DarkAngel_ Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 If it is correct for the government to steal, then it's OK for the citizen's to steal. If it's OK for the gov to kill, then it's OK for the people to kill. If it's OK for the gov to have auto rifles, then its OK for the people to have them. That's called "equal rights". But, of, course, governments insist on a monopoly on these things, not because they want justice, but because they desire to steal everyone's money, which is easy when they have unequal rights. Adults on the government payroll generally think this is a great idea! exactly! indeed it is bad men sneaking up the ranks! these men are deceivers and men of bad ethics, that is why government is built with these priorities: destroy all threats, take away more rights, control weapons, allow us to 'bend' the rules, increase self pay-roll, enforce tax! Government is out of place! a government ran by methodical people is a tyranny, did you know 60-75% of Americans disagree with our governments actions? of course you did! i only here it every day! and other countries also disagree with american ran actions. its because its being ran by men with ill moral... we need new blood, and good blood. the men on the top right now are ruining the American image, who's with me here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAngel_ Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Interesting that the people posting on here talk of the government and the people, they are the same thing your vote is your government. actually, we elect people we think will do good, often they lie just to get the vote! and then act the complete opposite as once promised! its corruption on a more artificial level... they act on an original agenda; like senator Burns in the states claiming to not want logging companies to move into national foresting areas, then letting them in and clearing more then half the forest! and yes we voted for him... on a higher extent, just look at the UN and the food for oil scandal, not like they just got the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 The minimum wage earner in the US earns $8,000 a week.... Damn, that's good money for minimum wage! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAngel_ Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 The minimum wage earner in the US earns $8,000 a week.... how’s that possible? i'd get like $100 dollars a week working at a fast food restaurant! :angry: WHERE DOES THIS HAPPEN?!! (and i'll be sure to move there right away...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogs Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 The minimum wage earner in the US earns $8,000 a week.... how’s that possible? i'd get like $100 dollars a week working at a fast food restaurant! :angry: WHERE DOES THIS HAPPEN?!! (and i'll be sure to move there right away...) This is something you are not supposed to know. The cost of taxation is the big tiny part. Private accountants have to be hired, the waste of law suit extortion and company protection from suits, monopolies, all petty security is not necessary (put repeat criminals on an island and let them support themselves and accept donations) within a week 99.9% of crime is gone, and politicians suddenly become more honest! The cost of government intervention in economy is astronomical. The land ownership scam is a costly monopoly as well. But, like i said these are things you are not supposed to know. But don't ask any economist on the government payroll. Technologies have increased wages times 10 since the 1940, but gov controls have eaten all this up and much, much more. Not making this up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 The cost of government intervention in economy is astronomical.Sounds like you are the type of person that loves to make up facts that support your preconceived notions. The most efficient and wealthy economies are those with a strong gov't that does was gov'ts do well (industrial regulation, justice, military, civil infrastructure) and stays out of things that the gov't does not do so well (building products for commerical sale). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogs Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Nope! The people that supposedly (or otherwise) support government's stealing tax money from people, are the same that are perfectly willing to grab as much as they can for themselves if the situation presents itself. Same people that don't want to accept responsibility for themselves. They want the gov to do it. It's a scam as old as the hills, well, slightly newer, and all economics proves it, but folks on the gov payrol, (like yourself probably, unless you are unusually non perceptive, no insult intended), will defend their stealing on the grounds that it is economical. Duh, ... yeah now, that makes sense. Yeah, and I'm going to steal your money for your own good. Uh...., right.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Same people that don't want to accept responsibility for themselves. They want the gov to do it.Do you buy insurance? Have you ever worked for a company with a mandatory benefit plan? These are examples where people who take responsibility for themselves recognize that pooling their resources is more efficient than trying to do it all on their own. You rant and rave about the cost of gov't while you depend on services provided by the gov't every day. If you actually had to pay for these services out of your own pocket you would be much poorer than you are today - you are deluding yourself if you think basic services such as police and fire protection could be delivered more cheaply by the private sector. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frogs Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 Same people that don't want to accept responsibility for themselves. They want the gov to do it.Do you buy insurance? Have you ever worked for a company with a mandatory benefit plan? These are examples where people who take responsibility for themselves recognize that pooling their resources is more efficient than trying to do it all on their own. You rant and rave about the cost of gov't while you depend on services provided by the gov't every day. If you actually had to pay for these services out of your own pocket you would be much poorer than you are today - you are deluding yourself if you think basic services such as police and fire protection could be delivered more cheaply by the private sector. Your personal attacks flaunt your ignorance. I never ranted, never raved. Shows your high degree of defending your ignorance. (No insult intended). You want to be right, but have no interested in learning what is right. There are thousands of examples of private pooling, cops are the laughing stock of the people who run them, you can find thousands of examples of the negative influence of cops on society, if you are interested, which you aren't, so I won't waste my time explaining to you why yellow is yellow, paying firemen/women to sit around all day and not fight fires is not cost effective. Duhhhh. Etc, etc, etc, .. But like I said, you have no interest in using your brain, you just want to defend your ideas, instead of using logic, so all you are doing is making a fool of yourself. I have no interest in watching you do that. And chances are you have been on the public payroll which bought your brain from you at a very cheap price, because you had no use for it. None the less, I wish you well, my friend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 I never ranted, never raved.All you ever do is rant about the evils of gov't and provide nothing to back up your claims. Most of Europe used to be a society without governments. People ended up being forced to be part of feudal fiefdoms run by thugs that they paid protection money to. Democracy evolved as a way to take power away from the economically powerful thugs and distribute it more equally. The result is a society that is freer and wealthier than any society that has ever existed in the planet before. Yet you whine about taxes and demand that we return to the days of feudalism where most people are slaves to the few economic elites. Government is not perfect and it likely never will be. However, a society with a democratic gov't is freer that any Mad-Max like distopia that you want to dream up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted January 21, 2007 Report Share Posted January 21, 2007 frog:You want to be right, but have no interested in learning what is right. I wish I had said that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted January 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Most of Europe used to be a society without governments.I beg your pardon?? You are twisting the definition of "government" to suit your account of history. Please provide more details of when Europe embraced anarchy. Democracy evolved as a way to take power away from the economically powerful thugs and distribute it more equally. The result is a society that is freer and wealthier than any society that has ever existed in the planet before. Yet you whine about taxes and demand that we return to the days of feudalism where most people are slaves to the few economic elites.Wrong. Under anarchy, the few economic elite are kept in check from committing crime against the poor. You would rather endorse our status quo which keeps people as slaves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Under anarchy, the few economic elite are kept in check from committing crime against the poor. You would rather endorse our status quo which keeps people as slaves.How exactly are they 'kept in check'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted January 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 How exactly are they 'kept in check'?Private policing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 How exactly are they 'kept in check'?Private policing.So what? The elite will always be able to afford a larger private police force to protect themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted January 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 The elite will always be able to afford a largerOnly if the elite owned the entire land taxable jurisdiction -- which they would not. Even if the elite could afford to own the whole country, only rich elite people would live there. So, what is the problem??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Only if the elite owned the entire land taxable jurisdiction -- which they would not.Land is worthless unless it can produce something for a profit (look at most of northern Canada - lots of land but no production). The wealthy elite do not need to own all of the land - they just need need to control the resources that produce wealth. This would ensure that they would be able to outbid any group of poor people. However, if enough poor people got together and agreed to fund a shared police force with taxes then they might be able to take on the elites. In fact, I am willing to bet that poor people would figure out that they need a way to choose leaders to give the police for instructions and that they needed rules to prevent free-loaders. They would soon figure out that having a formal gov't is the best way to look after their collective interests. I don't really need to speculate - because this is exactly what happened in the past and that is why gov'ts exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Dear Charles Anthony, How exactly are they 'kept in check'?Private policing. 2 questions...how would a 'private police force' accomplish anything without coercive force? Secondly, who would ultimately be responsible for the 'moral limits of said coersion'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted January 24, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Land is worthless unless it can produce something for a profit (look at most of northern Canada - lots of land but no production). The wealthy elite do not need to own all of the land - they just need need to control the resources that produce wealth.What are you talking about??? Again, you are criticizing anarchy by describing crony-statism. They would soon figure out that having a formal gov't is the best way to look after their collective interests.No. It sounds like your poor people would first figure out that they would get more variety through a market of "collective interests" services. how would a 'private police force' accomplish anything without coercive force?All of the agents involved would buy or sell their services. How else?? Secondly, who would ultimately be responsible for the 'moral limits of said coersion'?Nobody because nobody would call it coersion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Land is worthless unless it can produce something for a profit (look at most of northern Canada - lots of land but no production). The wealthy elite do not need to own all of the land - they just need need to control the resources that produce wealth.Again, you are criticizing anarchy by describing crony-statism. I am describing human nature. No system can escape the reality that humans with power and wealth will always seek to use that wealth to give them power over others. Democracy is a system that put limits on the powers of the wealthy - anarchism would be paradise for them because their would be no limits other than what thier wealth can purchase.It sounds like your poor people would first figure out that they would get more variety through a market of "collective interests" services.Whenever people pay for services that benefit all people living in a region then they will be forced to deal with the freeloader problem. This means that contributions to services such as policing must be manadatory. Once people realize the need for a service where mandatory contributions are required you will see that people will quickly recognize the need for the gov't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Dear Riverwind, Whenever people pay for services that benefit all people living in a region then they will be forced to deal with the freeloader problem. This means that contributions to services such as policing must be manadatory. Once people realize the need for a service where mandatory contributions are required you will see that people will quickly recognize the need for the gov't.Interestingly, some people (and I have heard the argument come from a local politician) believe welfare payments should be increased so some people don't turn to theft. Which must lead one to question: Is welfare simply a way of paying off would-be thieves so they don't steal from you?Which leads me to another question. What percentage of a population that 'went anarchist' would survive until the system stabilized to a reasonably functioning level? I think perhaps 2-5%, and I'd go to 25-50% if a gov't got formed to stop the skid. Charles Anthony, QUOTE(theloniusfleabag @ Jan 24 2007, 12:26 PM) how would a 'private police force' accomplish anything without coercive force? All of the agents involved would buy or sell their services. How else?? I think you misunderstood. How is 'will' enforced (whether through gov't or private police) without the 'use of force' (read: coersion)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Is welfare simply a way of paying off would-be thieves so they don't steal from you?Human society struggles with two contradictory notions: on one hand we have social inequality that will always exist because some people have traits/skills/luck that others don't have. On the other hand there is a fundamental belief that all humans are of equal worth no matter what combination of traits/skills/luck that they have. This means that the people who do not have will always resent the people who have. In most cases the people who 'have not' significantly outnumber the people who 'have'. This means the people who 'have' need to figure out a way to make sure that the people who 'don't have' won't simply use their superior numbers to take what they have.In the past, the feudal lords simply used a combination of brute force and brainwashing (e.g. divine right of kings) to protect their stuff. In modern times we have addressed this problem through income redistribution via the tax system. So you could say that all taxes paid by the wealthy are simply a way of paying off would be thieves. Anarchism simply re-brands feudalism where the 'haves' will rely on a private police force instead of men at arms and the divine church of absolute property rights provides the brainwashing. Which leads me to another question. What percentage of a population that 'went anarchist' would survive until the system stabilized to a reasonably functioning level? I think perhaps 2-5%, and I'd go to 25-50% if a gov't got formed to stop the skid.I don't think any anarchist society is stable because the first thing humans do when they get together in groups is form a gov't. Stopping that would require heavy duty brainwashing or force. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Dear Riverwind, Human society struggles with two contradictory notions: on one hand we have social inequality that will always exist because some people have traits/skills/luck that others don't haveI think that this first notion suits best the 'right-wing/anarachist, but with the further caveat of: "And so what?" That is, 'why should the prey be protected from the predators'? I suppose that in an absolutely free society, they wouldn't be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted January 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 I am describing human nature. No system can escape the reality that humans with power and wealth will always seek to use that wealth to give them power over others.No system?? Hmmm.... I seem to recall something that starts with an A and some of us like to put a circle around it.... Wait now, I have it on the tip of my tongue... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theloniusfleabag Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Dear Charles Anthony, something that starts with an A and some of us like to put a circle around it.... Wait now, I have it on the tip of my tongue...Is it...'anus'? (j/k)How do you reason that anarchy would suppress/replace human nature? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.