New Orleans: A Case Study

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

I can't believe I am discussing this again.

 

Your claim that freedom is an absolute is false. Your own claims of the freedoms afforded by a/c show otherwise. For example, you extol the attributes of private property. One of the attributes of private property is that you can control who is allowed to come onto your land. Therefore, as a person not permitted to go onto a property owners land, I am NOT free to go wherever I want. Therefore, my freedom is not absolute. Correct? Yet you claim that a/c provides freedom . . . and that freedom is an absolute. Still with me? Do you see how this is a logical impossibility?

 

Similarly, responsibility is NOT an absolute. I don't know how you can possibly argue that it is. However, I'll accept your false claim if you can show me a single instance of a single person or single action that is 100% responsible for a single result. I'll save you some time. It doesn't exist. (start with a simple fact pattern: A shoots B in the head, killing B. However, C manufactured the gun. D manufactured the bullet. B was only in range of A because he was going to work for E. A got to the site of the shooting by driving a car made by F. The list goes on.)

 

The real world (and people in particular) does not function in absolutes. That is left to philosophers and religions.

 

In short, you say that if I disagree with the viability of a/c then I am A. afraid of freedom, or B. afraid of responsibility. However, my answer (which according to your comments on the righteousness of personal choice is the only possible "true" answer for myself) is C. A/C is an entirely theoretical system with zero real world relevance that is so laughably fraught with erroneous contradictions that I can barely comprehend how someone would willingly and zealously defend it.

 

----

I used your own words that you used to describe an a/c society. "Prosper." "Flourish." "Free." "Peaceful." Does this not sound utopian?

 

First of all, you are taking my claims of absolute freedom/freedom is absolute entirely out of context. You are assuming that the idea freedom is absolute, which does exist, has the same meaning as absolute freedom, which does not exist. However, in reality they are two entirely different ideas. The idea that freedom is absolute means there can only be freedom. If you do not have freedom you are a slave. You cannot be both free and a slave; it's impossible. If you are not free to make choices, because someone else is making choices for you, than you are not free. If you are not free than you are a slave. This is why freedom is absolute. If you believe otherwise, prove to me how this is possible?

 

In regards to the idea of absolute freedom, you are confusing the above, which happens to be true, with something that is impossible. In an earlier post, which you have so graciously snipped, I stated as such. In your fantastical scenario, of course any person could have absolute freedom. They could also disregard the laws of nature and assume that there are no consequences for any actions. However, in reality all our actions have reactions, either benefits or consequences. It is because of these consequences that the idea of absolute freedom is impossible. You seem to ignore this fact with your little example. You also seem to disregard that each person has a choice. Any person can do whatever they please, but regardless there are always consequences for those actions. Sure they could murder, steal, trespass or whatever transgression you could think of, but each of those also has consequences. Are you going to say that is impossible too?

 

As far as responsibility, if each person has free choice how can they possibly blame someone else for their actions? Are we assuming this is the case in your scenario or is it present day government controlled choice? Regardless, your response is a typical statist excuse, trying to push the blame onto someone else, when in fact it is only the person who makes the choice who is responsible. Did the bullet maker, gun maker, carmaker or anyone else pull the trigger? Did they plan any of it? They absolutely did not, to say so is not only foolish but completely disregards all aspects of self-responsibility. It is your line of thinking that leads to a troubled society. One that blames others for every problem that arises. However, this is a typical consequence when free choice is no allowed. And you can thank the government for that.

 

Since a free society relies on individual free choice, every individual is responsible for his or her own actions. Because each individual is responsible for his or hers’ own actions, how can the responsibility for those actions not be absolutely theirs? Do you really think that someone else can be blamed for the choices someone makes, even if that individual freely made that choice?

 

And as far as the contradictions of market anarchism, please inform me of some, I’d love to hear them. To say that anarchy has zero real world relevance shows that you have no understanding of the “real” world in which we live. Are you really going to sit there and argue that the government makes things better or that it fixes anything? If so, maybe you need to go back and reread a little history. You can start with the latest economic crisis. It may come as a surprise to you but most people function quite well without being told what to do. You can continue to blame others for your problems, rely on the government to bail you out, or whatever other reasons you have for clinging to the idea that the state is useful but in the end, society is only made of individuals and it is only those individuals, with the freedom to think and act, who can fix the problems of society.

 

And like I said, are peace, prosperity and free really a utopia?

[SOCALHUSKER]

Firstly, let's stop redefineing the term anarchy to whatever suits the author. According to dictionary.com, websters3rd, and yourdictionary.com, your defitions are flawed and self serving.[/b]

 

 

Is that so? Maybe you need to look up the definition of anarchy, because it's you who's twisting the definition in a more self serving way.

 

From answers.com dictionary:

From American Heritage Dictionary 4th Edition at Dictionary.com

 

Anarchy n., pl. -chies.

1. Absence of any form of political authority.

2. Political disorder and confusion. (notice political)

3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

[New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhiā, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a–1 + arkhos, ruler; see –arch.]

 

From Princeton Wordnet:

 

Anarchy - Noun

S: (n) anarchy, lawlessness (a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government))

 

From Wikipedia

 

"No rulership or enforced authority." [1]

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2]

"A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3]

"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere

 

From Merriam-Webster

 

Main Entry: an·ar·chy

Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\

Function: noun

Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-

Date: 1539

1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

3: anarchism

 

Did you honestly just post these without reading them, the only one that approaches the authors hackneyed definition is wiki clause 3,Not the most reliable source, whereas all others support my claim.

 

Wherein do your read Anarchy is a FUNCTIONING society? Wherein do you read persons operating together in HARMONY? How does one come to "reached agreements" without some tacit goverence even within the dynamic of couple much less a society?

 

I submit that a group of individuals acting in concert is to a degree a society and that the organs by which agreements are made and instituted are in themselves a form of governence. To be governed isn't by definition to by ruled nor is to govern to rule.

 

What about the author's use of the word anarchy to depict a society without political rulers or government does not resemble any of the definitions above? Seeing as how society only consists of individuals, who naturally function in harmony, it is perfectly safe to assume that a society without government or rulers will also function in harmony. Is it not government that goes around creating chaos, war, murder, fraud and theft? Since it is, is it not government that actually disallows society to function in harmony?

 

What you say about governance can only be true if you assume that all individuals voluntarily act in concert. If it is a voluntary agreement, that is not government. Government is a ruling authority that uses coercion and force to maintains it monopoly over a geographical area. What about government is voluntary?

[HUSKER 37]

I would think you anti-govt types would come up with a better catch phrase than "anarchy"...Instead of trying to change everyone's conception of it being a bad thing, you could make up a new word like C.A.O.S. vs. C.O.N.T.R.O.L. on "Get Smart"

 

I agree..New Orleans probably would've been better off if we'd sent all the governing agencies to Bermuda that week, But how long would you expect your "anarchy" to peacefully co-exist?

 

So you would suggest that educating people on the correct and true definition of the term anarchy is a lost cause? I disagree. Would you then also suggets that educating people on anything out of the norm is also a lost cause? If people were taught a fallacy, by government I might add, they can also be untaught. Education is as paramount to a free society, as covering up the truth is to the disaster of it.

 

To answer your second question. Once enough people are educated enough to realize that liberty is the answer, freedom will prevail and the world will then see prosperity like never before. When this happens and people see and feel the flourishing results of a free and peaceful society, why would anyone want to change it?

 

 

It may be a lost cause..

I'm pretty gullible and I still don't think you convinced me it means what you think it means...

And you'll never convince me Oklahoma is our friend.

 

Meanings of words do change..somewhat slowly (from generation to generation)..and to change most people's perception no-matter how erroneous you may feel they are..Is not what I would consider an efficient use of resources.

 

Once enough people are educated enough...

 

Easy to say..don't believe it's possible to teach more than just a few people to think only one way..

 

I was taught American History by a Marine that survived the bombing at Pearl Harbor..I'm still not convinced that we didn't instigate the whole thing and he couldn't even convince his own pacifist daughter that sometimes you need to fight...He was a legendary HS Football coach back in the day, and a great storyteller..And I'm still kicking myself that I didn't make it back in time to my class reunion to get to talk to him.

 

As far as responsibility, if each person has free choice how can they possibly blame someone else for their actions? Are we assuming this is the case in your scenario or is it present day government controlled choice? Regardless, your response is a typical statist excuse, trying to push the blame onto someone else, when in fact it is only the person who makes the choice who is responsible. Did the bullet maker, gun maker, carmaker or anyone else pull the trigger? Did they plan any of it? They absolutely did not, to say so is not only foolish but completely disregards all aspects of self-responsibility. It is your line of thinking that leads to a troubled society. One that blames others for every problem that arises. However, this is a typical consequence when free choice is no allowed. And you can thank the government for that.

 

Since a free society relies on individual free choice, every individual is responsible for his or her own actions. Because each individual is responsible for his or hers’ own actions, how can the responsibility for those actions not be absolutely theirs? Do you really think that someone else can be blamed for the choices someone makes, even if that individual freely made that choice?

 

 

Why do so many place so much importance on BLAME?

 

My 8 year old Son is the most amazing kid I've ever known..I took him back to Nebraska to meet some relatives and the first thing everyone said when I talked to them later was "He's the most well behaved, deep thinker..kind, sweet, intelligent kid they've ever met"..or something to that effect.

But sometimes...I'll yell at him..and then flashback to my own Dad yelling at me unfairly...I blame myself mostly..but then I'll place a little of the blame on my Dad...but even when I was little, I tried not to blame him..because I met his parents and heard stories about how they abused kids in those days.

 

Again..I ask you. Why is blame so important?

 

Even before I read Carlfence's response calling what you were describing as "Utopian" I was thinking "Utopia" and a Todd Rundgren/Utopia song was already playing in my head.

 

The only way I see that kind of thing really working in the long term is if you kill off all stupid people..then the next generation individuals that have any sort of mutations..Then you get rid of all the people that think a different way...keep whittling it down, and maintaining control over genetics.

 

I'll try to learn to enjoy being a slave..

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

It may be a lost cause..

I'm pretty gullible and I still don't think you convinced me it means what you think it means...

And you'll never convince me Oklahoma is our friend.

 

Meanings of words do change..somewhat slowly (from generation to generation)..and to change most people's perception no-matter how erroneous you may feel they are..Is not what I would consider an efficient use of resources.

 

Once enough people are educated enough...

 

Easy to say..don't believe it's possible to teach more than just a few people to think only one way..

 

I was taught American History by a Marine that survived the bombing at Pearl Harbor..I'm still not convinced that we didn't instigate the whole thing and he couldn't even convince his own pacifist daughter that sometimes you need to fight...He was a legendary HS Football coach back in the day, and a great storyteller..And I'm still kicking myself that I didn't make it back in time to my class reunion to get to talk to him.

 

As far as responsibility, if each person has free choice how can they possibly blame someone else for their actions? Are we assuming this is the case in your scenario or is it present day government controlled choice? Regardless, your response is a typical statist excuse, trying to push the blame onto someone else, when in fact it is only the person who makes the choice who is responsible. Did the bullet maker, gun maker, carmaker or anyone else pull the trigger? Did they plan any of it? They absolutely did not, to say so is not only foolish but completely disregards all aspects of self-responsibility. It is your line of thinking that leads to a troubled society. One that blames others for every problem that arises. However, this is a typical consequence when free choice is no allowed. And you can thank the government for that.

 

Since a free society relies on individual free choice, every individual is responsible for his or her own actions. Because each individual is responsible for his or hers’ own actions, how can the responsibility for those actions not be absolutely theirs? Do you really think that someone else can be blamed for the choices someone makes, even if that individual freely made that choice?

 

 

Why do so many place so much importance on BLAME?

 

My 8 year old Son is the most amazing kid I've ever known..I took him back to Nebraska to meet some relatives and the first thing everyone said when I talked to them later was "He's the most well behaved, deep thinker..kind, sweet, intelligent kid they've ever met"..or something to that effect.

But sometimes...I'll yell at him..and then flashback to my own Dad yelling at me unfairly...I blame myself mostly..but then I'll place a little of the blame on my Dad...but even when I was little, I tried not to blame him..because I met his parents and heard stories about how they abused kids in those days.

 

Again..I ask you. Why is blame so important?

 

Even before I read Carlfence's response calling what you were describing as "Utopian" I was thinking "Utopia" and a Todd Rundgren/Utopia song was already playing in my head.

 

The only way I see that kind of thing really working in the long term is if you kill off all stupid people..then the next generation individuals that have any sort of mutations..Then you get rid of all the people that think a different way...keep whittling it down, and maintaining control over genetics.

 

I'll try to learn to enjoy being a slave..

Oklahoma??????

 

Blame is the opposite of responsibility and why it is so important to understand.

 

And as far as being a slave, enjoy it then. For that is your right. On the other hand, what you don't have a right to is to choose whether or not I'm a slave and I choose not to be.

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Once enough people are educated enough...

 

Easy to say..don't believe it's possible to teach more than just a few people to think only one way..

 

I was taught American History by a Marine that survived the bombing at Pearl Harbor..I'm still not convinced that we didn't instigate the whole thing and he couldn't even convince his own pacifist daughter that sometimes you need to fight...He was a legendary HS Football coach back in the day, and a great storyteller..And I'm still kicking myself that I didn't make it back in time to my class reunion to get to talk to him.

 

 

So the majority of American's, who positively allow our government to function through coercion and force, were not taught to think that government is good for society?

 

Actually this type of teaching can be traced back all throughout history. Everywhere government has emerged, the majority of the people were taught, in one way or another, to believe that government was needed, let alone justified in its actions. It is no coincidence that government maintains a monopoly on education.

 

If coercion and force can be used to teach, why can't freedom also be used?

[carlfense]

What problems Socal? You say that I can "continue to blame others for your problems, or rely on the government to bail you out." What problems have I complained of? I haven't seen one. In fact I don't think I've ever complained about a problem in this forum . . . let alone blamed another for my own problems. You say I've relied on the government to bail me out. How have I done so? My schooling is paid for by academic scholarships and not by federal loans. My car loan is through a privately owned bank. Where exactly am I relying on the government?

 

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

 

You twisted your words around wonderfully but the fact remains that you are on the record stating exactly opposite phrases. ("Freedom can only be an absolute" and "absolute freedom cannot exist.") Yet you attempted to state that they are not contradictory. Interesting. False . . . but interesting.

[SOCALHUSKER]

What problems Socal? You say that I can "continue to blame others for your problems, or rely on the government to bail you out." What problems have I complained of? I haven't seen one. In fact I don't think I've ever complained about a problem in this forum . . . let alone blamed another for my own problems. You say I've relied on the government to bail me out. How have I done so? My schooling is paid for by academic scholarships and not by federal loans. My car loan is through a privately owned bank. Where exactly am I relying on the government?

 

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else.

 

You twisted your words around wonderfully but the fact remains that you are on the record stating exactly opposite phrases. ("Freedom can only be an absolute" and "absolute freedom cannot exist.") Yet you attempted to state that they are not contradictory. Interesting. False . . . but interesting.

 

You're right I incorrectly worded that. The problems I brought up are more along the lines of general problems of statism, not necessarily problems directed entirely at you. You do tend to support the statist thought process, so while the problems might not necessarily be yours, you do agree and support the solution the state offers. It was your own scenario of murder that proposed blaming others for one's own problems, not mine. You also propose using the government as a system to shield individuals from making, what you deem to be harmful choices. Is that not what government regulation is, to shield people from their own irresponsibility? Since it is, does that not infer that you have, detect or see a problem? If you don't have a problem with it, would you then not say that people should be allowed to make their own choices and either benefit from their success or learn from their mistakes? Is that not responsibility?

 

There is no twisting of words in what I say. The two ideas, absolute freedom and freedom is absolute, are two completely separate ideas and therefore they have two completely different meanings. To say otherwise is incorrect. If you actually read what I had said and took the time to think about it, maybe you would understand. How you cannot see the difference is beyond me.

[SOCALHUSKER]

You twisted your words around wonderfully but the fact remains that you are on the record stating exactly opposite phrases. ("Freedom can only be an absolute" and "absolute freedom cannot exist.") Yet you attempted to state that they are not contradictory. Interesting. False . . . but interesting.

carlfense,

 

I think you might be having a hard time comprehending what I'm stating because we are not on the same page as far as the definition of freedom. What is your definition of freedom? It seems to me that you believe freedom is ability to make choices without obstacles. This is a definition, but not one based on reality. In reality we have the ability to make free choices (a reality-based definition of freedom) but we must also contend with obstacles that are a product of reality. This is why I say there is no such thing as "absolute freedom."

 

You can choose to try to fly for the rest of your life, run faster than a speeding bullet, see with x-ray vision, or lift millions of pounds but the fact remains that in reality those are impossibilities. The laws of nature, its consequences and individual limitations prevent that from happening. You can go up but eventually must come down, so says the law of gravity. This also proves that, by your definition, absolute freedom cannot exist. However, this doesn't mean you cannot choose to try to defy the laws of nature. It is based on this fact that the idea “freedom is absolute” does exist.

 

To the extent that you are free, you have the ability to freely and voluntarily make choices. If you do not have that ability, you are not free. If you are not free you are a slave. The two cannot coexist within one individual. Because they cannot coexist, one must either be free or a slave. It is because of this simple fact, that the idea of freedom is absolute. One individual can only be one or the other, not both. This idea is much different than the idea of absolute freedom. Having the ability to choose is freedom based on reality, having the ability to choose without obstacles is not.

[SOCALHUSKER]

I do enjoy the way you can phrase your questions to serve as the answer you seek. Rather than an open ended question such as "What do you think of anarcho-capitalism?" you would instead ask "What about the freedom and responsibility of anarcho-capitalism frightens you so much?" I'm not sure whether you actually think this is a rational question or if you think it is clever. I'd volunteer that it is neither. You would make an excellent pollster though.

 

And yes you did mention topian grandeur. You said that people would realize how much better off they are living in your system and that they would prosper, flourish, and be free and peaceful. Sounds utopian and grand to me.

Actually I didn’t ask the question you posted above. I merely asked, what about freedom or responsibility scares you? Your posts reveal that you obviously hold disdain for both ideas, why? Do you care to answer the question?

 

Also, utilizing the terminology “my system” invokes the idea of ownership or rule. Since anarchy is a system without rulers it cannot possibly be “my system.” It is not a system where anyone chooses, rules or governs how anybody else lives his or her life. It simply allows each individual to make his or her own choices and holds each individual responsible for his or her own actions. It does not require anyone to live a certain way nor does it exclude you from giving up your freedom, living in a socialist community, or paying taxes; it merely makes those decisions voluntary. There is nothing utopian about that.

 

Actually what is utopian is the idea you hold that government can actually solve problems, that it can be efficient, that it can be fair, that it can lead to prosperity, that it can secure rights, or the fact that you actually believe that it is needed at all. If you question any of the above, why do you continue to support government?

[HUSKER 37]

The Oklahoma thing was something I just remember growing up being taught to hate...Like Communism..The Wishbone Offense..

 

"what about freedom or responsibility scares you?"

 

This may not have been directed at me, but still..I tried to think of an answer "just in case".

 

I cannot imagine anyone really "fearing" either concept..Just the inevitable consequences of not having real-life protections (other than karma) against man's evil human nature...It may not exist on the surface of everyone..but there's enough of it out there to always be a threat.

 

Maybe having these people "in charge" where we can sorta keep an eye on them seems less threatening than having them remain unknown and unchecked...

 

"As far as responsibility, if each person has free choice how can they possibly blame someone else for their actions?"

 

That was the reason I went off on a tangent about blaming my own Father (partially) for my yelling at my Son.

We both had free choice in the matter..But this behavior did not just come from seeing it in a movie.

[SOCALHUSKER]

The Oklahoma thing was something I just remember growing up being taught to hate...Like Communism..The Wishbone Offense..

 

"what about freedom or responsibility scares you?"

 

This may not have been directed at me, but still..I tried to think of an answer "just in case".

 

I cannot imagine anyone really "fearing" either concept..Just the inevitable consequences of not having real-life protections (other than karma) against man's evil human nature...It may not exist on the surface of everyone..but there's enough of it out there to always be a threat.

 

Maybe having these people "in charge" where we can sorta keep an eye on them seems less threatening than having them remain unknown and unchecked...

 

"As far as responsibility, if each person has free choice how can they possibly blame someone else for their actions?"

 

That was the reason I went off on a tangent about blaming my own Father (partially) for my yelling at my Son.

We both had free choice in the matter..But this behavior did not just come from seeing it in a movie.

You bring up some worries that are common for many people in regards to freedom. The funny or actually disturbing thing is that each of those worries are things we are falsely taught to worry about. Many times in quite the same manner as you were taught by your father that yelling at your child is OK. We experienced or were instructed things growing up, which impact us greatly and that’s how we perceive them to be.

 

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. It is this exact reason why I believe the education of freedom or "unschooling" of society is necessary in order for freedom to be achieved. The fact that we are even having this discussion is proof that reeducation and education is taking place constantly. For as long as people are allowed to question and discuss the idea of freedom, learning will always take place.

 

You state that what you fear is “Just the inevitable consequences of not having real-life protections (other than karma) against man's evil human nature.”

 

This would lead me to ask you several questions. Do you really believe that without the existence of government, protection would cease to exist? What exactly do you think the government protects you from? Do you really believe human existence to be so heinous that in order to live you must then submit yourself to the rule of the most heinous, in the form of the authoritarian regime of government?

 

Protection is something that humans have demanded all throughout recorded history. Whether it was protection for them self or for something they valued, it has always been in demand. Various forms of protection include alarms, weapons and even armed guards. Since people have and always will demand protection, there will always be a market for protection. It is from the market, that the profit motive derives. The profit motive is what drives entrepreneurs to invest time, money and ideas in hopes of gaining a return. The free market works in such a way that those who have the best ideas and products succeed.

 

A basic understanding of the free market shows that not only would it provide ample and efficient defense, but also that employing a defense company would be strictly voluntary. If a company chose to use coercion or force to further its profits, this would create a signal of opportunity for competition to come in, swoop up the dissatisfied customers and profit from the coercers blatant bad service. It is because of these simple facts that “you” can be sure that a free market would provide you with fairly priced, efficiently run and voluntary protection.

 

On the other hand, government protection is quite the opposite. Government protection is not defense, but actually force. Since the government is a coercive monopoly, they need not rely on good business practices or customer satisfaction in order to succeed. Instead, they fund their form of protection through taxation, using coercion or the barrel of a gun as their means. This is much the same way as the mafia orders those in its territory to pay for its racket. Since a monopoly doesn’t have to worry about competition, it can run its business as it sees fit without regard for any of its customer’s wants or needs. This means that it doesn’t really have to provide protection but instead merely use its power to increase it size, expand its operations and go after new clients in order to obtain new profits. Actually, it must do this in order to profit.

 

Since its inception, the United States has been extremely well at starting wars and conquering territory, but what about any of those activities actually has to do with “your” protection or defense? You could point out that the United States has been attacked several times, but all this goes to show is that no defense was actually being employed and for this you must then ask why you were paying for defense in the first place? Secondly, one must also look at the roots of the attacks. When one does, all evidence point to the US meddling in others affairs around the world as the cause. Or you could point to the fact that the United States is rarely attacked to show that protection is working. And while this may seem like a good argument for such a case one must only look at the number of wars, deaths, wounded, mass destruction and total money wasted to see that defense or protection wasn’t the priority. Are those the type of actions you would consider protection or defense?

 

Now that we have dispelled a couple of myths and shown that defense, without the government, would still exist and that the government really doesn’t protect you from anything, lets dive into your belief that man is evil by nature and therefore we must have an organization to protect us from these evil men.

 

You state, “Maybe having these people "in charge" where we can sorta keep an eye on them seems less threatening than having them remain unknown and unchecked.”

 

First off, this statement completely blows my mind. How do you find this to be a logical or rational statement? Didn’t you say that you needed protection from the evils of men? Now you would suggest having them in charge? Do you honestly believe that because there happens to be horrible people in the world, that we should hand the reins of society over to them, let them rule and expect anything but horrible things to happen? Wouldn’t it be much more logical to get those evil men the farthest away from power as possible? Do you really believe that horrible men can be constrained by making laws or creating a Constitution for them to follow?

 

History has proven, with many examples coming from the last several decades, that men when armed with government power, even when constrained by laws, will still bypass those laws and do as they please. And you would suggest putting those people in charge? I have said this before and I will say it again. Government is the tool used by evil men to help promote and fulfill their evil agendas. Since we are human and humans do make mistakes, we will always have men tempted by evil. Would it then not make sense to destroy the tool that allows men to remain and act on their evil? Evil men are drawn to power and government is power, there is no arguing that fact. So, in order to keep evil men from obtaining power you must also get rid of the power.

 

I must also ask, where are all these evil men you speak of, if not in power? Sure, society has had its share of evil men but to assume that all men are evil is false. Men have functioned in harmony all throughout history and are showing no signs of reversing. To state that men are naturally evil is to infer that all men are savages who go around murdering, stealing, defrauding, raping, etc… Since we know this to be untrue, won’t you agree that creating an organization that punishes all men for the mistakes and evils of a few, is a little extreme?

 

It has been said, numerous times on this board, that the majority should not have to pay for the mistakes of a few, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. So, should not the same be said for the acts of criminals? Just because a few evil men exist should all of society be bound to the laws, regulations and constraints of government that evil men will disregard anyways? Many people point out that government is created to protect men from evil, yet when evil men take over government those same people say that government should not be abolished because of the mistakes of a few evil men in power. Does this contradiction make sense to anyone?

 

A stateless society is one in which power only resides in each individual. Since each individual has the power to make choices as he or she sees fit, each individual can then also be held responsible for his or her actions. This is the only way to achieve responsibility. It is impossible for those without a choice, to be responsible for a choice someone else makes. As long as there is government man will not be allowed to freely make choices, due to this fact man will never know the meaning of responsibility. When government is abolished, then he will.

[SOCALHUSKER]

bump

[carlfense]

The Oklahoma thing was something I just remember growing up being taught to hate...Like Communism..The Wishbone Offense..

 

"what about freedom or responsibility scares you?"

 

This may not have been directed at me, but still..I tried to think of an answer "just in case".

 

I cannot imagine anyone really "fearing" either concept..Just the inevitable consequences of not having real-life protections (other than karma) against man's evil human nature...It may not exist on the surface of everyone..but there's enough of it out there to always be a threat.

 

Maybe having these people "in charge" where we can sorta keep an eye on them seems less threatening than having them remain unknown and unchecked...

 

"As far as responsibility, if each person has free choice how can they possibly blame someone else for their actions?"

 

That was the reason I went off on a tangent about blaming my own Father (partially) for my yelling at my Son.

We both had free choice in the matter..But this behavior did not just come from seeing it in a movie.

You bring up some worries that are common for many people in regards to freedom. The funny or actually disturbing thing is that each of those worries are things we are falsely taught to worry about. Many times in quite the same manner as you were taught by your father that yelling at your child is OK. We experienced or were instructed things growing up, which impact us greatly and that’s how we perceive them to be.

 

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. It is this exact reason why I believe the education of freedom or "unschooling" of society is necessary in order for freedom to be achieved. The fact that we are even having this discussion is proof that reeducation and education is taking place constantly. For as long as people are allowed to question and discuss the idea of freedom, learning will always take place.

 

You state that what you fear is “Just the inevitable consequences of not having real-life protections (other than karma) against man's evil human nature.”

 

This would lead me to ask you several questions. Do you really believe that without the existence of government, protection would cease to exist? What exactly do you think the government protects you from? Do you really believe human existence to be so heinous that in order to live you must then submit yourself to the rule of the most heinous, in the form of the authoritarian regime of government?

 

Protection is something that humans have demanded all throughout recorded history. Whether it was protection for them self or for something they valued, it has always been in demand. Various forms of protection include alarms, weapons and even armed guards. Since people have and always will demand protection, there will always be a market for protection. It is from the market, that the profit motive derives. The profit motive is what drives entrepreneurs to invest time, money and ideas in hopes of gaining a return. The free market works in such a way that those who have the best ideas and products succeed.

 

A basic understanding of the free market shows that not only would it provide ample and efficient defense, but also that employing a defense company would be strictly voluntary. If a company chose to use coercion or force to further its profits, this would create a signal of opportunity for competition to come in, swoop up the dissatisfied customers and profit from the coercers blatant bad service. It is because of these simple facts that “you” can be sure that a free market would provide you with fairly priced, efficiently run and voluntary protection.

 

On the other hand, government protection is quite the opposite. Government protection is not defense, but actually force. Since the government is a coercive monopoly, they need not rely on good business practices or customer satisfaction in order to succeed. Instead, they fund their form of protection through taxation, using coercion or the barrel of a gun as their means. This is much the same way as the mafia orders those in its territory to pay for its racket. Since a monopoly doesn’t have to worry about competition, it can run its business as it sees fit without regard for any of its customer’s wants or needs. This means that it doesn’t really have to provide protection but instead merely use its power to increase it size, expand its operations and go after new clients in order to obtain new profits. Actually, it must do this in order to profit.

 

Since its inception, the United States has been extremely well at starting wars and conquering territory, but what about any of those activities actually has to do with “your” protection or defense? You could point out that the United States has been attacked several times, but all this goes to show is that no defense was actually being employed and for this you must then ask why you were paying for defense in the first place? Secondly, one must also look at the roots of the attacks. When one does, all evidence point to the US meddling in others affairs around the world as the cause. Or you could point to the fact that the United States is rarely attacked to show that protection is working. And while this may seem like a good argument for such a case one must only look at the number of wars, deaths, wounded, mass destruction and total money wasted to see that defense or protection wasn’t the priority. Are those the type of actions you would consider protection or defense?

 

Now that we have dispelled a couple of myths and shown that defense, without the government, would still exist and that the government really doesn’t protect you from anything, lets dive into your belief that man is evil by nature and therefore we must have an organization to protect us from these evil men.

 

You state, “Maybe having these people "in charge" where we can sorta keep an eye on them seems less threatening than having them remain unknown and unchecked.”

 

First off, this statement completely blows my mind. How do you find this to be a logical or rational statement? Didn’t you say that you needed protection from the evils of men? Now you would suggest having them in charge? Do you honestly believe that because there happens to be horrible people in the world, that we should hand the reins of society over to them, let them rule and expect anything but horrible things to happen? Wouldn’t it be much more logical to get those evil men the farthest away from power as possible? Do you really believe that horrible men can be constrained by making laws or creating a Constitution for them to follow?

 

History has proven, with many examples coming from the last several decades, that men when armed with government power, even when constrained by laws, will still bypass those laws and do as they please. And you would suggest putting those people in charge? I have said this before and I will say it again. Government is the tool used by evil men to help promote and fulfill their evil agendas. Since we are human and humans do make mistakes, we will always have men tempted by evil. Would it then not make sense to destroy the tool that allows men to remain and act on their evil? Evil men are drawn to power and government is power, there is no arguing that fact. So, in order to keep evil men from obtaining power you must also get rid of the power.

 

I must also ask, where are all these evil men you speak of, if not in power? Sure, society has had its share of evil men but to assume that all men are evil is false. Men have functioned in harmony all throughout history and are showing no signs of reversing. To state that men are naturally evil is to infer that all men are savages who go around murdering, stealing, defrauding, raping, etc… Since we know this to be untrue, won’t you agree that creating an organization that punishes all men for the mistakes and evils of a few, is a little extreme?

 

It has been said, numerous times on this board, that the majority should not have to pay for the mistakes of a few, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. So, should not the same be said for the acts of criminals? Just because a few evil men exist should all of society be bound to the laws, regulations and constraints of government that evil men will disregard anyways? Many people point out that government is created to protect men from evil, yet when evil men take over government those same people say that government should not be abolished because of the mistakes of a few evil men in power. Does this contradiction make sense to anyone?

 

A stateless society is one in which power only resides in each individual. Since each individual has the power to make choices as he or she sees fit, each individual can then also be held responsible for his or her actions. This is the only way to achieve responsibility. It is impossible for those without a choice, to be responsible for a choice someone else makes. As long as there is government man will not be allowed to freely make choices, due to this fact man will never know the meaning of responsibility. When government is abolished, then he will.

 

Speaking of contradictory . . .

 

Exhibit A. "Government protection is not defense, but actually force."

 

Exhibit B. "Now that we have dispelled a couple of myths and shown that defense, without the government, would still exist and that the government really doesn’t protect you from anything . . . "

 

So if our current defense is actually force (see Exhibit A), than our defense in the absence of government would likewise be force (see Exhibit B )?

 

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.

[HUSKER 37]

...yada...

bump

 

Bump?

 

After 8 minutes?

 

On pins and needles, are we?

 

Sorry for using humor as much as I have on this thread..but you're using some terms I've never heard before..these subjects never interested me before, so even if I had taken any classes that weren't Science related..I'd probably ignored them or slept through them.

 

I think I may have understood some of the things you stated, and will try to address a few of them.

 

...

You state that what you fear is “Just the inevitable consequences of not having real-life protections (other than karma) against man's evil human nature.”

 

This would lead me to ask you several questions. Do you really believe that without the existence of government, protection would cease to exist? What exactly do you think the government protects you from? Do you really believe human existence to be so heinous that in order to live you must then submit yourself to the rule of the most heinous, in the form of the authoritarian regime of government?

 

Without Checks and Balances?

I would fear that a LOT!..And I'm seeing some of the consequences of that with my H.O.A. which is really a private government..Seeing just how many of our Civil Rights they can skirt by on the grounds that we initialled over 475 pages of mighty confusing Legalese while our "Sales Agent" held a stopwatch.

 

I'm guessing you still believe in enforceable Laws unless you believe that we can all be taught to suddenly care more for our neighbors than ourselves..(or our families).

 

Without the dreaded Government regulating Law Enforcement agencies..Police Brutality would probably be more rampant ...if we were lucky..and given the nature of any "enforcement"..Only the "Bullies" would thrive.

 

 

Protection is something that humans have demanded all throughout recorded history. Whether it was protection for them self or for something they valued, it has always been in demand. Various forms of protection include alarms, weapons and even armed guards. Since people have and always will demand protection, there will always be a market for protection. It is from the market, that the profit motive derives. The profit motive is what drives entrepreneurs to invest time, money and ideas in hopes of gaining a return. The free market works in such a way that those who have the best ideas and products succeed.

 

Although so far..It's been sort of a Mob Mentality...And without some sort of <gulp> Governing agency to threaten mean and nasty people and keep them in check by presenting them with the threat of retribution...We've been able to slow them down a little...Try to imagine how strong the Mafia would be by now without the FBI running some sort of interference...Or if the FBI was itself a private company, how strong they would be with us at their mercy...Thus..Another benefit of checks and balances.

 

A basic understanding of the free market shows that not only would it provide ample and efficient defense, but also that employing a defense company would be strictly voluntary. If a company chose to use coercion or force to further its profits, this would create a signal of opportunity for competition to come in, swoop up the dissatisfied customers and profit from the coercers blatant bad service. It is because of these simple facts that “you” can be sure that a free market would provide you with fairly priced, efficiently run and voluntary protection.

 

Unless the first company uses real bullets.

 

How do we stay out of the crossfire again? when the two..or several agencies try a take-over?

 

Possibly a bad over-reaction...but probably not. (I've seen some of the "Robocop" movies..Poor example, but the first image that came to mind after reading your scenario involving competing enforcement companies).

 

 

On the other hand, government protection is quite the opposite. Government protection is not defense, but actually force. Since the government is a coercive monopoly, they need not rely on good business practices or customer satisfaction in order to succeed. Instead, they fund their form of protection through taxation, using coercion or the barrel of a gun as their means. This is much the same way as the mafia orders those in its territory to pay for its racket. Since a monopoly doesn’t have to worry about competition, it can run its business as it sees fit without regard for any of its customer’s wants or needs. This means that it doesn’t really have to provide protection but instead merely use its power to increase it size, expand its operations and go after new clients in order to obtain new profits. Actually, it must do this in order to profit.

 

Since its inception, the United States has been extremely well at starting wars and conquering territory, but what about any of those activities actually has to do with “your” protection or defense? You could point out that the United States has been attacked several times, but all this goes to show is that no defense was actually being employed and for this you must then ask why you were paying for defense in the first place? Secondly, one must also look at the roots of the attacks. When one does, all evidence point to the US meddling in others affairs around the world as the cause. Or you could point to the fact that the United States is rarely attacked to show that protection is working. And while this may seem like a good argument for such a case one must only look at the number of wars, deaths, wounded, mass destruction and total money wasted to see that defense or protection wasn’t the priority. Are those the type of actions you would consider protection or defense?

 

Mainly...?

Defense..But there is mucho predictable blow-back.

You'll probably state that I have been taught to think this way, but there really is a threat to our country from other countries..with people that want their standard of living to be just like ours and see taking us over as a shortcut to that end.

 

I've often wondered if we would all be better off without borders or even separate countries...Perhaps Globally, we would all be better off...but the cost to this country's people would be way harsh.

 

"Imagine" is a great song, though...

And the God that is me doesn't approve of Religion.

 

 

Now that we have dispelled a couple of myths and shown that defense, without the government, would still exist and that the government really doesn’t protect you from anything,

 

We have?

 

 

lets dive into your belief that man is evil by nature and therefore we must have an organization to protect us from these evil men.

 

You state, “Maybe having these people "in charge" where we can sorta keep an eye on them seems less threatening than having them remain unknown and unchecked.”

 

First off, this statement completely blows my mind. How do you find this to be a logical or rational statement? Didn’t you say that you needed protection from the evils of men? Now you would suggest having them in charge? Do you honestly believe that because there happens to be horrible people in the world, that we should hand the reins of society over to them, let them rule and expect anything but horrible things to happen? Wouldn’t it be much more logical to get those evil men the farthest away from power as possible? Do you really believe that horrible men can be constrained by making laws or creating a Constitution for them to follow?

 

Not entirely Logical, but it sounded good (funny) to me at the time..

But there really ARE times when it seems to me that Politicians are by nature..a little bit Evil..sometimes even a lot!..And It often appears that the "office" and the politician exhibit mutual attraction.

 

I don't believe we should put the "evildoers" in a position of power...They already took it (power) several generations ago...Didn't the Free Masons see to that?

 

And just because you think you can eliminate all forms of "power" by eliminating "government"..I just don't see how.

(Unless you really can do that mind-meld thing, and educate everyone to have the same beliefs and Moral codes).

 

History has proven, with many examples coming from the last several decades, that men when armed with government power, even when constrained by laws, will still bypass those laws and do as they please. And you would suggest putting those people in charge? I have said this before and I will say it again. Government is the tool used by evil men to help promote and fulfill their evil agendas. Since we are human and humans do make mistakes, we will always have men tempted by evil. Would it then not make sense to destroy the tool that allows men to remain and act on their evil? Evil men are drawn to power and government is power, there is no arguing that fact. So, in order to keep evil men from obtaining power you must also get rid of the power.

 

And I just don't see how that's ever entirely possible.

 

 

I must also ask, where are all these evil men you speak of, if not in power? Sure, society has had its share of evil men but to assume that all men are evil is false. Men have functioned in harmony all throughout history and are showing no signs of reversing. To state that men are naturally evil is to infer that all men are savages who go around murdering, stealing, defrauding, raping, etc… Since we know this to be untrue, won’t you agree that creating an organization that punishes all men for the mistakes and evils of a few, is a little extreme?

 

It has been said, numerous times on this board, that the majority should not have to pay for the mistakes of a few, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. So, should not the same be said for the acts of criminals? Just because a few evil men exist should all of society be bound to the laws, regulations and constraints of government that evil men will disregard anyways? Many people point out that government is created to protect men from evil, yet when evil men take over government those same people say that government should not be abolished because of the mistakes of a few evil men in power. Does this contradiction make sense to anyone?

 

A stateless society is one in which power only resides in each individual. Since each individual has the power to make choices as he or she sees fit, each individual can then also be held responsible for his or her actions. This is the only way to achieve responsibility. It is impossible for those without a choice, to be responsible for a choice someone else makes. As long as there is government man will not be allowed to freely make choices, due to this fact man will never know the meaning of responsibility. When government is abolished, then he will.

 

So the purpose of this great upheval is so that we know the definition of responzi..respec..? buy a dictionary.

 

I've been very fortunate to have mostly known some mighty nice people..and have been pretty well shielded from really bad people..But I still feel there's an evil gene or two in pretty much everyone...The really good ones are able to keep it in check for the greater good...The average good ones have the evil drawn out by experiencing power.

 

And I'm guessing you mean we are all paying the price or being punished (for the sins of the few) by having restraints on our freedoms..The only way I see around that is by eliminating the bad guys...Which sounds fun as long as God or other? (Our own conscience?) has a great sense of humor..Or else eliminating the offense itself by making all things legal (Like rape, murder, child abuse, insider trading)...

[SOCALHUSKER]

 

Speaking of contradictory . . .

 

Exhibit A. "Government protection is not defense, but actually force."

 

Exhibit B. "Now that we have dispelled a couple of myths and shown that defense, without the government, would still exist and that the government really doesn’t protect you from anything . . . "

 

So if our current defense is actually force (see Exhibit A), than our defense in the absence of government would likewise be force (see Exhibit B )?

 

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.

Read the argument first carlfense, the entire argument was about protection. As is well documented, government does not necessarily provide protection in the form of defense. They employ force. They claim it to be defense as do most of government supporters, but it is not. That does not make what I was saying contradictory. In fact, it points out that what the government calls defense is not defense at all but force. By calling it a myth I make that point perfectly clear. Then again context has never seemed to make much sense to you.

 

Also, you do realize that you are completely twisting my words, don't you? You fail to realize the difference between defense and force, if not you wouldn't have made such an argument. Defense is not initiated violence, force is.

 

Lastly, I don't seem to understand your "false and contradictory" statement. Maybe you can enlighten me?