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
31-07-2014, 03:16 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
A few years ago I was part of a different atheist forum where an anarchist resided. He talked about how he would prefer a life without government. We had a conversation that went something like this.

Him: "I don't need government, as long as I have my rights to own a weapon, and the right to protect myself, loved ones, and to not get my property stolen."
Me: "Where are these rights coming from?"
Him: "These are basic human rights."
Me: "I don't think rights really exist outside of the confines of a governing system."

Not an exciting convo, but it popped into my mind just now.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adrianime's post
31-07-2014, 03:28 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 03:16 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  A few years ago I was part of a different atheist forum where an anarchist resided. He talked about how he would prefer a life without government. We had a conversation that went something like this.

Him: "I don't need government, as long as I have my rights to own a weapon, and the right to protect myself, loved ones, and to not get my property stolen."
Me: "Where are these rights coming from?"
Him: "These are basic human rights."
Me: "I don't think rights really exist outside of the confines of a governing system."

Not an exciting convo, but it popped into my mind just now.

There's a breed of anarchist and libertarian who do have such hopelessly shallow views.

All it amounts to is "my feels are true because I feel them". Rights only exist as a coherent concept in a social context. And they are only meaningful if agreed upon and maintained.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 03:34 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 01:55 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 11:58 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Oh look, deranged false dichotomies, mixed with blatantly false and superficial history.

Here's a question someone else can ask ol' Lumi:
Who funds vaccination research? Who provides vaccinations today?
See, this is assholish behavior. I talk about science and vaccines. You add a bunch of insults and then ask about funding of vaccination research.
This question has nothing to do with the topic. Of course, today the vaccines are funded by the government.
Do you imply that the only reason vaccines exist and get funded is the government? Of course you do, why else would you ask that?

I altered the emphasis to mark what's more important here. Ol' Lumi here knows what other people are thinking! Despite their words, he - and he alone! - can make shit up penetrate their true feelings and reveal the phantasmal straw men Real Truth. Isn't that special? Truly, he is blessed with powers beyond the ken of us normals. I'd say he should profit by them, but we all know that competent science is a conspiracy.

One wonders why he ever bothers conversing with anyone, if indeed he always knows what they're thinking.

(31-07-2014 01:55 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The greatest false dichotomy is to imply that government must do things that people want otherwise things would not get done even though people want them.

Which no one in this thread has done. Whoops! Deranged straw man.

(31-07-2014 01:55 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It is (falsely) claimed with justice, education, road-building, security and all the other things that were and are still today done by private companies, who do shady and expensive deals with governments. Government has no money of its own. Government funding is the idiotic idea that we can't afford vaccines or roads, but we can afford whole government bureaucracy plus vaccines and roads.

Have you ever tried implementing social programs without bureaucracy?

Protip: it takes organisation to get shit done. Or is that another pesky annoyance your Magical Thinking™ will obviate?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
31-07-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 11:01 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 06:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
So please look at the pic and vote in the poll.

[Image: 10590594_667094376708419_2980131783438047277_n.jpg]

Consider

I looked at the pic. I have a problem with it.

Let's take the simplest one... taxation:

A small tribe have a meeting and decide, much like the pizza example, that they want to change their environment to make life, for all, safer / more efficient / more social / more private / whatever.

They come up with a plan that involves some construction work ... a program of works, in fact.

They need to work out a way to resource the work and decide that as everyone benefits in some way, then contributions should come from everyone.

This scenario does not fit into any of the three categories in the picture.

To make it fit the picture we need to add another factor... dissent.

This could be a dissenting voice of a tribe member against the initial proposal or an external dissenter who joins the tribe late and was not part of the initial decision making process.

One solution for cost-recovery could be to tax consumption (like toll roads). Now, the initial budget could have come from any social group; the whole tribe (the state) or a subset (a corporation or church or co-op).

This seems like the libertarian model... individual/group choice regarding funding and individual choice regarding consumption. So far, so good.

Now, what about the penniless, 90-year-old widow who could not contribute and cannot afford the tax? For example, she is not allowed to use a new road because she neither contributed to the budget nor can she pay the toll.

Charitable donations? Great... but no guarantees. She had two sons who cared for her but they both died during the construction project because the social group (state) could not force the social group (corporation) to abide by best practice health and safety laws.

For any given position (corporate policy, state law, 10 commandments, football rules, TTA forum policies etc.) there will always be dissenters.

To address this, we have Governance; a mechanism whereby all stakeholders' needs, conditions and options are evaluated to determine balanced, negotiated and agreed-upon objectives; setting direction through transparent prioritisation and decision-making; and monitoring performance and compliance against that agreed-upon direction.

Every social grouping has Governance. Some governance systems have proved more useless than others.

It's telling that of all the responses this is the one ol' Lumi hasn't touched.

Hell, he'd rather respond directly to me even after huffily declaring he was ignoring me than address a polite, cogent criticism.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
31-07-2014, 03:46 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
At risk to my own sanity, I'm gonna try tell you why I find your answers inadequate.

(31-07-2014 11:15 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 10:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  How will you protect yourselves (you lucky anarchists) from
- monopolies
- cartels

These already exist even in the current climate where they are subject to such things as legal break ups.
If monopolies are bad, government is the greatest and worst monopoly of all, it's the monopoly on violence.
Google is a monopoly. Why? Because it provides top-quality services, most are extremely cheap or for advertising. Government is a monopoly, because it can shoot people.
If you study Austrian economy, you'll see, that most of the super-rich corporate monopolies (not in digital world) are just government cronies. (rent-seeking)
Right. Governments are monopolies on violence so we should... break up the monopolies and give everyone their own franchise violence? Find the most efficient violence through free market competition?

Google is a quasi-monopoly, OK given. In your anarchistic world, if Google says "thou shalt be fucked", what happens?

You haven't answered my question - *what do you do to counter a monopoly* if you don't have a legal system set up?

Quote:
(31-07-2014 10:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  Why do you think, that if you deconstruct the government, that people won't just band together again and make a new government? I could easily make a new government with less civil liberties - let's just enslave all the blacks again, why not? How will you prevent that?
GOOD QUESTION.
By propagating a peaceful upbringing of children. This is a big point, big theory of psychohistory, philosophy and science behind that. You'll need to read up on that, but the point is, if you do not use force as a parental "discipline", children will see state force as a completely foreign, hostile element. If you use negotiation instead of spanking, state will be seen as a primitive tribalism.
See psychohistory, Bomb in the brain series and listen to the podcast about Socrates and his voluntary death by the state.

http://psychohistory.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiq2-uk...45EEB95C80
http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FD...Family.mp3
http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FD...it_Man.mp3
So... I'm supposed to bet the future on this unproven idea that if I teach my children to be pleasant and everyone else does the same then human nature will suddenly and miraculously change from its violent past (evolved over several million years) to some kind of hippie utopia?

Quote:
(31-07-2014 10:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  Rights and so forth protected by a strong government are a positive thing - you want to abandon that? Will people be free in your little dream world?
Rights and so forth are a good thing. But where is evidence that a strong government really protects them? Where is your property right, when you pay taxes? Where is your freedom, if you don't pay taxes? Isn't taking money from you what this is really all about? Yes, you get some money back in form of services you can't choose. But politicians have learned to take the money bit by bit, not everything at once. They still steal enough to retire forever after just one election term.

Not following. I can buy property. That is a right to property, which is protected by the government. In an anarchy, where are your property rights, oh wise one? What's to stop me from pitching up on your doorstep and chucking you out on the street? Strong government = *law* enforcement. Are you betting on private security firms? That presupposes you've got something to trade in exchange for security. What of poor people who have fuck all? They just gonna get fucked harder? *Taxes* are what useful members of society pay *in order to have access to the benefits* of central government which are law and order and a bunch of other things.

Again. Total failure to answer the question. How in an anarchy will you protect people's freedom?

Quote:
(31-07-2014 10:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  Why do you think that private justice is better? From the point of view of the sap who's stuck in jail, he can't shop for a new cell.
Private justice would not follow made-up laws like carrying a piece of vegetation in your pocket gets you to jail. That kind of law is used by central power to boost prison industry that gets paid by printed dollars.
In a free society, security would only step in if you actively attack someone or actively steal or destroy something. Not if you do your own thing. In a free society there would be no administrative power difference between a security guy and a normal guy.
As for people in jail, where's your compassion with their victims?
How do you know you would go to jail for only crimes like murder? how do you know security will follow your little dreamy plan and only help the needy and only fuck the guilty? My point is that without laws to protect innocent people there's nothing to prevent me from throwing your innocent and baby faced ass into my private jail. Therefore, how will you provide a justice system that is free and fair in your anarchy?

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
[+] 8 users Like morondog's post
31-07-2014, 04:16 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 03:46 PM)morondog Wrote:  At risk to my own sanity, I'm gonna try tell you why I find your answers inadequate.

At the risk of my own sanity, I'm going to try to guess ol' Lumi's answers.

(31-07-2014 03:46 PM)morondog Wrote:  You haven't answered my question - *what do you do to counter a monopoly* if you don't have a legal system set up?

Government force conspiracy nazi reptiloid. Magic woo woo trolling very yes.

(31-07-2014 03:46 PM)morondog Wrote:  So... I'm supposed to bet the future on this unproven idea that if I teach my children to be pleasant and everyone else does the same then human nature will suddenly and miraculously change from its violent past (evolved over several million years) to some kind of hippie utopia?

Sheeple violence brainwashing abuse. Magic woo woo doubleplusgood. I R SO SMRT.

(31-07-2014 03:46 PM)morondog Wrote:  Again. Total failure to answer the question. How in an anarchy will you protect people's freedom?

Sociology government educated stupid magic. Guns money reptiliod. Religious atheist statism cosmic pizza.

(31-07-2014 03:46 PM)morondog Wrote:  Therefore, how will you provide a justice system that is free and fair in your anarchy?

Herp derp wargle gargle whargable. Pshaw. Flimflam scrimshaw argle-bargle. I am in exclusive possession of objective self-evident truth. Magic woo woo utopia. Trololololololol.

For best results, remove contents of skull and apply as a suppository.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
31-07-2014, 04:22 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
at further risk to my sanity I am going to answer your purported Lumi answers...

Actually it's too much Tongue But it woulda been fun Smile

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
31-07-2014, 04:37 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2014 04:48 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 03:16 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  A few years ago I was part of a different atheist forum where an anarchist resided. He talked about how he would prefer a life without government. We had a conversation that went something like this.

Him: "I don't need government, as long as I have my rights to own a weapon, and the right to protect myself, loved ones, and to not get my property stolen."
Me: "Where are these rights coming from?"
Him: "These are basic human rights."
Me: "I don't think rights really exist outside of the confines of a governing system."

Not an exciting convo, but it popped into my mind just now.
Yep. The problem is, nobody has any principles. Nobody even knows what principles are. Except very few people.
There are the first principles of Aristotle, which are absolutely impossible to deny, because by expressing a denial, you already using them, so you disprove that statement.

Then there is morality and human rights derived from the first principles. The first principles are undeniable, and so are these human rights.
For example, the right of ownership. Try arguing against ownership and you will fail, because you own your words. Your words are attributed to you, that is universally accepted knowledge and you use these words to disprove ownership. That does not compute.

As for guns...meh. That is not necessary. America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense - and all the cops went fully paramilitary anyway.
Free society is not about gun ownership, but about not being forced to pay one particular police force. Pick any security agency you want or none or buy a gun - your choice, your consequences. If you pay the security and you still get robbed, your insurance company will pay you a premium which it will take from the security agency. If the cops don't pay, their own insurance gets a lot more expensive. Nobody rules. Everyone is just a regular guy - one of many, everyone needs an insurance - one of many, everyone needs a security agency - one of many. If someone fails, there is always an alternative.

(31-07-2014 04:22 PM)morondog Wrote:  at further risk to my sanity I am going to answer your purported Lumi answers...

Actually it's too much Tongue But it woulda been fun Smile
Please be careful. This is an ancient conversation, older than apologetics. Christianity lost the argument sooner than it started (Epicuros) and governments lost it about that time too.
You grew a big part of your brain on the government template and if you get it disproven, well, this is a big strain on anyone's nerve system. The risk to sanity is real. Philosophy is like training for Olympics, it is an extreme sport. About 1 person in 200 can see that something seems to make sense logically in spite of the culture and tradition and upbringing, but that is just a beginning at best.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 04:41 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yep. The problem is, nobody has any principles. Nobody even knows what principles are. Except very few people.
There are the first principles of Aristotle, which are absolutely impossible to deny, because by expressing a denial, you already using them, so you disprove that statement.

Then there is morality and human rights derived from the first principles. The first principles are undeniable, and so are these human rights.
For example, the right of ownership. Try arguing against ownership and you will fail, because you own your words. Your words are attributed to you, that is universally accepted knowledge and you use these words to disprove ownership. That does not compute.

For those following along at home, this is an ignominious failure pile. Apologists call it the roadrunner tactic, and no, it isn't any more coherent or justifiable when ol' Lumi busts it out.

"You own your words because you own your words" is not compelling. God help ol' Lumi if he doesn't see how transparently circular that 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
31-07-2014, 04:42 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 03:16 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  A few years ago I was part of a different atheist forum where an anarchist resided. He talked about how he would prefer a life without government. We had a conversation that went something like this.

Him: "I don't need government, as long as I have my rights to own a weapon, and the right to protect myself, loved ones, and to not get my property stolen."
Me: "Where are these rights coming from?"
Him: "These are basic human rights."
Me: "I don't think rights really exist outside of the confines of a governing system."

Not an exciting convo, but it popped into my mind just now.
Yep. The problem is, nobody has any principles. Nobody even knows what principles are. Except very few people.
There are the first principles of Aristotle, which are absolutely impossible to deny, because by expressing a denial, you already using them, so you disprove that statement.

Then there is morality and human rights derived from the first principles. The first principles are undeniable, and so are these human rights.
For example, the right of ownership. Try arguing against ownership and you will fail, because you own your words. Your words are attributed to you, that is universally accepted knowledge and you use these words to disprove ownership. That does not compute.

As for guns...meh. That is not necessary. America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense - and all the cops went fully paramilitary anyway.
Free society is not about gun ownership, but about not being forced to pay one particular police force. Pick any security agency you want or none or buy a gun - your choice, your consequences. If you pay the security and you still get robbed, your insurance company will pay you a premium which it will take from the security agency. If the cops don't pay, their own insurance gets a lot more expensive.

(31-07-2014 04:22 PM)morondog Wrote:  at further risk to my sanity I am going to answer your purported Lumi answers...

Actually it's too much Tongue But it woulda been fun Smile
Please be careful. This is an ancient conversation, older than apologetics. Christianity lost the argument sooner than it started (Epicuros) and governments lost it about that time too.
You grew a big part of your brain on the government template and if you get it disproven, well, this is a big strain on anyone's nerve system. The risk to sanity is real.

Wow, what a load of shit. You are just a horrible person. Do yourself a favor and drop this political cult you are in it really has taken you down a bad road.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: