Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 05:03 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 04:24 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Libertarian to government is like atheist is to the Church. Get it?

[Image: w_485_1331853599_abd0_facepalm.jpg]

And what has that to do with my question?

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Germans are coming's post
16-05-2014, 06:28 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 05:03 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  And what has that to do with my question?
You mean this?

(16-05-2014 03:33 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  Just on a note.

Why is there no human liberterian???

Why do they, when joining a forum, never take part in conversations on ordenary life? Like movies, games, religion, sex, cats, comedy and whatever?

All they do is post elaborat rants against the concept of government in threads about movies, games, religion, sex, cats, comedy and whatever.

Or open threads denouncing governments.

Are you people machines?!
Ah. I side-stepped these questions, because they were not good - just a frustrated rant really - and I didn't want to embarrass you, it's a reflex on my side. But since you insist it's rose petals, let me pick that up right under your nose and let's see how it smells like.

It's a loaded bullshit question. Of course there are human libertarians, so I don't have to tell you why there are not.

Of course they do take part in conversations on ordinary life. Just how long did you spend looking that up? If you go there, you'll find lots of normal conversations. Anyway, have you ever seen atheists talk about atheism? They seem just as focused and fanatical about invasion of religion into their lives. I can understand that too - I became allergic to manipulation once I broke out of it. This allergy, this anger helps us see what's wrong.
http://board.freedomainradio.com/

And again, what you write is nonsense, because you don't back that up empirically. What threads about movies, games, religion, sex, cats and comedy were taken over by libertarians? Where are they?
And even if there were some, so what? How many threads here were taken over by people complaining about religion? And religion is what, less powerful than the state?

Of course, nobody is literally a machine. But the government is a machine. So we complain about the government in the same way, just like atheists complain about the same biblical passages and never seem to tire about it. Why? Because they are surrounded by this shit in daily life, but can't talk about it. People need to vent.

Now you must be irritated because I pick apart your "questions" literally. Of course I do. Unless you speak objectively, I have no other honest choice but to demand they make sense literally. Vague language does not work on people who disagree with you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 07:46 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 04:07 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  The thread title doesn't make sense. It's literally asking if having a government part of the scientific method.

You can apply the scientific method to the running of a government, although most often than not politicians don't listen to their scientific advisors and prefer to go for vote winning strategies that appeal to people's prejudices and ill-formed opinions.

Of course it doesn't make sense. He hasn't even defined 'government'.

And magical thinking isn't problem solving.

(16-05-2014 04:24 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Libertarian to government is like atheist is to the Church. Get it?

Yeah, not at all. Government is collective decision making. That's it. How you would propose a group of human beings coexist without collective decision making, I don't know. Libertarianism is a particular dogmatic ideological approach to collective decision making. That is a church.

I know the term is theoretically broader than that - but the loudest, dumbest idiots are those who have appropriated and monopolised the term. The basic principles are not unique in any case.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
16-05-2014, 08:12 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 07:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Of course it doesn't make sense. He hasn't even defined 'government'.

And magical thinking isn't problem solving.
Why, monopoly on the use of force, of course. Use of force from the point of view of economic science, what do you think? Rings any bells?

(16-05-2014 07:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yeah, not at all. Government is collective decision making. That's it. How you would propose a group of human beings coexist without collective decision making, I don't know. Libertarianism is a particular dogmatic ideological approach to collective decision making. That is a church.

I know the term is theoretically broader than that - but the loudest, dumbest idiots are those who have appropriated and monopolised the term. The basic principles are not unique in any case.
Collective decision making? What does that word sandwich mean? If I went by your definition, then gang rape is collective love making.
Of course I am against collective love imposed on my orifices and also I am against collective decisions imposed on my wallet, such as whom should I give my money if I don't want to go to jail and have my orifices turned into an engine piston chamber. I am very dogmatically against that.

Cjlr, "dogmatic and ideological" does not mean "wrong", it does not mean anything. It's a buzzword with vaguely negative connotation. You are flapping your gums on that.

I'll tell you what does "collective decision making" mean. It means that people we don't personally know, who are nonetheless claimed to "represent" us, whatever that means (something dirty probably), go to an assembly, where they are given unlimited power over everyone and zero responsibility. And yes, they are the loudest and dumbest idiots, idiot savants good at only one thing - making the right grunts and gestures in front of cameras. It is beyond our deepest imagination to even glimpse the depths of their stupidity and so we are deeply surprised every 4 years that they never fulfill any promises and always do the same thing they promised never to do. So the question actually arises, who is the stupid one here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 08:32 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 08:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 07:46 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Of course it doesn't make sense. He hasn't even defined 'government'.

And magical thinking isn't problem solving.
Why, monopoly on the use of force, of course.

Yes, that's a traditional definition.

(16-05-2014 08:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Use of force from the point of view of economic science, what do you think? Rings any bells?

No, since that appears to be a phrase you just made up.

(16-05-2014 08:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Collective decision making? What does that word sandwich mean?

Facepalm

Pretty simple, guy. If there are more than one person, they need a way to make decisions which affect more than one of them.

(16-05-2014 08:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If I went by your definition, then gang rape is collective love making.

Indeed it is one particular form of group interaction.

But thanks for going for an emotional red herring, that's a useful contribution.

(16-05-2014 08:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Of course I am against collective love imposed on my orifices and also I am against collective decisions imposed on my wallet, such as whom should I give my money if I don't want to go to jail and have my orifices turned into an engine piston chamber. I am very dogmatically against that.

That's massively presuppositional and shallow, but okay. Pretty much all current jurisdictions have things called legal rights and law enforcement, which serve to guarantee basic personal integrity. I'm pretty sure I don't actually need to explain grade school civics to you.

It is literally impossible to satisfy every single person every single time. Do you agree or disagree?

The monopoly of force is intended to respond to issues of compliance. The alternative is that any single actor can obstruct the will of and disrupt the wellfare of everyone else.

(16-05-2014 08:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Cjlr, "dogmatic and ideological" does not mean "wrong", it does not mean anything. It's a buzzword with vaguely negative connotation. You are flapping your gums on that.

No, the loudest self-professed "libertarians" are exactly that. They are firmly attached to a very specific set of ideas as they see them, and firmly convinced of their own righteousness.

It most assuredly means something - words mean things. I know what those word mean. I used them because I find them appropriate.

(16-05-2014 08:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I'll tell you what does "collective decision making" mean.

Oh, so when you earlier said you didn't know what it meant, that was... what?

(16-05-2014 08:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It means that people we don't personally know, who are nonetheless claimed to "represent" us, whatever that means (something dirty probably), go to an assembly, where they are given unlimited power over everyone and zero responsibility.

No, that appears to be a deranged fantasy. Thanks for playing. Modern governments operate under rule of law and systems of checks and balances - "unlimited power" is deranged fantasy. Representatives are bound by elections and the aforementioned rule of law - "zero responsibility" is deranged fantasy.

I repeat: magical thinking does not solve problems.

Representative democracy is by far the least worst system of government yet tried. Do you dispute this?

Incidentally, I have met my MP, and I have met my MPP. One might say I do personally know them. They're decent people.

(16-05-2014 08:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And yes, they are the loudest and dumbest idiots, idiot savants good at only one thing - making the right grunts and gestures in front of cameras. It is beyond our deepest imagination to even glimpse the depths of their stupidity and so we are deeply surprised every 4 years that they never fulfill any promises and always do the same thing they promised never to do. So the question actually arises, who is the stupid one here.

Holy mother of fuck.

Could you be any more self-righteous? Could you be more self-absorbed?

I'm thinking, no...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
16-05-2014, 09:58 AM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 10:07 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 08:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Use of force from the point of view of economic science, what do you think? Rings any bells?
No, since that appears to be a phrase you just made up.

Nah, I hoped it would ring your bells with the concept of "preference", which is one of essentials in economy. Force is the negation of preference, therefore negation of economic science. Anything that comes after that is bad economy and bad everything else in general. Does that make sense?

(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Facepalm

Pretty simple, guy. If there are more than one person, they need a way to make decisions which affect more than one of them.
People are free to assemble and make decisions that affects people WITHIN the group. Affecting people outside is commonly known as forcing our made-up nonsense on other people.

(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed it is one particular form of group interaction.

But thanks for going for an emotional red herring, that's a useful contribution.
No. The element of CHOICE is extremely important. People are divided by their interests. Using force to impose their interests on other is morally wrong. When government does that, it is also economical pseudoscience. When common people do that, it is commonly called robbery.

(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's massively presuppositional and shallow, but okay. Pretty much all current jurisdictions have things called legal rights and law enforcement, which serve to guarantee basic personal integrity. I'm pretty sure I don't actually need to explain grade school civics to you.
No, I have my Bc. from that, but I learned hell a lot more since then. What jurisdiction do is basically negate the actual state of things, the actual objective moral rules based on universality of reciprocity into nothingness and then make up their own rules. Objective morality is backed up by logic. Pseudo-morality of governments is an illogical opinion enforced by guns. What government says is "do as I say, not as I do". Nobody must take other people's money or he'll be punished by the government, except the government, who is allowed to take other people's money. There's no logic in that.

(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It is literally impossible to satisfy every single person every single time. Do you agree or disagree?
Yes! So let's not have a central authority. A central authority is guaranteed to satisfy only itself!

And why exactly should anyone be satisfied or unsatisfied? That's their problem. Science is NOT based on a central authority. Government does not do peer review. Peer reviews are done independently by various groups. Last time there was a central authority that, I heard Galileo Galilei's peer review went pretty badly and Giordano Bruno's even worse. But nonetheless, everyone was satisfied except the individual.
So why the hell do we still have a centralized economic peer review, if we dropped it in physics?

(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The monopoly of force is intended to respond to issues of compliance. The alternative is that any single actor can obstruct the will of and disrupt the wellfare of everyone else.
This statement is so wrong on many levels that my stomach churns.
If I want your money and you don't want to give them to me, I pull out a gun at you, to "respond to the issue of non-compliance", to use your euphemistically sugar-coated threat. How would you like that? Is this reciprocally, universally applicable? Not? It's also immoral, by the way. The monopoly of force is used to rob and kill people.

You've got the alternative wrong. The alternative is exactly what is happening today! Force, such as state has a hierarchical structure. Any single actor at the top imposes his will on everyone below. Civil society on the other hand has a flat network structure. Any forceful actor will find himself isolated.

I don't give a fuck about what anyone says something is intended to do. I only care about what it does empirically. I thought rational people are supposed to do that.

(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, the loudest self-professed "libertarians" are exactly that. They are firmly attached to a very specific set of ideas as they see them, and firmly convinced of their own righteousness.

It most assuredly means something - words mean things. I know what those word mean. I used them because I find them appropriate.
Still no meaning inside. Again, what you said does not even claim anyone right or wrong, moral or immoral. Try this instead: tell me, how do you feel about libertarians.

(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh, so when you earlier said you didn't know what it meant, that was... what?
I am a philosopher and I know this stuff a hundred times better than you. However, I have difficulties not providing you all the answers outright. Yet when I try to let you come with your own answers,

(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, that appears to be a deranged fantasy. Thanks for playing. Modern governments operate under rule of law and systems of checks and balances - "unlimited power" is deranged fantasy. Representatives are bound by elections and the aforementioned rule of law - "zero responsibility" is deranged fantasy.
THIS is what I mean by magical thinking. Facepalm
Checks and balances? You might as well say Santa Klaus. Are you seriously implying that words on paper can stop people who have a lot of power and money? And why do you disbelieve in Bible, exactly? It's words on paper too.
Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Have you ever turned on the TV any time in last 18 years or so? To pick any of the crimes I saw in these years would be to shamefully omit the rest, but let's pick Bill Clinton's embargo against Iran, that killed more than 1 million people and was one of officially stated reasons as retribution on the 9/11 attack. What happened with Bill Clinton? He got impeached because of a blowjob and he was still very cool about that. I think glorification of mass murder and mass rape institutions are well within my notion of "zero responsibility and absolute power".

(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  I repeat: magical thinking does not solve problems.

Representative democracy is by far the least worst system of government yet tried. Do you dispute this?
Why should I dispute this? You have just said that representative democracy is NOT GOOD. Least worst does not mean good and I must agree. I think you quoted Albert Einstein there.
That's saying like all religions have been tried and Evangelical Christianity is by far the least worst religion yet tried.
So, have you ever thought of a civil society with no government? There are great civilian alternatives when it comes to justice, security, healthcare, social insurance, work of course. Money is a very ingenious instrument that can be used to create a broad social consensus, resolve disputes, get voluntary compliance, and so on. All of that much cheaper, much higher quality and no worldwide misuse of power. The only problem is, it can't work together with the government, because it's anarchism.

(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Incidentally, I have met my MP, and I have met my MPP. One might say I do personally know them. They're decent people.
Meeting someone says nothing about their decency. I am sure lots of people met Obama, including the Peace Nobel prize staff, before he proceeded murder families and newlyweds all across the Middle East.
Who are their sponsors? What did they give back to those sponsors? What is their influence in proportion to that?

(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Holy mother of fuck.

Could you be any more self-righteous? Could you be more self-absorbed?

I'm thinking, no...
Self-righteous and self-absorbed again does not mean incorrect. It does not show where I would be incorrect. 1,4 million dollar of debt on your head (if you're an American) actually says that someone at the tax office or central bank is very, very self-righteous.
I would love to see you debt-free, I would gladly make anything you buy cheaper because of the tax ratio and import duty in the price being lowered to zero. You deserve a happier April or whatever the tax month is. You deserve to work all year long on your own account, instead working first four months to pay the state.
In return for that, you might at least grant me a keen interest in things outside of me, such as the government, law and philosophy. Philosophy is universal and thus very non-self-absorbed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 11:00 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
I do not doubt that a perfect idyllic scenario that is well balanced for the planet and everything on it can be worked out by us humans, what that system is I have no idea.

However I do not think we are anywhere near a stage for such things to happen, not on this planet anyway. How would such a system be implemented? Unless the current systems all collapsed simultaneously, I think anything that is fair and balanced will be shot down by the current control systems in place. You will always have nay-sayers, meaning that even if you did implement the system, it is "fair" but only if you can assimilate into it..... I was born into this current control system but I do not assimilate.

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 11:39 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Nah, I hoped it would ring your bells with the concept of "preference", which is one of essentials in economy. Force is the negation of preference, therefore negation of economic science. Anything that comes after that is bad economy and bad everything else in general. Does that make sense?

Force is an abstraction in that sense, not that it's particularly coherently defined in any case, and notwithstanding the great many other coercive interactions between humans.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Facepalm

Pretty simple, guy. If there are more than one person, they need a way to make decisions which affect more than one of them.
People are free to assemble and make decisions that affects people WITHIN the group. Affecting people outside is commonly known as forcing our made-up nonsense on other people.

That's transparent evasion. I was only speaking within a single framework, but if you want to go down that road, some issues have no outside.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed it is one particular form of group interaction.

But thanks for going for an emotional red herring, that's a useful contribution.
No. The element of CHOICE is extremely important. People are divided by their interests. Using force to impose their interests on other is morally wrong. When government does that, it is also economical pseudoscience. When common people do that, it is commonly called robbery.

I can't for the life of me figure out how that's a response to my statement.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  That's massively presuppositional and shallow, but okay. Pretty much all current jurisdictions have things called legal rights and law enforcement, which serve to guarantee basic personal integrity. I'm pretty sure I don't actually need to explain grade school civics to you.
No, I have my Bc. from that, but I learned hell a lot more since then. What jurisdiction do is basically negate the actual state of things, the actual objective moral rules based on universality of reciprocity into nothingness and then make up their own rules. Objective morality is backed up by logic.

"Objective" morality.

DOES NOT COMPUTE.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Pseudo-morality of governments is an illogical opinion enforced by guns.

Citation needed.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  What government says is "do as I say, not as I do". Nobody must take other people's money or he'll be punished by the government, except the government, who is allowed to take other people's money. There's no logic in that.

So, you do need to back to grade school civics class. Okay.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  It is literally impossible to satisfy every single person every single time. Do you agree or disagree?
Yes! So let's not have a central authority. A central authority is guaranteed to satisfy only itself!

Wut? That's also a complete lack of response to my actual point.

No decision is perfect. Do you understand this? Consequently, no decision pleases literally everyone. Do you understand this? Consequently, anything else is magical thinking.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And why exactly should anyone be satisfied or unsatisfied? That's their problem. Science is NOT based on a central authority. Government does not do peer review. Peer reviews are done independently by various groups. Last time there was a central authority that, I heard Galileo Galilei's peer review went pretty badly and Giordano Bruno's even worse. But nonetheless, everyone was satisfied except the individual.
So why the hell do we still have a centralized economic peer review, if we dropped it in physics?

What the hell are you talking about?

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  The monopoly of force is intended to respond to issues of compliance. The alternative is that any single actor can obstruct the will of and disrupt the wellfare of everyone else.
This statement is so wrong on many levels that my stomach churns.

That's because you don't understand it.

Liberum veto is a recipe for never getting anything done ever. By agreeing to abide by a decision making process, one recognizes that some decisions can and will go against oneself.

To blindly assume no one is ever going to break the rules or back out of their agreements is magical thinking.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If I want your money and you don't want to give them to me, I pull out a gun at you, to "respond to the issue of non-compliance", to use your euphemistically sugar-coated threat. How would you like that? Is this reciprocally, universally applicable? Not? It's also immoral, by the way.

I'm trying to be charitable, but if you continue the disingenuous nonsense I'll find it very hard indeed.

Crime, by definition, is non-compliance with an agreed-upon set of rules.

Allowing for the possibility of bad things happening, the rational response is to be prepared for such an eventuality.

Or I guess we can return to magical fantasyland where nothing ever goes wrong. That's also an option.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The monopoly of force is used to rob and kill people.

Irrelevant.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You've got the alternative wrong. The alternative is exactly what is happening today! Force, such as state has a hierarchical structure. Any single actor at the top imposes his will on everyone below.

In a totalitarian dictatorship, yes. Let me know if your country or mine turns into one of those overnight, k?

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Civil society on the other hand has a flat network structure. Any forceful actor will find himself isolated.

Isolated how?

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, the loudest self-professed "libertarians" are exactly that. They are firmly attached to a very specific set of ideas as they see them, and firmly convinced of their own righteousness.

It most assuredly means something - words mean things. I know what those word mean. I used them because I find them appropriate.
Still no meaning inside.

Wut?

No, words mean things. I used words. They meant things. I have no idea what you're on about.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Again, what you said does not even claim anyone right or wrong, moral or immoral.

Why should it? I was speaking about comportment.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Try this instead: tell me, how do you feel about libertarians.

Define the term first.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I am a philosopher and I know this stuff a hundred times better than you.

That's why you made up ridiculous nonsense and viciously insulted anyone who's ever been an elected legislator ever?

Interesting use of the word "know".

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  However, I have difficulties not providing you all the answers outright. Yet when I try to let you come with your own answers,

(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  No, that appears to be a deranged fantasy. Thanks for playing. Modern governments operate under rule of law and systems of checks and balances - "unlimited power" is deranged fantasy. Representatives are bound by elections and the aforementioned rule of law - "zero responsibility" is deranged fantasy.
THIS is what I mean by magical thinking. Facepalm
Checks and balances? You might as well say Santa Klaus. Are you seriously implying that words on paper can stop people who have a lot of power and money? And why do you disbelieve in Bible, exactly? It's words on paper too.
Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load

Spouting shit like that is not compelling and barely coherent.

Do you actually, literally, genuinely think there are no checks and balances in any modern state?

For fuckin' serious?

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Have you ever turned on the TV any time in last 18 years or so? To pick any of the crimes I saw in these years would be to shamefully omit the rest, but let's pick Bill Clinton's embargo against Iran, that killed more than 1 million people and was one of officially stated reasons as retribution on the 9/11 attack.

Try no and no. Citation needed and citation needed. Killed more than 1 million people is lunacy. Sunni fundamentalists give zero shits what happens in Shia Iran.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  What happened with Bill Clinton? He got impeached because of a blowjob and he was still very cool about that.

The House initiated the trial and the Senate found in his favour. Shit, that almost sounds like some sort of check and balance between government entities. Huh.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I think glorification of mass murder and mass rape institutions are well within my notion of "zero responsibility and absolute power".

Do you know what a composition fallacy is?

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Why should I dispute this? You have just said that representative democracy is NOT GOOD. Least worst does not mean good and I must agree. I think you quoted Albert Einstein there.

No, Churchill said that. No shit it's not perfect. Nothing is. No one ever claimed so. So what?

And incidentally, no, least worst does not mean not good, any more than least best means bad. That's not valid reasoning.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That's saying like all religions have been tried and Evangelical Christianity is by far the least worst religion yet tried.

Sure, except for the part where it's completely different. Nice try, though. 7/10 would conflate again.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  So, have you ever thought of a civil society with no government?

Since I literally just defined government as a collective decision making process, and since a civil society is a collective entity, no, that's an incoherent supposition.

What crazy definition of "government" are you using here? Clearly something very different from the one I provided.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  There are great civilian alternatives when it comes to justice, security, healthcare, social insurance, work of course. Money is a very ingenious instrument that can be used to create a broad social consensus, resolve disputes, get voluntary compliance, and so on. All of that much cheaper, much higher quality and no worldwide misuse of power. The only problem is, it can't work together with the government, because it's anarchism.

Like what?

Magical thinking doesn't count as an answer.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Incidentally, I have met my MP, and I have met my MPP. One might say I do personally know them. They're decent people.
Meeting someone says nothing about their decency.

No, but it sure as shit means I know them better than you do.

If you feel comfortable, from half a world away, spewing out vicious condemnation of a minor provincial legislator you've never met, who I have interacted with, you are not operating on a sane and rational level. That is a hysterically emotional and pathetically juvenile attitude.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I am sure lots of people met Obama, including the Peace Nobel prize staff, before he proceeded murder families and newlyweds all across the Middle East.

So what?

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Who are their sponsors? What did they give back to those sponsors? What is their influence in proportion to that?

The electorate. Public service.

I mean, I know you love the ol' "lol conspiracy" answer, but Christ.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 08:32 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Holy mother of fuck.

Could you be any more self-righteous? Could you be more self-absorbed?

I'm thinking, no...
Self-righteous and self-absorbed again does not mean incorrect. It does not show where I would be incorrect.

Very little of the above ranting corresponds very closely to reality. I'm not sure what you're basing your opinions on, but I can quite confidently say you have no idea how things actually work in this end of the world.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  1,4 million dollar of debt on your head (if you're an American) actually says that someone at the tax office or central bank is very, very self-righteous.
I would love to see you debt-free, I would gladly make anything you buy cheaper because of the tax ratio and import duty in the price being lowered to zero. You deserve a happier April or whatever the tax month is. You deserve to work all year long on your own account, instead working first four months to pay the state.

Tax dollars don't just get burnt up in sacks, you know.

I remind you once again that there are lots of ways lots of things could improve and stress that literally no one said anything to the contrary. But magical thinking doesn't solve problems, and egotistical self-righteous condemnation is not endearing.

(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  In return for that, you might at least grant me a keen interest in things outside of me, such as the government, law and philosophy. Philosophy is universal and thus very non-self-absorbed.

That doesn't mean philosophers cannot be extraordinarily self-absorbed.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
16-05-2014, 02:09 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 06:28 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 05:03 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  And what has that to do with my question?
You mean this?

(16-05-2014 03:33 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  Just on a note.

Why is there no human liberterian???

Why do they, when joining a forum, never take part in conversations on ordenary life? Like movies, games, religion, sex, cats, comedy and whatever?

All they do is post elaborat rants against the concept of government in threads about movies, games, religion, sex, cats, comedy and whatever.

Or open threads denouncing governments.

Are you people machines?!
Ah. I side-stepped these questions, because they were not good - just a frustrated rant really - and I didn't want to embarrass you, it's a reflex on my side. But since you insist it's rose petals, let me pick that up right under your nose and let's see how it smells like.

It's a loaded bullshit question. Of course there are human libertarians, so I don't have to tell you why there are not.

Oh grand lord and master of what to write and not to write!

I beg you to continue to enlighten us on what shall be writen and what no!

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 04:01 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 04:07 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 11:00 AM)bemore Wrote:  I do not doubt that a perfect idyllic scenario that is well balanced for the planet and everything on it can be worked out by us humans, what that system is I have no idea.

However I do not think we are anywhere near a stage for such things to happen, not on this planet anyway. How would such a system be implemented? Unless the current systems all collapsed simultaneously, I think anything that is fair and balanced will be shot down by the current control systems in place. You will always have nay-sayers, meaning that even if you did implement the system, it is "fair" but only if you can assimilate into it..... I was born into this current control system but I do not assimilate.
Don't say perfect, please. Perfect means a hidden fuck you, this is not real. What I mean is as real as a daily trip to the grocery store. I know a good system when I see one, having seen countless systems, good and bad, foolproof and foolish. This system isn't perfect and I'd prefer The Venus Project, but unlike the present post-monarchic charade, it makes sense. I mean the UPB book within capitalism of course, see further.

Yeah, we are not at a stage. Things are made to happen, if they happened by itself, if there was no state tomorrow, we would not be ready. We would just elect another band of liars to rule us and there would probably be some chaos meanwhile. But by learning and doing about civil society we change ourselves and we become ready for a life without government.

If you are actually interested in how the system would work in practice, you can read this book. As for the transition, you won't like it. USA has been in the state of near permanent warfare for all its history and in the recent century it has been printing money like crazy to pay for all the wars. The reason why global markets seem stable, is that they are so interlinked with dollar, that they are all falling together, like people jumping out of an airplane holding hands and thinking they hold steady, while the ground is approaching.
Printing money is like talking drugs, once you stop, there is always cold turkey. This time it's going to be a major one. 1,4 million of debt per American head, this will not be pretty.

One upside of that is, few people today take the government seriously and almost everyone in there works just for the money. The patriotism or nationalism stuff is pretty much gone. Maybe even policemen and soldiers are just doing their jobs. So what happens when dollar becomes the toilet paper that it is? Well, I hope they lose trust in government and money.
One thing I'm worried about is blame. The poor will be blamed for being "greedy" and the productive middle class too. So I wonder who will take over the discourse. Maybe media will be out of order too, maybe they're too in it just for the money. Everyone who is standing in the way of free, equal society. After that, and it was always all about that, is the raising of children without violence and compulsion, so that the future generations will not flock to the parental illusion of the state. The state never was about rationality, it has been a larger version of an abusive family system. We lived under family authorities and when we emerge from families, we expect another, greater authority above us, God or the state, does not matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: