Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-05-2014, 12:38 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(21-05-2014 11:28 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-05-2014 09:58 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  But can we really rely on that all robbers are smart enough to think that way? I mean, we realize that trying to rob someone who owns a gun would be stupid, so we would stay away from it. But what about people who are less educated or simply desperate?

Wouldn't those people be a legitimate threat?
Yes, they do. I could say "that's not the point here" and be done. But you deserve more info.

If I point a gun at you and tell you, "give me your money", it's a robbery, it's bad and I really shouldn't do it.
If I get a group of people to ambush you, point a gun at you and bring me your money, it's still a robbery and I shouldn't do it.
If I take a box to which I and other people put papers with names of people who will go and order other people to tell you to give up your money and or you will be thrown into jail if you don't or shot if you resist, and part of these money will go to me as a monthly welfare or subsidy, what is that? Has the magic voting box turned the act of robbery into the act of democracy? Well, if this is what democracy is...

I am really bad for wanting to rob you personally, but it is perfectly all right to do that by proxy, if that proxy is called government.

Government does not solve robbery, it can only be funded by robbery. It does not solve problems, it perpetuates problems to get more electorate and funding. Poor people vote for bigger government.

So if you really care about desperate, uneducated or stupid people, then you will go and do things that actually help. You will learn about social work, psychology, education, you will gather names of people in risk, you will show data to people in risks areas and you will go around asking sponsors and fundraising to do whatever you learned that helps desperate uneducated people. The more people you help, the more money will people entrust you to keep their cities safe. Then you will return to your sponsors, show them your results and ask for more money. If everything else fails, you will require your... clients to wear t-shirts with the sponsor logos, whatever it takes to get funding without robbery. You will actually think how to negotiate so people will feel good for giving money on a good cause.
You certainly won't want to keep desperate people desperate and parade them for pity every elections to raise more funding, as is it today done with single mothers and oppressed women.

If there is a problem, we solve it through activism, business and science. We don't throw money in politicians' way to make them solve it, because they don't.

(21-05-2014 09:58 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  I see; so, the aim is to remove the centralized system, not to abolish the concept of guards keeping everyone safe from junkies and murderers?
Yes, you got that right. Bowing Compulsory system, I might add. We can not force people to pay some guards. It would be nice if they did, but they are supposed to know what they need and buy that. People aren't stupid if left to learn and make their own decisions.

(21-05-2014 09:58 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  The problem I see is ensuring that that is actually the case. Can it be guaranteed that the guards will be of strong moral fiber, and with great skill in the right fields, if there is no authority to monitor them?

Again, not trying to be difficult, I genuinely want to know how this would work in practical terms.
Yes, you are right to worry about that. So what happens now if there's a dirty cop? Can we fire him? Nope.
Can we at least pay him less of our money? Nope. Tax is tax.
Can we tell him personally how angry we are at him? Nope, that would not end well.
Oh, so how much quality control do we have under the government system? None.
That goes not just for cops, but for teachers, who have our children under control for 15 years or so.

Yes, we can have quality control, but we must have a choice of the people who we hire to do jobs. No choice means no quality. And the only choice we have in society is voting with our wallet. If someone does a bad job, then sorry, I won't pay for this. I know it is cruel and my leftie heart bleeds and wants perfect solutions where nobody is left out, but it is less cruel than getting beaten and arrested by crooked (any) cops who know they can't get fired. Just read the damn http://www.policestateusa.com, I suspect these news are real, I've seen some of them on other news sites.

You might be also interested in this article. Looks like there is a new way of living in the ruins of Detroit.
How Private Policing Trumps Government Law Enforcement
http://tdvmedia.com/getblog.php?id=217&ac=83GY0Z1T

(21-05-2014 09:58 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  Ah, eradicating crime through education, good upbringing and sympathy. That is actually a very interesting idea.

However, is it realistic to believe that we could achieve that at this point in time? Can we make it so that good education and upbringing is provided to everyone to such a degree that they minimize the problems caused by their absence?
I wouldn't see it like an investment to go or not go into. I see it as a principle. It is wrong to initiate aggression against everyone, especially children. It is wrong to beat them and yell at them and force them to go to places where they are extremely bored and forced to repeat useless stuff, and drugged if they don't obey. 20 % boys in the U.S. today are diagnosed with ADHD and heavily drugged! That is a Soviet-style genocide of spirit. They are given amphetamines for being kids, for being alive, for asking questions and for not wanting to sit in the 18th century Hapsburg style classes with desks.

Kids want to learn as much as teenage boys want to have sex and teenage girls want to talk on phone. Learning is a pleasure, it is satisfying our curiosity. This is what education means. School today isn't for education, it's for obedience. Kids have no useful skills anyway, it's employers who teach them what's needed. Employers of course want practice.
Only a hobby produces this kind of focus and excellence that we need in order to be good at anything. Only curiosity gives the fluidity we need at the modern market where 4 best paid jobs in 2010 did not even exist in 2004. Prison-like schools kill curiosity and displace hobbies. Market is nothing if not desire-driven. Desire is our compass what to do with our life. At schools we are force-fed undesired information, which is also useless. To kill desire is like killing curiosity and other virtues, it's a lobotomy.

There is no choice to be had here. Regardless of the immediate result, we need to empathize with our children, which means to empathize with ourselves when we were children and stop doing what harmed us. We need to protect our children, give as little to the state as we can get away with and spread the message. There is a blood-chilling scientific evidence against spanking and yelling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiq2-uk...45EEB95C80

All the good systems, that includes anarcho-capitalism and TVP count with generational change of raising children that are not brain-damaged by parents and schools and so they don't see evil people behind every corner and elect real terrorists who promise to protect them from imaginary terrorists. If humanity treated children kindly only for 5 years, it would mean 5 years of generations of children who were allowed to form as people during their formative years, not as robots or zombies or toilets of the culture. This generation would change the world. I will never be as good as them, I am patching myself up together slowly and painfully, but I'll always be damaged and afraid in many common situations.

Molyneux has a hope that if we raise children non-violently, they will not see the state as a big parent that must be there or they'll feel lost. They'll see the state as a big bullying mafia organization that lies and robs people and kills them by millions and imprisons them mostly for no reason. Paying taxes is like an original sin, everyone believes in it, but the first time you hear about it, it's really very weird. I have to do...what? Because of what?

[Image: 10403081_10154130243795117_4624179092693338141_n.jpg]

(21-05-2014 09:58 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  I applaud the fact that you've done more to explain these points than anyone I've asked before.
Thanks, maybe it's because I'm a leftist by heart... I actually deeply want a foolproof solution of The Venus Project where everyone is taken care of and nobody has to work. But it requires to re-design a global industry in a laboratory, which would probably cost something like a quarter of costs of war in Iraq till 2010, or between 100 - 1,000 Large Hadron Colliders. That's what it takes to have scientific evidence beforehand that this will not be just another Communism. It's Economy 2.0 or Industry MK II, Infrastructure vol. 2. TVP is literally the greatest project in history of mankind, to make Earth operate like "a single household where we don't buy things from our own fridge." I can't go into theory on that right now, it's literally a different paradigm to monetary economy. Money have their function, but in TVP these functions are implemented differently.

Free market system is not foolproof, but it is hell a lot better than having a central power parasiting on us. I love how it solves all the artificial problems caused by the central power and it is very cheap and quick to set up.

Holy bollocks, that's alot to take in.

I think I got all my questions answered. Let me just get this straight:

Organizations aimed at coordinating, for instance, efforts to help disabled people aren't what needs to be abolished, it's the system forcing you to pay for them or else that needs to go, and the overhead of a government using your money to pay for such an organization rather than you paying them directly?

I'll try to finish listening to those two audio books. Lots of stuff worth thinking about in there, I must admit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 05:52 PM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2014 05:58 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(22-05-2014 12:38 PM)Elcarch Wrote:  Holy bollocks, that's alot to take in.

I think I got all my questions answered. Let me just get this straight:

Organizations aimed at coordinating, for instance, efforts to help disabled people aren't what needs to be abolished, it's the system forcing you to pay for them or else that needs to go, and the overhead of a government using your money to pay for such an organization rather than you paying them directly?

I'll try to finish listening to those two audio books. Lots of stuff worth thinking about in there, I must admit.
You see, that's a lot we never learn in government-funded schools Wink

Yeah, you've got it right. Maybe we don't even have to ban anything, we just cease to pay taxes and the state ceases to pay its employees.
If you've got any kids around, this is a good intro for them too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o

Take your time and pleasure in blowing your mind, it's not a homework Wink I spent a couple of years learning this stuff, starting with a year at a private college. It was fun, but I started because I opposed anarcho-capitalism through "cyber-socialism" of RBE.


Here's some rant if you like Tongue I must write down also my own ideas as they come.
Things happen of a reason. If our culture is unhappy and we don't know why, there is still a reason. Knowing it is a power and it is one of the heresies. In oppressive regimes, you could get executed for a wrong word in the public. Today in stream of mass media we drown in information, we feel like nobody listens, words don't mean anything anymore. However, there is power in heresy, it is the culture's weak spot. You speak it aloud and you get genuine, angry reactions from people. After years of dull small talk it may feel like playing with toy pretend guns and suddenly finding a real weapon, while you did not even believe such a thing may exist. It feels powerful, dangerous and a little heady.

This anarcho-capitalism is one of the powerful words. It reveals people who don't understand economy and who worship the state as believers worship the Church.
Related to that, there is the philosophy and Non-aggression Principle, which forbids violence against children (spanking, yelling, threats...). Speaking out against spanking of children is even more heretical than the economy.
And if you get into the philosophy of NAP or Universally Preferable Behavior, you can be damn sure that you are on the forefront of contemporary human thought and philosophy. Regarding the state and justice, you will be more correct than Descartes, Plato or Socrates.

Yeah, it is scary as well. By the logic I came to accept it seems that American and global economy will have no miraculous recovery, it will probably end pretty badly. When that happens, the poor will be blamed for being greedy and there will be a call for strict regime to enforce justice. That's why we must speak out and say that force brought this about, force like FED printing money and all American presidents waging foreign wars and IRS extorting taxes. If force caused it, force can't fix it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQdmsL147j0

Another scary thing is, that if I know how the society works (early childhood trauma imprinting of authorities), then there are objective laws of changing society. We have no problem with science changing the face of the world, but we're not used to that with philosophy, psychology, economy and other social sciences. They're called "soft" sciences for a reason. And if yes, we expect it ends with disaster - in fact, moral philosophy is extremely dangerous, evil is literally a moral philosophical error or fraud.
Conservatives are scared of people who claim they know anything about how society works. They prefer we stick with Christianity or we end up in another Soviet Union if we start thinking we might be onto something regarding society. My docent at the university is like that, conservative. I much prefer the Frankfurt critical school, they're leftists (not good at economy), but not afraid to take up the responsibility to use knowledge to improve the society.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 03:14 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
I just found this video on Facebook. I really like it. We're used to being the invincible atheist debaters with reason and logic on our side. We're used to towering intellectually over Christians. Well, there's one area where even an atheist can take an ass-whupping. If he's a secret believer in the government, that is.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 08:04 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 03:14 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I just found this video on Facebook. I really like it. We're used to being the invincible atheist debaters with reason and logic on our side. We're used to towering intellectually over Christians. Well, there's one area where even an atheist can take an ass-whupping. If he's a secret believer in the government, that is.





You used to be rather silly and only a danger to yourself.

But now, you are morphing into something rather ugly.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-05-2014, 08:45 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 08:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  You used to be rather silly and only a danger to yourself.

But now, you are morphing into something rather ugly.
I seem to have this strange power to turn scientists into arbiters elegantiae, namely you and Cjlr. And not very good ones, at that.
I say, let's not kidnap people, nor shoot them if they resist, even if they don't pay taxes. You seem to disagree. Would you have me shot over a disagreement?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 09:12 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
I don't know much about economy so I won't comment on that.
What I do know is that somebody decided that people should go to prison for selling certain products and others go for buying and possessing them. I know that it's illegal in some places for two men to enter into certain contracts together. I know in some places people are not allowd to protect themselves or their families. I know that there are many "crimes" that are victimless.
Maybe regulation for corporations is good, maybe it isn't. I don't know. All I know is that government needs to stay the fuck out of my business.
They can stick their noses in when I actually do something to harm an unsuspecting individual.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 10:29 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 08:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-05-2014 08:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  You used to be rather silly and only a danger to yourself.

But now, you are morphing into something rather ugly.
I seem to have this strange power to turn scientists into arbiters elegantiae, namely you and Cjlr. And not very good ones, at that.

You are delusional. What you prompt is criticism of your evidence-free views.

Quote:I say, let's not kidnap people, nor shoot them if they resist, even if they don't pay taxes. You seem to disagree. Would you have me shot over a disagreement?

Are you channeling frankksj? Your question is presumptuous and fatuous.

No, I would have you shot for stupidity. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-05-2014, 10:31 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 09:12 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I don't know much about economy so I won't comment on that.
What I do know is that somebody decided that people should go to prison for selling certain products and others go for buying and possessing them. I know that it's illegal in some places for two men to enter into certain contracts together. I know in some places people are not allowd to protect themselves or their families. I know that there are many "crimes" that are victimless.
Maybe regulation for corporations is good, maybe it isn't. I don't know. All I know is that government needs to stay the fuck out of my business.
They can stick their noses in when I actually do something to harm an unsuspecting individual.

No, we as a society can have rules to prevent you from harming others.

After the fact is too late.

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, 10:45 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
I'm not sure. It seems like a grey area to me. Let's take drinking and driving for example. We can agree I'm sure that it's a bad idea. But do you honestly think the law prevents this from happening. People I think will do what they do regardless of what the law says. I think what really prevents stupid acts is education.
Heroin addiction is in a way another case. Once one becomes addicted he seems likely to break many laws to get a fix like stealing a little old ladies purse. I don't think the law prevents this. It simply looks for vengeance. Once again education is the answer.
In fact I think education is the answer for all our problems.
Laws don't deter people any more than the death penalty does.
That's how I see it anyways.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-05-2014, 10:53 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(23-05-2014 10:45 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  In fact I think education is the answer for all our problems.
Laws don't deter people any more than the death penalty does.
That's how I see it anyways.

Am currently at work and would like to respond with more depth later when I can

I sadly think you are quaintly naive and should experience quite a few more decades of life before blithely rambling on like such above again.

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