Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2014, 03:29 PM (This post was last modified: 18-09-2014 04:27 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(18-09-2014 02:46 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You sure love being disingenuous don't you.

Even if it's merely, a group of thugs imposing their will on others, that's existing. Label it what you wish, labels are irrelevant, that's something you accept existing, but say it doesn't exist on a pretense of a irrelevant label. In the same manner, the force of the church or religion exits, but church/religion do not mean the same thing as God.
Indeed, church is not the same thing as God. And authority is not the same thing as virtue. I obey authority under threat, but I obey virtue out of desire to be good. Law does not mean the same thing as truth, justice and morality. Democracy is not the same thing as freedom. Welfare is not the same thing as charity. And state or government is not the same thing as society. Being anti-government is not anti-social, it is pro-social, anti-violence. Being against government education is not being anti-education, it is anti-propaganda. Being against government funding of feminist programs is not against women, it is against keeping women dependent to keep the funding flowing in. Being against government interventions into the economy is not against economic science, it is against messing with people's lives on mass scale.

The reason why I say that is, that the moral argument (something is good or bad) is the most powerful argument in the world, when accepted. It is more powerful than economic efficiency or convenience. Soldiers went to Iraq because the American public believed was is good to overthrow Saddam and that Saddam was a bad man. It would be impossible otherwise, if let's say people believed that it is immoral to invade other countries and that their leaders are good guys. So I am really against propaganda and the false argument from morality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2014, 09:08 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(18-09-2014 12:41 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Good ol' Lumi; ignores the aspect of checks and balances or representative democracy as usual.

Never change.
USA has checks and balances. Great. Did it prevent the war in Iraq? Nope. So where's an argument?
Representative democracy is a weird idea. If people can't even rule themselves, how can they rule a nation of a few hundreds of million?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2014, 09:21 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
This one-trick dead pony show is boring, ol' Lumi.

Can't you find a new act?

One that doesn't just consist of masturbating on stage?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2014, 10:59 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(19-09-2014 09:08 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-09-2014 12:41 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Good ol' Lumi; ignores the aspect of checks and balances or representative democracy as usual.

Never change.
USA has checks and balances. Great. Did it prevent the war in Iraq? Nope. So where's an argument?
Representative democracy is a weird idea. If people can't even rule themselves, how can they rule a nation of a few hundreds of million?

A majority electing others to represent them for office a weird idea? Quite frankly, your idea of 'weird' is weird. Our system isn't perfect, but that is mainly because we are not all the same as people. Making checks and balances makes it all the more difficult for a person or a group of people to abuse their own power. Anarchy has absolutely no way of assuring any sort of accountability since there is no governing body. So, it escapes everyone here how your fantasy of eliminating a societal structure would fix anything, let alone the problems it will create. You can't escape those issues, Luminon.

Also, you do realize you sabotage your argument for minarchism/anarchism by saying people can't rule themselves. How would we change for the better if we can't rule for ourselves? Magical thinking of 'people won't spank', self-accountable security forces, or an impossible to achieve objective morality doesn't work as an argument

And, so far, you've failed to even give a convincing argument to transfer from our current kind of government (representative democracy) to anarchism. There have been dozens of examples and arguments against your dystopian vision of anarchy. You fail to even explain how it would even come in to place, less so for how it would maintain itself without horrendous abuses of power from those with it. Pretending that those who have power in your new world are nice and all stopping all spankings (somehow) will prevent people from acting bad (somehow) is naive to the extreme.

TL;DR: Your shtick isn't convincing, drop it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Kaepora Gaebora's post
19-09-2014, 12:31 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2014 12:40 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(19-09-2014 10:59 AM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  A majority electing others to represent them for office a weird idea? Quite frankly, your idea of 'weird' is weird. Our system isn't perfect, but that is mainly because we are not all the same as people. Making checks and balances makes it all the more difficult for a person or a group of people to abuse their own power. Anarchy has absolutely no way of assuring any sort of accountability since there is no governing body.
Exactly! The only thing that needs accountability is a governing body. No governing body, no need for accountability, in the formal bureaucratic sense of complaints, elections and so on. Social accountability would suffice.

For all other bodies there is this thing, maybe you've heard about it, it's called accounting. Do you know how a free market works? A company does its best not to poison the customers with food, customers feel safe to buy from the company and pay more money to it. Companies which poison customers get less money or no money at all and they go bankrupt. As I said, accounting.

(19-09-2014 10:59 AM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  So, it escapes everyone here how your fantasy of eliminating a societal structure would fix anything, let alone the problems it will create. You can't escape those issues, Luminon.
I don't have to, because these are no issues at all. Government is not the same thing as society, so eliminating government structure does not mean eliminating social structure. If Jan van Helsing kills a vampire in a town, does that kill the whole town? No, the town gains freedom.

(19-09-2014 10:59 AM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Also, you do realize you sabotage your argument for minarchism/anarchism by saying people can't rule themselves. How would we change for the better if we can't rule for ourselves? Magical thinking of 'people won't spank', self-accountable security forces, or an impossible to achieve objective morality doesn't work as an argument

It wasn't my idea that people can't rule themselves, rulers and politicians have always said that. Doesn't mean it's true. Either way, it's no reason to have rulers, because they are only people too.
People do whatever they think is good. What do atheists do? They challenge people's notions of good, which are often religious. People once thought beating women or lynching gays is good. They don't think that anymore. If you are curious about activism, go look up some activism websites like nospank.net.

(19-09-2014 10:59 AM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  And, so far, you've failed to even give a convincing argument to transfer from our current kind of government (representative democracy) to anarchism. There have been dozens of examples and arguments against your dystopian vision of anarchy.
Dystopian? The only dystopian anarchy that ever occurs, is when a state fails and leaves chaos behind. I say, there is no reason to have a state to begin with, that is, to have a central power that prints money and forces people to use them for taxes.

If your best argument against a stateless society is, that someone might "take over" and create a state, then you have no argument.

(19-09-2014 10:59 AM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  You fail to even explain how it would even come in to place, less so for how it would maintain itself without horrendous abuses of power from those with it. Pretending that those who have power in your new world are nice and all stopping all spankings (somehow) will prevent people from acting bad (somehow) is naive to the extreme.

TL;DR: Your shtick isn't convincing, drop it.
I don't need to know how it would come to place. I just know that it's immoral to initiate aggression against people for non-violent activities, such as not giving their money away.
To use your rhetorics, "you even fail to explain" how there could be a horrendous power abuse in an anarchy. I can't wrap my head about that. Do you think there is some huge anarchy empire and whoever gets to the top, gets to control it? Well, that sounds more like a government to me. It's putting all the eggs into one basket, by eggs I mean power.
USA has power divided into 3 branches, 3 checks and balances between them, plus a few offices here and there. But USA as a free society would have 300 million branches of power, each accountable through accounting.

Hey, I could understand if you said that in anarchy everyone would be on their own, no welfare. But you can't have "horrendous power abuse" and everyone on their own, these are opposite things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2014, 12:42 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(19-09-2014 12:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-09-2014 10:59 AM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  A majority electing others to represent them for office a weird idea? Quite frankly, your idea of 'weird' is weird. Our system isn't perfect, but that is mainly because we are not all the same as people. Making checks and balances makes it all the more difficult for a person or a group of people to abuse their own power. Anarchy has absolutely no way of assuring any sort of accountability since there is no governing body.
Exactly! The only thing that needs accountability is a governing body. No governing body, no need for accountability.

Right, sure. Individuals aren't accountable for their actions. If I kill you, it's all good.

Quote:For all other bodies there is this thing, maybe you've heard about it, it's called accounting. Do you know how a free market works? A company does its best not to poison the customers with food, customers feel safe to buy from the company and pay more money to it. Companies which poison customers get less money or no money at all and they go bankrupt. As I said, accounting.

And since they are not accountable for their actions, no justice is available to the victims. Nice plan. Not.

The rest of your drivel is on the same idiotic level.

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
19-09-2014, 01:32 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2014 01:37 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(19-09-2014 12:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  And since they are not accountable for their actions, no justice is available to the victims. Nice plan. Not.

The rest of your drivel is on the same idiotic level.
I thought someone might dishonestly want to take the "accountability" out of political context, so I edited the post earlier. Didn't stop your dishonesty, though.

Do you think I was saying that in anarchy nobody has responsibility for their actions? I would say opposite, in anarchy nobody has political immunity.
If you care about victims so much, well, what about the victims of government? Anarchists didn't start wars, drop bombs or centralize the economy to starve millions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2014, 01:34 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(19-09-2014 01:32 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-09-2014 12:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  And since they are not accountable for their actions, no justice is available to the victims. Nice plan. Not.

The rest of your drivel is on the same idiotic level.
I thought someone might dishonestly want to take the "accountability" out of political context, so I edited the post earlier. Didn't stop your dishonesty, though.

Do you think I was saying that in anarchy nobody has responsibility for their actions? I would say opposite, in anarchy nobody has political immunity.

What accountability does a monopoly have, absent external market controls?

(hint: none)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
19-09-2014, 01:34 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaank

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
19-09-2014, 01:39 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(19-09-2014 01:34 PM)morondog Wrote:  Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaank
Is something what I say making you uncomfortable? Is it the political and economical stuff, or is it the impression that I don't seem to respond to the content of other people's posts?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: