Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually he presented a point which you never really refuted.
Actually you brought it up and I said that yes, if people want to elect leaders again that will happen. I just don't see a reason why I should assume that it would necessarily happen (was only like a few pages back, too)
Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually you brought it up and I said that yes, if people want to elect leaders again that will happen. I just don't see a reason why I should assume that it would necessarily happen (was only like a few pages back, too)
Oh, I thought I had given a response to that one. If not I'd like to direct your attention to the sum total of human history everywhere on the planet.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavI don't see any evidence to support that.
That is how it will develop- governments are natural.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh, I thought I had given a response to that one. If not I'd like to direct your attention to the sum total of human history everywhere on the planet.
Then I'd like you to direct my view to an anarcho-capitalist society as I explained over the last 20 pages., so I can have my cup of STFU
Originally posted by Bardock42
Then I'd like you to direct my view to an anarcho-capitalist society as I explained over the last 20 pages., so I can have my cup of STFU
You can debate the merits of anarchy vs government all you want. You cannot rationally debate against the tendency of people to form governments.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You can debate the merits of anarchy vs government all you want. You cannot rationally debate against the tendency of people to form governments.
I can actually. So, where is that anarcho-capitalist society again you were talking about? hmm
It's funny though, I remember making a similar argument in my ethics class when I was 18 ... it was a bit different though, I'm not a total hypocrite.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I can actually. So, where is that anarcho-capitalist society again you were talking about? hmm
There isn't one that I know of. People form governments. They do it everywhere, virtually without fail. Unless you've completely deluded yourself you cannot claim people don't tend to establish governments. I suppose your society might forcibly remove any one trying to build a government but that would seem to infringe on the human rights you were trying to protect.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's funny though, I remember making a similar argument in my ethics class when I was 18 ... it was a bit different though, I'm not a total hypocrite.
Forming governments isn't ethics though, it's not even up for debate by sane people. It's a fact. People make governments. If they didn't make them we wouldn't have them.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavThat's not the same as a government though.
Why then is there always an authority figure- in any social structure it exists,In a group of friends.
In a family.
In a school.etc etc,
there are always seniors and juniors.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There isn't one that I know of. People form governments. They do it everywhere, virtually without fail. Unless you've completely deluded yourself you cannot claim people don't tend to establish governments. I suppose your society might forcibly remove any one trying to build a government but that would seem to infringe on the human rights you were trying to protect.Forming governments isn't ethics though, it's not even up for debate by sane people. It's a fact. People make governments. If they didn't make them we wouldn't have them.
No one argues that people don't make governments. What I argue is that it's no, by any means, natural to make governments, nor is it necessary that governments are formed if there aren't any governments, nor is it in any way proven that the government is the ultimate form of society and that no lasting non government society could evolve from it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No one argues that people don't make governments. What I argue is that it's no, by any means, natural to make governments, nor is it necessary that governments are formed if there aren't any governments, nor is it in any way proven that the government is the ultimate form of society and that no lasting non government society could evolve from it.
People do things.
Things people do are what people do.
People follow their nature.
Governments are not created by aliens.
Governments exist.
Governments do not exist when governments do not exist.
When governments do not exist people follow their nature and create them. I suppose you could try to make the argument that human nature goes against human nature but that would be completely insane.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Oh, I thought I had given a response to that one. If not I'd like to direct your attention to the sum total of human history everywhere on the planet.
medieval iceland: http://mises.org/story/1121
collapsed because of market consolidation, too much power in wealth
Kronstadt: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mhuey/TOC/KRN.frame.html
breakaway region of Russia during the revolution, was put down by use of force by Russian army
numerous ideological communities around the planet, though they only represent a self selected group of people.
Anarchists in Spain were highly successful before being destroyed in Civil War
Well I never particularly claimed to be...
Although if I were then I'd probably tend more towards yours than Bardocks.
I can see the virtues of less government interference; I empathize with the attitude of only personally contributing for what I personally believe is worthwhile; but I still can't see the practicality/feasibility of no government. I am far too cynical of the human condition.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well I never particularly claimed to be...Although if I were then I'd probably tend more towards yours than Bardocks.
I can see the virtues of less government interference; I empathize with the attitude of only personally contributing for what I personally believe is worthwhile; but I still can't see the practicality/feasibility of no government. I am far too cynical of the human condition.
No, I understand that
In a lot of ways it is more a moral sentiment than something that is workable as a political theory. I think it is possible, but ya, not something that reasonably would occur in the near future.
I don't know, I rag on people a lot, but we really aren't that bad. Like, lots of crime is a consequence of conditions, not of things inherent to people. I heard this biologist talking once, comparing how long it takes to litter train a cat to how hard it is to toilet train a person. Apes swung around in trees, so it was never a problem for them to have to watch where they deficated, as it would just fall to the ground. It may take a long time, but that genetic, and biological drive to ignore where you poop can be learned against. It means people can be taught to do things so totally against their nature, though I don't really believe it is human nature to want to try and backstab those around you.
Originally posted by inimalist
medieval iceland: http://mises.org/story/1121collapsed because of market consolidation, too much power in wealth
Kronstadt: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mhuey/TOC/KRN.frame.html
breakaway region of Russia during the revolution, was put down by use of force by Russian army
numerous ideological communities around the planet, though they only represent a self selected group of people.
Anarchists in Spain were highly successful before being destroyed in Civil War
So there were a few anarchist societies with limited success and a number of tiny ones which cannot be extrapolated up to a large scale because they never have to deal with dissent. Not much to go on.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Why should there be less government interference?
Because people are automatically good but government (which are made of people) are automatically bad.