Jump to content


Why We Couldn't Abolish Slavery Then...


Recommended Posts

"Really?? What good has America done? What inventions of science and technology has America contributed? Last time I checked those were all done by individuals, not the fictious entity you claim as America. Society, or America in this case, is only composed of individuals, so in order for America to have done something good all those individuals who comprise America must have contributed to do something good. Since that is not the case, it is only each individual who did something good, and not America."

 

1. This one made me laugh. I think I have the "SOCALHUSKER Premise" down now:

 

Anything good MUST be from the individual. Anything bad MUST be from the government. (Note: Must also steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the government is composed of individuals . . . those same individuals that would all magically be wonderfully productive, natural-law abiding citizens, were we only free from the chains of tyranny.)

 

In a free society, one in which individuals are free to make choices and then held responsible for those actions you would realize that humans look out for their own best interest. This means they don’t kill because that leaves them open to being killed or the consequences of such actions. Men don’t steal because of the same. If anything, the laws created by government are often contradictory and lead people to do things that lead to more crime.

 

2. Do you really believe this drivel? You think a poor man with nothing to lose won't attempt to steal from another man? You think without government people won't kill each other any more? You think that the defenseless deserve no protection?

 

Despite the cladding of your messianic zeal, this is pure rubbish.

Link to comment

"Really?? What good has America done? What inventions of science and technology has America contributed? Last time I checked those were all done by individuals, not the fictious entity you claim as America. Society, or America in this case, is only composed of individuals, so in order for America to have done something good all those individuals who comprise America must have contributed to do something good. Since that is not the case, it is only each individual who did something good, and not America."

 

1. This one made me laugh. I think I have the "SOCALHUSKER Premise" down now:

 

Anything good MUST be from the individual. Anything bad MUST be from the government. (Note: Must also steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the government is composed of individuals . . . those same individuals that would all magically be wonderfully productive, natural-law abiding citizens, were we only free from the chains of tyranny.)

 

In a free society, one in which individuals are free to make choices and then held responsible for those actions you would realize that humans look out for their own best interest. This means they don’t kill because that leaves them open to being killed or the consequences of such actions. Men don’t steal because of the same. If anything, the laws created by government are often contradictory and lead people to do things that lead to more crime.

 

2. Do you really believe this drivel? You think a poor man with nothing to lose won't attempt to steal from another man? You think without government people won't kill each other any more? You think that the defenseless deserve no protection?

 

Despite the cladding of your messianic zeal, this is pure rubbish.

1. Yep, you got me!! Except that I don’t recall ever writing that. Maybe you can point it out?

 

I merely pointed out that Husker X, and a few others including yourself, try to lump the contributions of individuals in as something accomplished by the fictitious entity known as the state, which is untrue. Can you really refute that? What exactly does the government contribute? Do they magically produce intelligent individuals? Or somehow telepathically give the individuals ideas? I’m curious to hear how the government pulls all these amazing things off that you claim.

 

2. Drivel? Yeah, I think that pretty much sums up the economic and philosophical ignorance that you spew. Never have I attempted to say that killing or stealing would cease, rather that both would be greatly reduced by increasing individual responsibility and allowing the markets to function without interference. In case you aren’t aware, increasing individual responsibility is proven to reduce negligible behavior. Also, free markets have proven to increase prosperity. So in the case of thefts, the number of poor would be greatly reduced, therefore reducing the amount of stealing. Have either of these ideas ever entered into your brain or have they somehow slipped through the cracks of your statist thoughts? It could also be that you were never taught, but either way, now that you know I will now hold you responsible.

 

And who ever said that the defenseless deserve no protection? That’s a comment out of left field and definitely without merit. Maybe you can explain where that came from?

Link to comment

SOCALHUSKER

"Nowhere did I mention Nazi Germany. I said Germany, as in the Germany that was demolished after WW I, which led to the rise of Hitler and the despicable actions of WW II. Are you seriously going to argue that the US had no involvement in the destruction and sanctions that created poverty and despair in Germany, which led to the nationalist scene?"

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dig out your European history book and you will find that the United States never ratified the treaty of Versallies and that the vindictive treaty was basically authoried by the French and English. President Woodrow Wilson was basically interested in forming the League of Nations.

 

T_O_B

Link to comment

1. First of all whose ideals do those laws represent? Also, who gave consent to make those laws? They sure as hell aren’t ideals of mine and regardless, they didn’t ask my permission to make the laws. What if I was to tell them no? You might argue that I'm allowed to vote, but what if I don’t want to be involved in running others lives? Does that mean that because the majority vote and feel a certain way that they can force their beliefs on everybody? Sounds a little like mob rule to me. Do you believe force should be used on people who refuse to sanction and fund laws that don’t represent their ideals? If so, does that not leave the power absolutely with those who believe the laws are ideal? You could argue that voting can be used to bring about changes in those laws, but I’d like to know when that has ever happened? Secondly, what proof do you have that the laws have actually usurped power and tyranny from anyone? Doesn’t the president go to war without a declaration? Don’t presidents issue signing statements? Doesn’t Congress pass laws all the time without regard for their constituents? Doesn’t the Supreme Court make decisions that everyone is bound to? If history and the growth of government under the Constitution is any indication, the laws have only served to benefit those with political power and not the other way around as you so imagine.

 

And as far as you saying my statement in contradictory, how do you figure? First of all, I’m not the one who sanctions government because men are evil and therefore society needs to be protected from them. So, trying to say that I do is completely baseless. I merely stated that government is the tool that allows evil men to bring forward their evil agendas because government is a monopoly. In a free society, those same men would have no such luck because of the competition their actions would incur. I believe that some men are good and some men are evil, but that doesn’t mean we need either in power to maintain order. Government doesn’t come from the will of all men as you state, but only from those who wish to rule or be ruled. What about those who choose neither? Anarchy is not about ruling but about having individual choice, there’s a difference and the difference isn’t a contradiction.

 

2. It very well could, but what then is the next form that government will take? I haven’t heard of any new breakthroughs on government ideology; maybe you could clue me in. Over the last few centuries we’ve run the spectrum on government, from Communism, socialism, fascism, dictatorship, monarchy, democracy, mercantilism, corporatism and a republic. Society has tried them all and not one has led to anything but tyranny and poverty. What’s next? You claim that America has ended up on the right side of history, but what about astronomical debt, a collapsing dollar, daily loss of freedom, an irresponsible and entitlement driven society, continuous wars and record poverty do you perceive as right?

 

People might say that we need to go back to the days of the founders, but then what? Government grows again and we end up in the same predicament again, maybe worse. We already know how this party ends and it isn’t good. Learning from your mistakes is one thing, but reliving them is another. I believe, and very well could be wrong, that we have run out of government ideas and the next logical step is the dissolution of government. Think of it as the next step in the evolution of individual freedom. This allows individuals to make choices freely and to be held responsible for those choices. Isn’t that what freedom really is?

 

3. No, I am not assuming that anyone adopt my idea of freedom. I am merely stating that each individual should have a choice in what they perceive freedom to be. With government that option does not exist. If someone wishes to live in a socialist compound they should be free to make that choice, they just cannot use force to make others live the way they do too. Nor can anyone use force to make others subsidize their activities or buy their products. Is voluntary choice that abstract of a concept? Each individual would be free to live life and make choices that he sees fit. This is the exact opposite of what we live today and nothing of what you state above.

 

And as for the enforcing natural law, that would be left up to the market. Do you think that maybe some of the weaker individuals might want to be protected or that the rich might want to safeguard their wealth? As I have explained earlier if there is a demand for a service the market will provide it. The free market allows those who provide the best possible service at the best possible price to flourish and competition ensures this. Security and dispute resolution would work the same way. With the system of laws and justice being used today, the one you sanction, the government keeps a monopoly that doesn’t actually provide either, is that what you mean by order?

 

4.Really?? What good has America done? What inventions of science and technology has America contributed? Last time I checked those were all done by individuals, not the fictious entity you claim as America. Society, or America in this case, is only composed of individuals, so in order for America to have done something good all those individuals who comprise America must have contributed to do something good. Since that is not the case, it is only each individual who did something good, and not America.

 

Nowhere did I mention Nazi Germany. I said Germany, as in the Germany that was demolished after WW I, which led to the rise of Hitler and the despicable actions of WW II. Are you seriously going to argue that the US had no involvement in the destruction and sanctions that created poverty and despair in Germany, which led to the nationalist scene?

 

Also, how do you figure that anarchy would lead to an “absolutist dictatorship” or a totalitarian regime? If each individual is educated on freedom and is also free to make his or her own choices how do you figure a dictator will assume power? Obviously you need to learn about the basic economics of liberty if you believe such erroneous and fallacious activities would arise from a free market. The government and its laws are actually what permit monopoly power to expand. This is what leads to dictators, not the individuals, the competition or the free market.

 

And as for government bringing common law to the table and creating order that is also erroneous. There is nothing about government laws that promote order. If anything, they create disorder and many unintended consequences. Any law that actually does anything to protect an individual is also a natural law. Natural laws don’t need to be written because they happen naturally. Do you really believe that if we didn’t have written laws that killing, theft and all other violations of humanity would escalate? In a free society, one in which individuals are free to make choices and then held responsible for those actions you would realize that humans look out for their own best interest. This means they don’t kill because that leaves them open to being killed or the consequences of such actions. Men don’t steal because of the same. If anything, the laws created by government are often contradictory and lead people to do things that lead to more crime.

 

 

5. I don’t owe the majority opinion a reason for anything because I’m not forcing anyone to do anything except to allow me the freedom to make my own choices and be responsible for them. What do I need to prove, that I know what is better for my own life than anyone else? Do I really need to prove that? I don’t want to be forced to participate in your system and that’s all I ask. If others feel the same way or if they wished to participate in a collective as you do, I would allow them the same courtesy, would you? Or would you, with the threat of violence, force them to contribute and obey your so-called ideals? The answer should be pretty simple. Either you believe that individuals should be allowed to make their own choices in life and be held responsible for those choices or you believe that people are slaves and need to work their entire lives to support the murderous, tyrannical, despicable and poverty inducing entity known as government. The choice is yours.

 

I'm going to have to cherry pick responses here. I hope you'll oblige me. At this point it's like using a baseball bat to ward off a meteor shower.

 

1. Your entire outlook on ideals is contradictory. You say, in plain and well written English, that your ideal society would be one forged on the premise of a free market and property rights. You also have admitted that government comes about by the will of men. You then further claim that no one should be able to put their ideals on anyone else, especially with the use of force, but that you expect education on liberty will naturally bring this conversion about (a hapless vagary if I've ever heard one, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument). I then ask you, what do you intend to do when an element of this new society (perhaps even a majority element) respects or accepts neither 1-your liberty, or 2-your property rights? As a utopian fantasy I can sympathize with your worldview, but the word ridiculous is straining at the limits of its descriptive power to even account for the smallest fragment of practical application. Yes, you do have a vote in our nation, and your voice is heard just the same as the president's when it comes to the ballot box. It is true that you may compromise something like drug use (presently) to be a part of American society, but you are not blocked from attempting to change the laws to more fit in line with your worldview. If you and your minority party––another pair of words that can scarcely describe its smallness––don't like America's republic, I'd suggest either 1- running for public office on the platform of abolishing the constitution, or 2- leave the country for the Canadian wilderness or some other remote place where you won't be bothered.

 

As to the force question, my answer is yes, absolutely. If someone does not believe in my ideal that child rape and murder is wrong, I smilingly relish in the fact that society will respond to a person who neglects this ideal with forced detainment and execution. Please carefully note, nothing about your system, not property, not force, not murder, not freedom, anti-tyranny, etc. can be assumed as absolute truth in this theoretical brave new world. You assume what has yet to be proven, namely that these things come natural to man, are fundamentally correct, and will be the persistent and dominant mode of society throughout the remainder of our time as a species. Remember also that when a man who believes in protecting life and a man who believes in destroying life meet in anarchy, all that decides the issue is the stronger party. It isn't freedom. It's social Darwinism.

 

2. You're essentially right that we have seen our fair share of governments in the past few hundred years. All were flawed. All current ones have flaws. I never said America was perfect, or THE answer. I said it was the best answer we've come up with. Our governments are flawed because they come about through flawed individuals. This is to be expected. The difference between our republic and the monarchies and theocracies of the past and present is that we the People are able to change our society routinely. Thus, America has been, is, and will always be an unfinished product. If you personally feel liberty is being restricted in an unacceptable way, congratulations, you were born in a time and place where your bowels wouldn't be ripped out, your head stuck to a pike, and your wife and children tortured to death for your holding of that opinion. Not only are you not under threat of violence, you have unlimited freedom to share the view and enact whatever social change you feel is best, granted you have the majority opinion on your side.

 

Your second paragraph in this point is entirely speculative. We simply have differing opinions. As to what freedom really is, this is a philosophical question for which no absolute answer exists, or if it does, it's unknowable. Stating a definition of freedom is merely a reflection of an opinion which may or may not be shared. (You can see where majority rule begins to look useful.) I will mention, though, that in anarchy it's obvious that a man who commits murder in the wilderness may not be held accountable by anyone. We wouldn't want to force our ideals of justice on anyone, now would we?

 

3. A sociopath's definition of freedom in anarchy would be the ability to do whatever he wanted, regardless of how destructive, without consequence. If you limit this idea of freedom, then your case is lost, for to limit one is to limit them all, and is an argument for force and government. Reiterating your ideals on force and right to life would be the bleating of an optimist trying to live in a nihilist's world. As for myself, I don't want a world where the punishment of pedophilia is left up to a market (wherein you would likely have two markets, the one that sold children as sex slaves, and the other which attempted to stop them), or a world where orphans are left to starve and freeze while we wait for an investor to build an orphanage.

 

4. On the contributions of America, I assume you're being facetious. Many advancements from aeronautics to space travel to the development of the internet have come about in some way under the umbrella of 'government or military project.' While true that these inventions were the result of an individual or several individuals together, the funding, the facilities, the prize money, the society in which they were allowed to be built in the first place, came about thanks to the government. You may argue that these inventions would have been made regardless of government, or in spite of it, but this is speculative nonsense of the first order. It would involve an alternate history of the world which even the best science fiction writers couldn't create.

 

To the bolded part in the last paragraph on this point, the fact that they happen at all annihilates your entire position. What I believe about escalation is just as irrelevant as what you believe about it. Fact is this, we have a written law with force to back up that law. I won't murder another man partly out of fear that the organizations which compile forensic evidence will catch me and assimilate me into their prison system. While I don't want to kill anyone now, there is the possibility that I would in the future, and the presence of law and justice which flows from individuals through the government would cause me to seriously rethink the consequences of my intentions. You can pound the pulpit of free market solutions all you like, but you can't guarantee me squat about your world being able to do anything about crime at all. It could just as easily be the free market brings about a mafia which protects certain behaviors and pits it against a law-enforcement insurance company that tries to stop them. Yet again, the fittest, not necessarily the just, will survive.

 

5. I believe you can apply for a passport at your local post office, but since you're probably not worried about American law once you've left, I'd advise just using a boat or a small airplane to leave the country. Either way, no one's asking you to stay. But should you choose to hang around and promote anarchy, I'll try to frame this as clearly as I can.

 

SOCAL: Government is evil an tyrannical; we should get rid of it.

 

PEOPLE: Why? You have something better?

 

SOCAL: f#*k you! I don't have to prove anything!

 

This is about the tone of this part of the argument. You owe us logic if you want us to share your opinion, and a reasonable account in some level of detail about how this society would function. So far all you've managed is a series begged questions and hyperbole.

Link to comment

"Really?? What good has America done? What inventions of science and technology has America contributed? Last time I checked those were all done by individuals, not the fictious entity you claim as America. Society, or America in this case, is only composed of individuals, so in order for America to have done something good all those individuals who comprise America must have contributed to do something good. Since that is not the case, it is only each individual who did something good, and not America."

 

1. This one made me laugh. I think I have the "SOCALHUSKER Premise" down now:

 

Anything good MUST be from the individual. Anything bad MUST be from the government. (Note: Must also steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that the government is composed of individuals . . . those same individuals that would all magically be wonderfully productive, natural-law abiding citizens, were we only free from the chains of tyranny.)

 

In a free society, one in which individuals are free to make choices and then held responsible for those actions you would realize that humans look out for their own best interest. This means they don’t kill because that leaves them open to being killed or the consequences of such actions. Men don’t steal because of the same. If anything, the laws created by government are often contradictory and lead people to do things that lead to more crime.

 

2. Do you really believe this drivel? You think a poor man with nothing to lose won't attempt to steal from another man? You think without government people won't kill each other any more? You think that the defenseless deserve no protection?

 

Despite the cladding of your messianic zeal, this is pure rubbish.

1. Yep, you got me!! Except that I don’t recall ever writing that. Maybe you can point it out?

 

I merely pointed out that Husker X, and a few others including yourself, try to lump the contributions of individuals in as something accomplished by the fictitious entity known as the state, which is untrue. Can you really refute that? What exactly does the government contribute? Do they magically produce intelligent individuals? Or somehow telepathically give the individuals ideas? I’m curious to hear how the government pulls all these amazing things off that you claim.

 

2. Drivel? Yeah, I think that pretty much sums up the economic and philosophical ignorance that you spew. Never have I attempted to say that killing or stealing would cease, rather that both would be greatly reduced by increasing individual responsibility and allowing the markets to function without interference. In case you aren’t aware, increasing individual responsibility is proven to reduce negligible behavior. Also, free markets have proven to increase prosperity. So in the case of thefts, the number of poor would be greatly reduced, therefore reducing the amount of stealing. Have either of these ideas ever entered into your brain or have they somehow slipped through the cracks of your statist thoughts? It could also be that you were never taught, but either way, now that you know I will now hold you responsible.

 

And who ever said that the defenseless deserve no protection? That’s a comment out of left field and definitely without merit. Maybe you can explain where that came from?

1 - who do you think supplied the money and resources for the research that invented things? A great many things would never be attempted by private for profit operations, because they wouldnt see a way to make money off it.

 

2 - In what fantasy world would there be less crime and less poverty? Somalia, mentioned in passing in the OP makes a wonderful case in point for those of us who live in the real world with real people. What free markets are you using as an example? There arnt that many on this planet, and NOT ONE exists outside a government. And not one of those that exists is a completely free market. If you remove the threat of punishment, there are a great many people who would almost instantly devolve into little more than animals. Taking what they want from anyone they can overpower.

 

In italics, where do you get this? If you went out and announced tomorrow that this weekend there would be no police on the streets, and no crime committed over the weekend would ever be investigated or punished, what do you think would happen? Somehow I doubt there would be fewer thefts, murders or rapes.

 

Oh, you didnt say 'defenseless deserve no protection' just that only those who could afford protection deserve protection.

Link to comment

1 - who do you think supplied the money and resources for the research that invented things? A great many things would never be attempted by private for profit operations, because they wouldnt see a way to make money off it.

 

2 - In what fantasy world would there be less crime and less poverty? Somalia, mentioned in passing in the OP makes a wonderful case in point for those of us who live in the real world with real people. What free markets are you using as an example? There arnt that many on this planet, and NOT ONE exists outside a government. And not one of those that exists is a completely free market. If you remove the threat of punishment, there are a great many people who would almost instantly devolve into little more than animals. Taking what they want from anyone they can overpower.

 

In italics, where do you get this? If you went out and announced tomorrow that this weekend there would be no police on the streets, and no crime committed over the weekend would ever be investigated or punished, what do you think would happen? Somehow I doubt there would be fewer thefts, murders or rapes.

 

Oh, you didnt say 'defenseless deserve no protection' just that only those who could afford protection deserve protection.

 

This last part was what I was getting at earlier. Strigori beat me to it. By saying those with something to defend can afford to protect it (i.e. putting a price on protection) you are saying that those who can't afford protection won't have it.

 

This party is getting suddenly getting rowdy.

Link to comment

1 - who do you think supplied the money and resources for the research that invented things? A great many things would never be attempted by private for profit operations, because they wouldnt see a way to make money off it.

 

2 - In what fantasy world would there be less crime and less poverty? Somalia, mentioned in passing in the OP makes a wonderful case in point for those of us who live in the real world with real people. What free markets are you using as an example? There arnt that many on this planet, and NOT ONE exists outside a government. And not one of those that exists is a completely free market. If you remove the threat of punishment, there are a great many people who would almost instantly devolve into little more than animals. Taking what they want from anyone they can overpower.

 

In italics, where do you get this? If you went out and announced tomorrow that this weekend there would be no police on the streets, and no crime committed over the weekend would ever be investigated or punished, what do you think would happen? Somehow I doubt there would be fewer thefts, murders or rapes.

 

Oh, you didnt say 'defenseless deserve no protection' just that only those who could afford protection deserve protection.

1.Seriously??? And how do you think that the government was able to supply that money. Yes, they could have fired up the printing press and debased the entire currency to fund it but the fact is that they taxed the sh@t out of the citizens to fund every single one of their ventures. So yes, I guess if stealing were a way to fund something and say that you paid for it, your argument would be valid. Nothing like a good ol’ display of force to fund a project!! If that’s all it takes to secure credit for any significant discovery or contribution, where’s the sign up sheet?!!

 

2. So, since there isn’t a completely free market, then on what are you basing your opinion that it wouldn’t work? The current system? I think if you actually studied free market theory, instead of basing your opinion on the fallacies portrayed by government interventionists and mainstream economist, you would see that much of what you blame it for is completely false and that it actually works quite efficient and fair. Did it ever occur to you that maybe those politically connected and those with power are using the system you approve of, to do exactly what you claim it prevents. What proof do you have that leads you to assume that those with greater power would take what they want in a free market system, the fact that they do so now?

 

As far as the italicized part, what about me stating that people taking on more responsibility would lead to a reduction in negative and irrational behavior, led you to believe that there would be no accountability? What did I say that led you to falsely state that there would be no one to investigate or dole out justice? I never said that individuals would not be punished for their actions and if anything responsibility infers the opposite of what you are stating. If a person is responsible for their actions they are held accountable, how does this equate to rise in irrational behavior in your mind? Common sense tells us if you told someone that they will be held responsible for the destruction of something that the chance are greatly increased that they won’t destroy it. For who would really wants to be punished, or be required to pay, for something that they didn’t have to? Notice I’m not saying that it would cure all crime, but that it would reduce it.

 

Lastly, let me get this straight. So, because I said that protection would exist because there are those who would pay for it, you take that to mean that those unable to pay would not be protected? I absolutely said no such thing, nor did I infer it. Did the idea of charity ever occur to you? Or maybe that the cost of protection would be so low that every person, no matter how much their income, would be able to afford it? Wouldn’t it be good business for a protection agency to offer protection to the less fortunate, much as businesses offer deals or donate to various causes to show their customers that they care about the community? This is basic advertising and since customer satisfaction is a staple for success in the free market, it’s guaranteed that businesses would employ this method

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...