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
21-09-2014, 01:21 PM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2014 01:32 PM by Kaepora Gaebora.)
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, 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.

FacepalmNo Does your idiocy extend to twisting words?

Accounting in the business world is FINANCIAL. Not SOCIAL accountability.

And again, you contradict yourself; you say no need for accountability but then you argue for accountability of business. Self-accountability doesn't work as an argument as it is magical thinking that they will follow what is considered good ethics.

(19-09-2014 12:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Ah, blissful ignorance. It must be fun to not have to explain yourself to others clearly and ignore criticism.

And you're right, government is not a society. It is a structure of society, or a societal structure. People establish and support it for reasons such as building standard roads. Eliminating it unleashes a whole lot of issues such as a lack of accountability for corporations, of which you are deliberately pushing aside as a non-issue. You think that a corporation or corporations will simply pick up the tab of building roads AND create a standard that everybody will follow inherently AND allow a voice for people in how the roads are maintain or constructed AND be fair to others?

It is a long, long stretch to get to your fantasy.

(19-09-2014 12:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Uh... Lumi, you just presented it as true. Shocking You said: "If people can't even rule themselves, how can they rule a nation of a few hundreds of million?" You're presenting it as an argument here. So now you're backtracking on your argument?

I mean, wtf, you're willing to go through contradicting yourself just to support your idea of libertarian anarchy. You are making a fool of yourself, and that is very sad.

(19-09-2014 12:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Yay, you're back to talking about spanking. Drinking Beverage

Atheists don't automatically challenge people's notions of good, mind. That's a personality; many don't go out challenging people's faith willy nilly.

And... I don't see how this supports your argument. People will do whatever the fuck they want if they see it as beneficial to them if there is no accountability. Example: robbers during post-Katrina stealing goods from stores just to get by, or take advantage of a chaotic situation.

[Image: katrina-lootersareblack-groupbeforestore...ielson.jpg]

(19-09-2014 12:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Oh, so we shouldn't have a state fail or fall apart in the first place. Good to know. Thumbsup

(19-09-2014 12:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If your best argument against a stateless society is, that someone might "take over" and create a state, then you have no argument.

Never said that. So stop putting words in my mouth, mkay? Drinking Beverage

(19-09-2014 12:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.

Yes, we should not support a structure of society through taxes because Luminon doesn't like it.

(19-09-2014 12:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Yes, so putting eggs into multiple baskets that can't be held accountable by those who gave them those eggs (power) is SUCH A GREAT IDEA!!!! Hobo

(19-09-2014 12:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Facepalm

I get what you're trying to say here. However, branches of power involves DISTINCT SETS OF POWER.

In any case, can you imagine the headache of trying to stop people from abusing their own power if there is no accountable body?

But no, guys, taxes and such are bad. Yes

(19-09-2014 12:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

So murdering others is not an abuse of power under anarchy, right?

I mean, take a second and THINK. When someone's exercise of freedom oversteps and limits or destroys other people's freedom, wouldn't you want to have some sort of governing body to examine and punish the person committing those acts?

I do have one other question that you haven't provided a satisfactory answer to: How would power be held accountable in your society? Wishful thinking doesn't count.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Kaepora Gaebora's post
21-09-2014, 02:00 PM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2014 02:27 PM by cjlr.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Incidentally, we might recall how one of ol' Lumi's favourite bits of wank-fodder is, hilariously, bitcoins. As such we might note that recently a conviction was handed to a man who ran a Bitcoin-based ponzi scheme (see here).

Naturally, in ol' Lumi's Fantasyland™, there would be no courts or laws, and the man in question, having defrauded millions of dollars, would suffer literally no consequences whatsoever.

"Accountability", ol' Lumi's way.
(there's a reason libertarians cross-pollinate so fruitfully with social darwinists - clearly those inferior people deserved to be defrauded)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like cjlr's post
21-09-2014, 02:08 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 02:00 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Incidentally, we might recall how one of ol' Lumi's favourite bits of wank-fodder is, hilariously, bitcoins. As such we might note that recently a conviction was handed to a man who ran a Bitcoin-based ponzi scheme (see here).

Naturally, in ol' Lumi's Fantasyland™, there would be no courts or laws, and the man in question, having defrauded millions of dollars, would suffer literally no consequences whatsoever.

"Accountability", ol' Lumi's way.
(there's a reason libertarians cross-pollinate to fruitfully with social darwinists - clearly those inferior people deserved to be defrauded)
Oh, and then there's also this little incident with the Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
21-09-2014, 02:22 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Lol this is the funniest thread.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 02:39 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 05:53 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 05:43 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  So patriotism is a religion?

No.

But it often gives rise to the same zeal born from our pithecoidal tendency towards in-group-ness-osity.

(21-09-2014 05:43 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  Love of one's fatherland, one's home and country is a bad thing?

More often than not, yes.

Yes

but it does depend on your qualification of 'bad'.

Drinking Beverage

I used to think that too. But when you let go of your illusions you realize that without force to back them up, rights are just words on paper. In order to defend them you need a nation state. If you have too little nationalism then freedom with be destroyed by foreign forces. And to keep the nation state on the right track you need armed citizens ready to guide it. You need some democracy, but also legal protection for unpopular opinions and rights. Without the nation state you will not be able to maintain this, and without nationalism you will not be able to maintain the nation state.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 02:44 PM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2014 02:55 PM by Chas.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 02:39 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 05:53 AM)DLJ Wrote:  No.

But it often gives rise to the same zeal born from our pithecoidal tendency towards in-group-ness-osity.


More often than not, yes.

Yes

but it does depend on your qualification of 'bad'.

Drinking Beverage

I used to think that too. But when you let go of your illusions you realize that without force to back them up, rights are just words on paper. In order to defend them you need a nation state. If you have too little nationalism then freedom with be destroyed by foreign forces. And to keep the nation state on the right track you need armed citizens ready to guide it. You need some democracy, but also legal protection for unpopular opinions and rights. Without the nation state you will not be able to maintain this, and without nationalism you will not be able to maintain the nation state.

A little bit of nationalism goes a long way.


A little more goes too far. 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
21-09-2014, 02:51 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Honestly, a good healthy dose of patriotism or nationalism helps to work together to improve the government.

Relying on it as proof for your views doesn't do anyone any good. See: The Red Scare.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 04:54 PM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2014 05:12 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 11:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your scheme could work only if human nature were different than it actually is.
What you promote leaves the weak at the mercy of the strong, and the strong are accountable to no one but themselves.

No one here is buying it because it is a lunatic idea.
No! Your scheme leaves the weak (individuals) at mercy of the strong! (the government)
Have you ever heard of democide?
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Government is the strongest thing ever, so strong that it can single-handedly maintain a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence in a territory.
If people are truly bad, then having a government is the worst possible idea. And if people are good, then they don't need government. No matter which way you turn it, government is useless and destructive.

(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  FacepalmNo Does your idiocy extend to twisting words?

Accounting in the business world is FINANCIAL. Not SOCIAL accountability.

And again, you contradict yourself; you say no need for accountability but then you argue for accountability of business. Self-accountability doesn't work as an argument as it is magical thinking that they will follow what is considered good ethics.
Today there is a prejudice to things financial. But really finances are extension of government, due to violent manipulations and privileges, as economists knew since Adam Smith and later Frederic Bastiat.
In a free society finances would be simply an extension of every person, like our hands, feet and instruments.

And by the way, keep calling me an idiot or worse, that's how you will win an argument. You actually won't, you will only end it, but most people here will assure you that you did. If I don't call you names, what gives you the idea that you can?

(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Ah, blissful ignorance. It must be fun to not have to explain yourself to others clearly and ignore criticism.
I will accept criticism when people learn to distinguish violent economic manipulation from a real economy. Violent redistribution turns the laws of economic reality upside down. What is a natural liability, becomes an asset in the government system and vice versa, of course at a real expense of the poorer and middle classes.

(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  And you're right, government is not a society. It is a structure of society, or a societal structure. People establish and support it for reasons such as building standard roads. Eliminating it unleashes a whole lot of issues such as a lack of accountability for corporations, of which you are deliberately pushing aside as a non-issue. You think that a corporation or corporations will simply pick up the tab of building roads AND create a standard that everybody will follow inherently AND allow a voice for people in how the roads are maintain or constructed AND be fair to others?
Government is a corporation too, the worst of all, because it habitually uses violence.
By the way, who builds roads today? I don't see any clerks or deputies dirtying themselves with asphalt. All I see are corporations, government merely serves as an involuntary intermediary between the tax cattle and road-building corporations.

(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Uh... Lumi, you just presented it as true. Shocking You said: "If people can't even rule themselves, how can they rule a nation of a few hundreds of million?" You're presenting it as an argument here. So now you're backtracking on your argument?

I mean, wtf, you're willing to go through contradicting yourself just to support your idea of libertarian anarchy. You are making a fool of yourself, and that is very sad.
I don't contradict myself. I don't say people are incapable of ruling themselves, any more than Epicurus believed in God when he introduced the problem of evil.
This argument has two sides. The second one is, if people are capable of ruling themselves, why do we need government?
Of course you could say that some people can rule themselves and some can't. But nobody has an objective way of telling who should or shouldn't be ruled.

(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Atheists don't automatically challenge people's notions of good, mind. That's a personality; many don't go out challenging people's faith willy nilly.
Yes, many lost faith. One thing I regret though, is that they lost faith but only in one thing, God. They applied skepticism to God, some to UFO and alternative medicine too, but nothing else. They did not become philosophical about everything. One can not serve two masters, but they still want a master. Those who don't have god who can do superhuman feats, have the state which can do what any private individual would be arrested for.

(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  And... I don't see how this supports your argument. People will do whatever the fuck they want if they see it as beneficial to them if there is no accountability. Example: robbers during post-Katrina stealing goods from stores just to get by, or take advantage of a chaotic situation.
No, people in overwhelming majority will do whatever they think is a good, moral thing to do. They thought going to Iraq and supporting the troops is a good thing, even though it's extremely unpleasant, expensive and completely idiotic thing to do. Over a million of troops invaded the country and many of them after return committed suicide or became homeless - and yet people still think that was right.

But an example closed to home - people go to Church to worship a deity that isn't even visible or audible and they have to conform to many weird rituals - and the less beneficial things are, the more eager people are to do them!

"People do whatever they want to do" is a tautology, a meaningless statement. You can't say such things. There are real but flexible limits in human behavior that are set in childhood. If people are anything, they are malleable. They reflect their childhood environment. Childhood violence produces adult violence.

So much for the culture of the state and public education, which produced such people. About this black woman I would say, she likely comes from a black community which was impacted by the "No man in the house" welfare policy. This policy created ghettos, single moms, gang culture, drug problem and of course, criminality. Things don't just happen, everything has a cause that can be researched.

(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Oh, so we shouldn't have a state fail or fall apart in the first place. Good to know. Thumbsup
Good luck with that, have you ever seen the American federal debt? And the estimates of unfunded liabilities? About 60 of large American cities (except Washington D.C.) have debts comparable to Detroit. I think Detroit is a first swallow of the American Spring, so to speak.

(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  
(19-09-2014 12:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If your best argument against a stateless society is, that someone might "take over" and create a state, then you have no argument.
Never said that. So stop putting words in my mouth, mkay? Drinking Beverage
Just making sure you won't use this argument. I don't like how many people here hint vaguely at many things - and if I ignore that, they say I ignored an argument (which was no real argument because it wasn't specific), if I reply to the hint, they say I put words into their mouth. There's just no way of winning with these people.

(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Yes, so putting eggs into multiple baskets that can't be held accountable by those who gave them those eggs (power) is SUCH A GREAT IDEA!!!! Hobo
Accounting.

(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Facepalm

I get what you're trying to say here. However, branches of power involves DISTINCT SETS OF POWER.

In any case, can you imagine the headache of trying to stop people from abusing their own power if there is no accountable body?

But no, guys, taxes and such are bad. Yes
Why stop? Let them do what they think is best! Today many businessmen abused their power as factory owners to get some of my money under the pretense of "groceries".

(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  So murdering others is not an abuse of power under anarchy, right?

I mean, take a second and THINK. When someone's exercise of freedom oversteps and limits or destroys other people's freedom, wouldn't you want to have some sort of governing body to examine and punish the person committing those acts?

I do have one other question that you haven't provided a satisfactory answer to: How would power be held accountable in your society? Wishful thinking doesn't count.
There is a model of Dispute Resolution Organizations, which is the closest equivalent to what you mean. If you are interested, the books from which it is quoted, are free. If you are truly interested, you will read them. Don't expect that a Wikipedia article will make everything clear to you. This is another of these things that you can't learn just like that, it is like going on a journey during which you gain a whole new perspective on many things... It's like learning a new language, or losing faith in another god, something like that.

On free market you can try any approach that turns out to be functional, there are no limits on that. If you can think of a better solution than DROs, or a better policy for a DRO of your own, you'd be free to try that and get rich if your approach is better. For example, there is a very successful private security company in Detroit, which operates since the 1990's when the city wasn't quite ruined yet.
http://www.threatmanagementcenter.com/History.html

I'm not sure what do you mean by "power" as such. Power to do what? The purchasing power is governed by voluntary exchange, employers need workforce and employees need money and everyone needs products and nobody can make most of the products alone. And the products can't be made violently, that leads to capital flight and bankrupcy.

The problem with power today is, governments can gain extreme amounts of power, weaponry and mercenaries by printing money. Then they force the population to use this printed fiat currency by demanding that taxes be paid in this currency. This is how bullshit fiat money gain value. Then the government prints more of them and uses them as leverage to make even greater loans and to finance wars. Wars are health of the state. the U.S. were in a state of almost perpetual war or military intervention for the most of 20th century. The printed money go to various crony structures, such as the ridiculously bloated prison sector or the military-industrial sector.
That is what the word "power" really means today, a weird technical mix of violence and economics. And despite of their many shortcomings or flaws, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin completely eliminate this kind of power, they make it technically impossible. Bitcoin eliminates financing of wars and public policies, as we know them. A free society and free currency is a completely different paradigm, in which your notion of "power" has no equivalent. Imagining a different paradigm is of course almost impossible from the outside. It is like a whole new language, you need to learn it from scratch, then you can compare it to your current. worldview. It makes sense internally and towards reality, but it is like German to your English. There are some similar words, but not quite the same.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 05:09 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 11:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Your scheme could work only if human nature were different than it actually is.
What you promote leaves the weak at the mercy of the strong, and the strong are accountable to no one but themselves.

No one here is buying it because it is a lunatic idea.
No! Your scheme leaves the weak (individuals) at mercy of the strong! (the government)
Have you ever heard of democide?
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Government is the strongest thing ever, so strong that it can single-handedly maintain a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence in a territory.
If people are truly bad, then having a government is the worst possible idea. And if people are good, then they don't need government. No matter which way you turn it, government is useless and destructive.

Oh, look! Another completely off-the-wall reference! Do you even read these?

That is about the crimes of totalitarian regimes.

Fuckin' A, Lumi. You are an idiot.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
21-09-2014, 05:12 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Alternatively, free market can try any approach that turns out to be functional, there are no limits on that. If you can think of a better solution than DROs, or a better policy for a DRO of your own, you'd be free to try that and get rich if your approach is better.

Maybe the market has already chosen, and that choice is democratic republics. 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
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: