of armed men along the process?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: