New Orleans: A Case Study

[SOCALHUSKER]

Bump?

 

After 8 minutes?

 

On pins and needles, are we?

 

 

Yeah I know, what a loser!!

 

The page errored on me and I wanted to make sure it got reloaded, sorry!!

[HUSKER 37]

Bump?

 

After 8 minutes?

 

On pins and needles, are we?

 

 

Yeah I know, what a loser!!

 

The page errored on me and I wanted to make sure it got reloaded, sorry!!

 

I sorta suspected it was really something like that..

[SOCALHUSKER]

Also . . . apparently the phrase "false and contradictory" applies to anything that is disagreeable to a person regardless of whether it is either false OR contradictory.

I reread my post to see what you might be talking about here and here's what I found. My exact qoute was, "The truth is, when one actually looks at and breaks down each of the worries, they all can be found to be completely false and quite contradictory."

 

I provided numerous examples of this in my post. Here's one for you.

 

Husker 37 states “Just the inevitable consequences of not having real-life protections (other than karma) against man's evil human nature.” Which is to essentially say that without government, protection would cease to exist in a real life form. This then implies that government actually provides protection to it citizens, such as Husker 37.

 

This statement is false because government does not necessarily provide protection. Protection is defense and government protection is not defense, but actually the initiating of force. This point is well-documented and I have provided several examples in my post that explain. Therefore since what government calls protection is not really protection at all, but instead force, this statement is proven to be false.

 

The idea is also contradictory because government protection, if that's what you call it, is supposedly created to defend the rights, lifestyles and interests of the government's citizens. However, since the citizens must also fund the defense through the use of coercion and force, doesn't that make the idea of protection a contradiction? If I am threated with violence to pay somebody for protection, but the one who actually is threatening me is the same person I am paying for protection, isn't that contradictory to the very idea of protection? Please tell me how it isn't.

 

So yes, I do disagree with what is being stated, and actually my arguments prove it to be both false and contradictory.

[HuskersNow]

 

The idea is also contradictory because government protection, if that's what you call it, is supposedly created to defend the rights, lifestyles and interests of the government's citizens. However, since the citizens must also fund the defense through the use of coercion and force, doesn't that make the idea of protection a contradiction? If I am threated with violence to pay somebody for protection, but the one who actually is threatening me is the same person I am paying for protection, isn't that contradictory to the very idea of protection? Please tell me how it isn't.

 

So yes, I do disagree with what is being stated, and actually my arguments prove it to be both false and contradictory.

That sounds just like a gang demanding "protection money" from a business. If the businessman doesn't pay them, he will pay dearly.

[carlfense]

Also . . . apparently the phrase "false and contradictory" applies to anything that is disagreeable to a person regardless of whether it is either false OR contradictory.

I reread my post to see what you might be talking about here and here's what I found. My exact qoute was, "The truth is, when one actually looks at and breaks down each of the worries, they all can be found to be completely false and quite contradictory."

 

I provided numerous examples of this in my post. Here's one for you.

 

Husker 37 states “Just the inevitable consequences of not having real-life protections (other than karma) against man's evil human nature.” Which is to essentially say that without government, protection would cease to exist in a real life form. This then implies that government actually provides protection to it citizens, such as Husker 37.

 

This statement is false because government does not necessarily provide protection. Protection is defense and government protection is not defense, but actually the initiating of force. This point is well-documented and I have provided several examples in my post that explain. Therefore since what government calls protection is not really protection at all, but instead force, this statement is proven to be false.

 

The idea is also contradictory because government protection, if that's what you call it, is supposedly created to defend the rights, lifestyles and interests of the government's citizens. However, since the citizens must also fund the defense through the use of coercion and force, doesn't that make the idea of protection a contradiction? If I am threated with violence to pay somebody for protection, but the one who actually is threatening me is the same person I am paying for protection, isn't that contradictory to the very idea of protection? Please tell me how it isn't.

 

So yes, I do disagree with what is being stated, and actually my arguments prove it to be both false and contradictory.

 

Are you trying to imply that force and defense are mutually exclusive? What about self-defense? Someone comes at me with a gun and I shoot them to defend my own life. Technically I am initiating force . . . but I am using it in a defensive fashion.

 

A/C would be no different. The people initiating force (who would now be the people/group) with the most money or the biggest guns would dominate the others. All of human history points to this.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Are you trying to imply that force and defense are mutually exclusive? What about self-defense? Someone comes at me with a gun and I shoot them to defend my own life. Technically I am initiating force . . . but I am using it in a defensive fashion.

 

A/C would be no different. The people initiating force (who would now be the people/group) with the most money or the biggest guns would dominate the others. All of human history points to this.

 

Yes, self defense and force are exclusive. How do you figure self defense to be initiated? The only way defense can be employed is if someone else initiates violence against you either through threat or action. If someone else initiates either, how can you also initiate? That's impossible. If neither occur, you are then employing force. What you describe as using initiated force in a defensive fashion is called a preemptive strike/action, a recent example of this is the Iraq War, and I hate to say it, but this is still force.

 

Actually a voluntary society is much different then the current monopoly system in place. You forget that the free market has mechanisms called competition and free choice, which allow consumers to choose which service they will or will not use and who they will or will not pay. Since this is the case, how do you figure a company is going to get so large and violent, while still keeping its customers satisfied enough to pay for it to grow, without also creating a market for competitors to enter the market? The only reason the US government has been able to do this is because it maintains a monopoly, sanctioned by you!!

[carlfense]

 

Are you trying to imply that force and defense are mutually exclusive? What about self-defense? Someone comes at me with a gun and I shoot them to defend my own life. Technically I am initiating force . . . but I am using it in a defensive fashion.

 

A/C would be no different. The people initiating force (who would now be the people/group) with the most money or the biggest guns would dominate the others. All of human history points to this.

 

Section A.

Yes, self defense and force are exclusive. How do you figure self defense to be initiated? The only way defense can be employed is if someone else initiates violence against you either through threat or action. If someone else initiates either, how can you also initiate? That's impossible. If neither occur, you are then employing force. What you describe as using initiated force in a defensive fashion is called a preemptive strike/action, a recent example of this is the Iraq War, and I hate to say it, but this is still force. [/b]

 

Section B.

Actually a voluntary society is much different then the current monopoly system in place. You forget that the free market has mechanisms called competition and free choice, which allow consumers to choose which service they will or will not use and who they will or will not pay. Since this is the case, how do you figure a company is going to get so large and violent, while still keeping its customers satisfied enough to pay for it to grow, without also creating a market for competitors to enter the market? The only reason the US government has been able to do this is because it maintains a monopoly, sanctioned by you!!

 

Section A.

Seriously? You constantly preach that the use of force is inherently evil . . . and you say using self defense as I described is forceful. Therefore, someone trying to save their own life against someone about to harm them is inherently evil? I think you might want to think through your reasoning a bit longer.

 

Section B.

I think I understand what you are saying here Socal. Since companies currently have the unfair advantage of governmental support or disadvantage of governmental disfavor (sarcasm) then before we can all live in harmonious anarchy we must level the playing field. Everyone should be put back to square one . . . say assign each person an equal tract of land in the US. Therefore, the companies that spring up have succeeded only because of their hard work, diligence, and integrity. In that way we can be fully rid of the tarnish or our monopolistic governmental quagmire.

 

Oh wait . . . you weren't advocating for that? Then I guess I will have to assume that those that currently have enormous wealth would retain said wealth and use it however they see fit in the ensuing lawless society.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Section A.

Yes, self defense and force are exclusive. How do you figure self defense to be initiated? The only way defense can be employed is if someone else initiates violence against you either through threat or action. If someone else initiates either, how can you also initiate? That's impossible. If neither occur, you are then employing force. What you describe as using initiated force in a defensive fashion is called a preemptive strike/action, a recent example of this is the Iraq War, and I hate to say it, but this is still force. [/b]

 

Section B.

Actually a voluntary society is much different then the current monopoly system in place. You forget that the free market has mechanisms called competition and free choice, which allow consumers to choose which service they will or will not use and who they will or will not pay. Since this is the case, how do you figure a company is going to get so large and violent, while still keeping its customers satisfied enough to pay for it to grow, without also creating a market for competitors to enter the market? The only reason the US government has been able to do this is because it maintains a monopoly, sanctioned by you!!

 

Section A.

Seriously? You constantly preach that the use of force is inherently evil . . . and you say using self defense as I described is forceful. Therefore, someone trying to save their own life against someone about to harm them is inherently evil? I think you might want to think through your reasoning a bit longer.

 

Section B.

I think I understand what you are saying here Socal. Since companies currently have the unfair advantage of governmental support or disadvantage of governmental disfavor (sarcasm) then before we can all live in harmonious anarchy we must level the playing field. Everyone should be put back to square one . . . say assign each person an equal tract of land in the US. Therefore, the companies that spring up have succeeded only because of their hard work, diligence, and integrity. In that way we can be fully rid of the tarnish or our monopolistic governmental quagmire.

 

Oh wait . . . you weren't advocating for that? Then I guess I will have to assume that those that currently have enormous wealth would retain said wealth and use it however they see fit in the ensuing lawless society.

 

If someone is trying to save their own life, wouldn't that mean they have been threatened?? If they have, an initiation of force would have already been made against them. This is the textbook definition of defense.

 

And as far as person(s) of enormous wealth taking over, do those people with such wealth not need people to work for them or do they have enough money to control the world with no help at all? To say that anyone has that much money or power, I highly doubt it. Even a person of Bill Gates stature, currently the richest man in the world, couldn't last without the assistance and employment of others.

 

To assume that anyone, consisting of such enormous wealth, could exist in a world of voluntary free choice without the assistance of others is not only illogical but impossible. First of all, who would not try to uproot his power through competition? Secondly, who would be willing to work for a man if ostracizing was employed?

 

Also, no one is saying that a voluntarist society could happen today. Education is crucial and individuals must be aware of not only responsibility, but also the workings of the free market.

[carlfense]

 

Section A.

Yes, self defense and force are exclusive. How do you figure self defense to be initiated? The only way defense can be employed is if someone else initiates violence against you either through threat or action. If someone else initiates either, how can you also initiate? That's impossible. If neither occur, you are then employing force. What you describe as using initiated force in a defensive fashion is called a preemptive strike/action, a recent example of this is the Iraq War, and I hate to say it, but this is still force. [/b]

 

Section B.

Actually a voluntary society is much different then the current monopoly system in place. You forget that the free market has mechanisms called competition and free choice, which allow consumers to choose which service they will or will not use and who they will or will not pay. Since this is the case, how do you figure a company is going to get so large and violent, while still keeping its customers satisfied enough to pay for it to grow, without also creating a market for competitors to enter the market? The only reason the US government has been able to do this is because it maintains a monopoly, sanctioned by you!!

 

Section A.

Seriously? You constantly preach that the use of force is inherently evil . . . and you say using self defense as I described is forceful. Therefore, someone trying to save their own life against someone about to harm them is inherently evil? I think you might want to think through your reasoning a bit longer.

 

Section B.

I think I understand what you are saying here Socal. Since companies currently have the unfair advantage of governmental support or disadvantage of governmental disfavor (sarcasm) then before we can all live in harmonious anarchy we must level the playing field. Everyone should be put back to square one . . . say assign each person an equal tract of land in the US. Therefore, the companies that spring up have succeeded only because of their hard work, diligence, and integrity. In that way we can be fully rid of the tarnish or our monopolistic governmental quagmire.

 

Oh wait . . . you weren't advocating for that? Then I guess I will have to assume that those that currently have enormous wealth would retain said wealth and use it however they see fit in the ensuing lawless society.

 

If someone is trying to save their own life, wouldn't that mean they have been threatened?? If they have, an initiation of force would have already been made against them. This is the textbook definition of defense.

 

And as far as person(s) of enormous wealth taking over, do those people with such wealth not need people to work for them or do they have enough money to control the world with no help at all? To say that anyone has that much money or power, I highly doubt it. Even a person of Bill Gates stature, currently the richest man in the world, couldn't last without the assistance and employment of others.

 

To assume that anyone, consisting of such enormous wealth, could exist in a world of voluntary free choice without the assistance of others is not only illogical but impossible. First of all, who would not try to uproot his power through competition? Secondly, who would be willing to work for a man if ostracizing was employed?

 

Also, no one is saying that a voluntarist society could happen today. Education is crucial and individuals must be aware of not only responsibility, but also the workings of the free market.

 

OF COURSE people would still work for Bill Gates even if they were ostracized for it. Some people will do anything for wealth. Other people lust after power. These are not solely attributes of government as you claim . . . these are attributes of people.

[HUSKER 37]

Also . . . apparently the phrase "false and contradictory" applies to anything that is disagreeable to a person regardless of whether it is either false OR contradictory.

I reread my post to see what you might be talking about here and here's what I found. My exact qoute was, "The truth is, when one actually looks at and breaks down each of the worries, they all can be found to be completely false and quite contradictory."

 

I provided numerous examples of this in my post. Here's one for you.

 

Husker 37 states “Just the inevitable consequences of not having real-life protections (other than karma) against man's evil human nature.” Which is to essentially say that without government, protection would cease to exist in a real life form. This then implies that government actually provides protection to it citizens, such as Husker 37.

 

This statement is false because government does not necessarily provide protection. Protection is defense and government protection is not defense, but actually the initiating of force. This point is well-documented and I have provided several examples in my post that explain. Therefore since what government calls protection is not really protection at all, but instead force, this statement is proven to be false.

 

The idea is also contradictory because government protection, if that's what you call it, is supposedly created to defend the rights, lifestyles and interests of the government's citizens. However, since the citizens must also fund the defense through the use of coercion and force, doesn't that make the idea of protection a contradiction? If I am threated with violence to pay somebody for protection, but the one who actually is threatening me is the same person I am paying for protection, isn't that contradictory to the very idea of protection? Please tell me how it isn't.

 

So yes, I do disagree with what is being stated, and actually my arguments prove it to be both false and contradictory.

 

 

I don't know how you are able to link government into only one entity..or treat it as such..It's a complicated maze of intertwining, usually counterproductive...whatever.

 

When I think of our government acting as a protector, I'm mainly thinking of the Judicial branch..With their Laws and "general interference" making it harder for someone to just take what they want from each other.

Ever evolving to counter the latest scam or loophole discovered by an ever evolving "bad guy".

 

Initialization of force seems moot..unless you're watching it in a movie and you need something other than hat color to tell just who the good guys or bad guys are.

 

Just the fact that "they" have guns means that maybe "We " should have guns unless we think they "have been educated enough not to use them"...then..as we're pointing our weapons of mass destruction in each other's general direction..wondering if maybe they have bennefitted from the same education that we have..a mosquito sneeze could actually start the whole thing.

 

 

I'm not sure who the first people on the planet were...But I imagine they tried working things out every way possible before they settled on creating a "government" to decide conflict...It's really sucked..HARD!..but still better than the alternative.

[huskertim]

Bump?

 

After 8 minutes?

 

On pins and needles, are we?

 

 

Yeah I know, what a loser!!

 

The page errored on me and I wanted to make sure it got reloaded, sorry!!

 

I sorta suspected it was really something like that..

 

Off topic, and showing my ignorance here. What's the bump thing about?

[carlfense]

Bump?

 

After 8 minutes?

 

On pins and needles, are we?

 

 

Yeah I know, what a loser!!

 

The page errored on me and I wanted to make sure it got reloaded, sorry!!

 

I sorta suspected it was really something like that..

 

Off topic, and showing my ignorance here. What's the bump thing about?

 

Sometimes your post doesn't go through right the first time so you press refresh on your browser. Occassionally that will result in a double post. I think SOCAL did that and then edited the second one to say bump. "Bumping" is usually used to push a thread back to the top of a forum.

[huskertim]

Thanks.