Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2014, 07:19 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
So you get rid of government.

Who pays for:
- Police
- Street lights
- Military
- Fire and rescue services
- welfare (this could be done via charity I admit)
- roads/infrastructure
- Other public services

Who regulates:
- Health
- Education
- Prisons and basically the whole law and order sector. Private prisons are for profit and it's not financially viable for them to stop crime. You really trust them to regulate themselves?
- health and safety for employees
- The economy (monopolies, consumer law etc..)

etc.. etc...

"People can pay into an organization that deals with all that"

*face palm*

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 07:25 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2014 07:33 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 07:12 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  None of what you suggest is realistic. You don't understand human behavior at all. Not only that but you get it blatantly wrong. You just assume politician = evil and regular person = good. You don't understand the human element in this and how humans interact to each other. Not to mention the other shit about you not understanding what government, money or tax is.
I did not say that politicians are evil, but that the act of politics is immoral, therefore evil. It is an act of putting forward positive obligations for people in an arbitrary way and enforcing them with threats of police (tax, court, prison) violence.

(17-05-2014 07:12 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  All combined has resulted in this extremely unrealistic opinion that you're trying to get across as some sort of solution to some sort of problem.
It's not a solution, not a realistic one anyway, at all. In fact it'd be harmful because you don't understand human nature and make false assumptions about this wrong understanding of human nature. You throw around "6 years of education" but that doesn't mean shit when you don't understand the basic drivers behind what you're trying to preach, that being economics and human nature.
You have an ignorant wrong biased view of how the world works.

And what the fuck does my discipline have to do with this?
Everything. When people say "human nature", they actually say "my parents".

In my experience and experience of people I came to respect eventually, when people say "human behavior", they always mean "my parents' behavior". I thought this wasn't true, so had a few deep talks to my parents and I found out it was. Parents teach us what "people" are, just as they teach us what a language is. We can not avoid that imprinting any more than we can avoid learning our first language. I learned that without self-knowledge and knowledge of our childhood discipline, we can never have an objective opinion on matters of human society and discipline. That's why I ask about it when I encounter a disagreement that seems to run deeper than facts and arguments.

(17-05-2014 07:19 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  So you get rid of government.

Who pays for:
- Police
- Street lights
- Military
- Fire and rescue services
- welfare (this could be done via charity I admit)
- roads/infrastructure
- Other public services

Who regulates:
- Health
- Education
- Prisons and basically the whole law and order sector. Private prisons are for profit and it's not financially viable for them to stop crime. You really trust them to regulate themselves?
- health and safety for employees
- The economy (monopolies, consumer law etc..)

etc.. etc...

"People can pay into an organization that deals with all that"

*face palm*
Who would pick cotton if there were no black slaves? People ended slavery and that was the end of cotton, that plant went almost extinct. Now cotton fabric is more expensive than silk.

Does this make no sense to you? Good! Read Practical Anarchy and Everyday Anarchy.
http://freedomainradio.com/free/#ea
http://freedomainradio.com/free/#pa

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 07:36 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 07:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Do you want to say that you agree with the non-aggression principle? In that case, I have no problem with you. Go forth and talk about the non-aggression principle, from legislating rooms against law-giving as a form of attacking citizens, to parenting sessions against spanking and other forms of attacking children.

Yes, and you look a little silly for presuming otherwise, eh?

No, what I disagreed with was the histrionic conspiracist raving.

(17-05-2014 07:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  As for Godwin's law, Nazis are a part in my law studies. The principle of Roman law says, "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege", the law does not work retroactively. I was taught that Nazis broke something called "natural law".
Nuremberg trials were one of a few cases in world's history that broke the principle of non-retroactivity. The authorities admitted that there is such a thing as natural law and that people can break it, even if they have perfectly legislated words of paper justifying their actions. They just didn't actually say what is that "natural law".

Except what you said, when I mentioned the existence of laws, was the ever-petulant, "oh yeah? well, the Nazis also had laws..."

(17-05-2014 07:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Later I learned that is a very underestimating way to put it. The natural law is based on the only rational, sensible natural reality, compared to which all man-made written laws are just opinions. Just as homeopathy is a futile exercise at bad medicine, legislature is a futile exercise at bad philosophy.

Winners don't presuppose objectivity. Human opinion is all there is.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-05-2014, 07:42 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
Quote:Everything. When people say "human nature", they actually say "my parents".

In my experience and experience of people I came to respect eventually, when people say "human behavior", they always mean "my parents' behavior". I thought this wasn't true, so had a few deep talks to my parents and I found out it was. Parents teach us what "people" are, just as they teach us what a language is. We can not avoid that imprinting any more than we can avoid learning our first language. I learned that without self-knowledge and knowledge of our childhood discipline, we can never have an objective opinion on matters of human society and discipline. That's why I ask about it when I encounter a disagreement that seems to run deeper than facts and arguments.

My mother is a lefty Catholic who advocates a nanny state.
My dad is ignorant of politics and economics and doesn't give a fuck about either.
In fact he never votes.

I am a right wing liberal who's pro-business and believes in minimal government (but not none because I'm not stupid).

So... Drinking Beverage

Quote:Who would pick cotton if there were no black slaves? People ended slavery and that was the end of cotton, that plant went almost extinct. Now cotton fabric is more expensive than silk.

If you are suggestion that police force and other public services are not necessary than you're digging yourself further into your pit of ignorance and stupidity.

You also haven't answered the questions.
Your view is unrealistic, it's that simple.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
17-05-2014, 07:53 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2014 09:53 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes, and you look a little silly for presuming otherwise, eh?

No, what I disagreed with was the histrionic conspiracist raving.
Histrionic and conspiracist does not mean incorrect. You can not use these as reasons for disagreeing with me.

(17-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Except what you said, when I mentioned the existence of laws, was the ever-petulant, "oh yeah? well, the Nazis also had laws..."
I didn't want to lecture you on my law lessons.
Again, petulant does not mean incorrect.
Petulant is an emotional reaction on your part. Another person would see me as "bold", "passionate" or "asshole-ish" and I would not care either. If you care about how things are said and not about their correctness, then you should have said that much earlier and wear it proudly on your sleeve, so people can avoid you.

(17-05-2014 07:18 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Later I learned that is a very underestimating way to put it. The natural law is based on the only rational, sensible natural reality, compared to which all man-made written laws are just opinions. Just as homeopathy is a futile exercise at bad medicine, legislature is a futile exercise at bad philosophy.

Winners don't presuppose objectivity. Human opinion is all there is.
[/quote]
I don't know what do you mean by winners. The point is objectivity. If winners assert their opinion against reality, they still lose against reality.
If human opinion is all there is, then your statement can never be objective. Is that only your opinion, or an objective truth? If it's an objective truth, then it is more than human opinion, so it's self-contradictory.

You seem to profess relativism, a basic philosophical error that Descartes made too and lost about 60 years of his life thanks to it. Relativism is a wrong turn in reasoning.
If our human opinion is all there is, then we are not even competent to read our own measuring instruments which are supposed to be objective. We would not be competent to construct them, if human opinion was all there is. You can not doubt human mind and then come to rescue with scientific instruments created by and read by human mind!

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 08:05 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2014 08:34 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 07:42 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  My mother is a lefty Catholic who advocates a nanny state.
My dad is ignorant of politics and economics and doesn't give a fuck about either.
In fact he never votes.

I am a right wing liberal who's pro-business and believes in minimal government (but not none because I'm not stupid).

So... Drinking Beverage
So if you hypothetically believed in no government at all, you would be stupid. When we are called stupid, we feel ashamed. I also felt ashamed when my parents judged me. Shame was their extremely powerful instrument to control me. I distanced myself from them and their opinions, but there are still remains of this shame in me and sometimes I want to call others stupid when they make a mistake, because that momentarily relieves my anxiety when I know others are wrong. When I was wrong, I got always attacked or shamed by my parents and I accepted it as the way we deal with differing opinions, we shame them by saying they're stupid.

That, or I'd have to say a lot of unpleasant things to my parents about how I feel about their methods of upbringing. The difference between us is, I said these things to my parents and you didn't. It was one of the hardest things I did in my life. Now I see shaming for what it is, an imprint of getting attacked and shamed by parents for disagreeing with them. And I want to talk to you, not to your parents.

(17-05-2014 07:42 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  If you are suggestion that police force and other public services are not necessary than you're digging yourself further into your pit of ignorance and stupidity.

You also haven't answered the questions.
Your view is unrealistic, it's that simple.
*putting on Morpheus' glasses*
What if I told you my view is not unrealistic, but you just refuse to learn the content of my views by ignoring its existence, even though I had posted three free e-books here? (if I count UPB)

I don't need to answer the questions personally, I posted links to two free e-books that answer the questions. My truth or falsehood does not hinge or what I know or don't know. Society is everyone's business and anyone can come up with solutions. People first ended slavery because it was the right thing to do, then they came up with cotton-processing machines. Meanwhile they walked around buck-naked.

Police force and most of other public services are necessary, but they can be easily run as a private business. There is nothing moral or morally neutral in the world that a civil society that private persons couldn't do better and cheaper than the state. If people did it before, people will do it or pay others to do it, if they want it or have an objective evidence that it is necessary. Why there are regulations on dentistry and healthcare? Because there is objective medical evidence that such and such standards are necessary. I prefer a dentist who knows these regulations and I will pay money for his knowledge.
How would you resolve a lack of police, roads and courts? For myself, I'm afraid to tell you if you don't already know that, by googling Blush It worked for solving the problems with evolution.

If you are a right-wing liberal, you would be especially interested in the concept of Dispute Resolution Organizations. You can find it in the book Practical Anarchy.
http://freedomainradio.com/free/#pa

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 09:18 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 02:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I'd prefer the foolproof system, but setting it up takes time. Shedding the historical parasite can be done quickly. Meanwhile I must accept the science of private sector economy. Things may look acceptable now, but all media are controlled by the government and we pay all the time with our economic opportunities. We could get hell a lot more pleasant and easier jobs if all people got their work's worth.

You kind of ramble-on with incoherency. But ultimately your project needs a scientific social contract system to organize the society.

Government is needed to regulate commerce and to protect the culture from foreign invasion, domestic disorderliness, and natural disasters.
I don't think you mentioned all of that it you're long and drawn out tome.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 09:26 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2014 09:50 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 09:18 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  You kind of ramble-on with incoherency. But ultimately your project needs a scientific social contract system to organize the society.

Government is needed to protect the culture from foreign invasion, domestic disorderliness, and natural disasters; it is also needed to regulate commerce.

I don't think you mentioned all of that it you're long and drawn out tome.
Nope, no contract needed. Science is Universally Preferable to opinion or ignorance.
Culture needs no protection, because culture is neither truth, nor virtue.
Government is not needed for protection if government is the main source of foreign invasions. When domestic disorderliness or foreign invasions occur, what I need is a personal weapon, ammunition, cell phone, food, water and medicine. Not government. Units of civil defense can organize voluntarily like fire brigades. Yes, a government can invade the country with tanks, drones, aircraft carriers, helicopters, bombarders and interceptors - but that doesn't actually say we should have government, it only says that people in that other country shouldn't. These things are all paid by mass-printed counterfeit money, nationalizing the means of production without even touching them. Government is the problem, not solution.

What can government do about natural disasters? Pass a bill to ban them? Again, just as secular charity organizations exist, so can non-governmental charity exist.

As for regulation of commerce, everyone since Adam Smith would disagree with you. Why would we want an institution to which we pay money and it makes our export more expensive for others, at which they make their import more expensive to us? That's what regulations are. Here again government is the problem, not solution. That's one of reasons why there are institutions with border and trade union like EU or USA, because having trade regulations between states is a pain in the ass. Let's have a duty-free zone called Earth, where things are cheaper. The only reason for trade regulations is, because it's a privilege that someone bribed out of politicians.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2014, 11:51 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 07:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Yes, and you look a little silly for presuming otherwise, eh?

No, what I disagreed with was the histrionic conspiracist raving.
Histrionic and conspiracist does not mean incorrect. You can not use these as reasons for disagreeing with me.

I don't have to believe a failure pile of assertions just because you assert them.

(17-05-2014 07:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(17-05-2014 07:36 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Except what you said, when I mentioned the existence of laws, was the ever-petulant, "oh yeah? well, the Nazis also had laws..."
I didn't want to lecture you on my law lessons.
Again, petulant does not mean incorrect.

I did not say incorrect. I certainly agree that the Nazis had laws.

(17-05-2014 07:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Petulant is an emotional reaction on your part.

No, it's my assessment of your response.

(17-05-2014 07:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Another person would see me as "bold", "passionate" or "asshole-ish" and I would not care either.

If you're trying to hold a reasonable discussion, your own comportment is an integral part of it.

(17-05-2014 07:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If you care about how things are said and not about their correctness, then you should have said that much earlier and wear it proudly on your sleeve, so people can avoid you.

I usually try to cut you some slack because you don't always know when you're being an asshole.

Don't be an asshole.

(17-05-2014 07:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't know what do you mean by winners. The point is objectivity. If winners assert their opinion against reality, they still lose against reality.
If human opinion is all there is, then your statement can never be objective. Is that only your opinion, or an objective truth? If it's an objective truth, then it is more than human opinion, so it's self-contradictory.

Sweet fucking Jesus, it's the roadrunner tactic.

Well, that's a response, I guess. The dumbest one possible, but, okay.

(17-05-2014 07:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You seem to profess relativism, a basic philosophical error that Descartes made too and lost about 60 years of his life thanks to it. Relativism is a wrong turn in reasoning.
If our human opinion is all there is, then we are not even competent to read our own measuring instruments which are supposed to be objective. We would not be competent to construct them, if human opinion was all there is. You can not doubt human mind and then come to rescue with scientific instruments created by and read by human mind!

What the shit are you talking about this time?

Science is a human method applied by flawed human beings to overcome their own awareness of their own subjectivity in order to approach an unreachable standard of empirical objectivity. Learn to science.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
17-05-2014, 12:28 PM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2014 12:33 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(17-05-2014 11:51 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What the shit are you talking about this time?

Science is a human method applied by flawed human beings to overcome their own awareness of their own subjectivity in order to approach an unreachable standard of empirical objectivity. Learn to science.
Who says we are flawed? According to the standard of what? We humans are perfect in our versatility. We are structured matter, the most variable objects in the universe, we can perceive the most abstract truths that are never found in nature and we can use them to control the world.
The things we are supposedly inferior to are merely our instruments, limited to being better than one aspect of us - and nothing else. There is no reason to feel inferior. Science is an instrument. The fact that we prefer to use an instrument doesn't make us flawed.

Subjectivity is the inevitable fact of nature. Objectivity is metaphysics, the physics yet unknown and unnamed, which we integrate one fact at a time, through our instruments.
There is no unreachable standard of empirical objectivity. It just doesn't exist. We can define it in language, we look for it and either we reach it, or we find out our definition was not real to begin with. But if something is unreachable, it is also unreal and therefore non-obligatory. Still, we can achieve objectivity by reasoning logically from the first principles. That's why I posted the book Universally Preferable Behavior earlier, it is amazing. We are more than just hoarders of facts, we are capable of theories that include the whole world!

I'm sorry, but there is no other way, all other natures are already taken. We are human and our subjectivity has its dignity that is kind of awesome, as long as we don't put our instruments above ourselves. I find your idealizing of the instrument of science a bit disturbing. Your philosophy seems to me deeply shame-based and most of all it reminds me of secularized protestantism and its distrust of human nature.
Which leads me to the dreaded question, how were you disciplined as a child?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: