Unified Planet

[DBTrek]

Everything you've said amounts to juvenile ravings about not wanting to be told what to do in any way.

Ad hominem when you have no rebuttal. That's juvenile behavior, not my explaination and counterpoints to your post.

I don't know where you've studied history but mankind didn't really do all that well without roads for "100,000 years."

I got my history degree from Northern Michigan University. On what do you base your claim that we didn't do well without roads for 100,00 years?

Speaking of history, maybe you should talk to a Black person who lived through the hell that was the American South of the 1950 before you make outlandish statements like it took an organized government to keep Blacks at the back of buses, etc.

Maybe you should study segregationist and "Jim Crow" laws. It was government keeping blacks and whites separate, not the KKK.

Ever heard of the Klu Klux Klan? They're hardly a government. Sure they were emboldened by racist legislation but they didn't need it.

Yes, they did need it. You'll notice after the racist legislation disappeared the blacks weren't forced to the back of the busses anymore. That wasn't a coincidence.

You're basically advocating social Darwinism - Those who have the guns make the laws. That's patently absurd.

In case you didn't notice, those with the guns are making the laws right now.

This whole "Leave me alone, let me have all my conveniences but not have to answer to anyone and not pay taxes!" tack is incredibly intellectually lazy and irresponsible.

You're putting words in my mouth and type-casting my argument because you lack the intellectual capacity to refute the actual points I've made. That's the only intellectual laziness going on here.

social responsibility is an inextricable component of civilization.

Social responsibility is a function of humans being social animals by nature, not a function of your beloved government and it's legislation.

-DBTrek

 

[CapnG]

Historically, humans have always preferred dictatorship to anarchy. Always. Just keep that in mind.

 

[interestedINitall]

I'm not really on here to quibble with provincials so you're right - you're right about everything. That's ultimately what you want to hear so there - I've said it.

We should disband the government right now and let you have your gun, smoke pot and indulge in whatever other adolescent fantasies make up that neurosis.

Incidentally, don't tout a "degree" (even from a school such as that one) and then misspell "its." It doesn't look good.

*sigh*

 

[DBTrek]

I'm not really on here to quibble with provincials so you're right - you're right about everything. That's ultimately what you want to hear so there - I've said it.

It's good to see you finally come around to reason.

We should disband the government right now and let you have your gun, smoke pot and indulge in whatever other adolescent fantasies make up that neurosis.

I don' think believing that an individual should be master of their own destiny is adolescent. I'm inclined to think the adolescents prefer to have some sort of super structure in place to guide their actions and regulate the actions of others.

You and dB are still free to live the existence you guys treasure under reasoned anarchy . . . assuming you find an agreeable community that can provide the comforts you desire and has a place for you. That's the beautiful thing about anarchy . . . whatever symbiotic relationship you work out with your community is fine.

Humans are social creatures by nature. We're going to band together for protection and mutual support whether or not a government is in place. Native American Tribes were able to form coalitions (psuedo-states) numbering in the hundreds of thousands without the aid of policemen or jails. Mindbending isn't it? Over a hundred thousand people living harmoniously in the same general area with zero prisons, zero police, and zero taxes.

Not only is it possible to peacefully exist without these things, it's been done before. Granted under anarchy you probably won't be able to build an infrastructure capable of making nuclear weaponry, enforcing segregation, mass deporting people to gulags, or systematically killing tens of millions of people like you could with a strong government in place.

Oh . . . as for this:

Incidentally, don't tout a "degree" (even from a school such as that one) and then misspell "its." It doesn't look good.

Seems kinda desperate when one resorts to pointing out grammatical errors in order to vindicate feelings of inferiority. Sad indeed. Never mind that I wasn't touting my degree, I was answering your ruminations as to where I studied history. Perhaps you should refresh your memory on the use of the word 'tout', Mr. Grammar King.

Pffft.

-DBTrek

 

[CapnG]

Humans are social creatures by nature. We're going to band together for protection and mutual support whether or not a government is in place. Native American Tribes were able to form coalitions (psuedo-states) numbering in the hundreds of thousands without the aid of policemen or jails. Mindbending isn't it? Over a hundred thousand people living harmoniously in the same general area with zero prisons, zero police, and zero taxes.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm reading this wrong but are you implying that Native tribes lived in some sort of all-harmonious collective, void of war, violence and crime? That they lived in socities with zero structure and relied entirely upon mutual consent? Because I can't even begin to explain how thoroughly incorrect that viewpoint would be.

 

[DBTrek]

I'm sorry, maybe I'm reading this wrong but are you implying that Native tribes lived in some sort of all-harmonious collective, void of war, violence and crime? That they lived in socities with zero structure and relied entirely upon mutual consent? Because I can't even begin to explain how thoroughly incorrect that viewpoint would be.

No. I'm stating they lived in large numbers peacefully without jails, police, or taxes. It certainly wasn't always peaceful. There were wars between tribes as well as evil people doing evil things to others (just as there are in governed societies today). They weren't structureless, rather non-codified (much like wolf packs don't have government but they have a social structure).

My point is they were able to pull of large, functioning societies without many of the social devices we consider absolutley necessary. They demonstrated that you don't need a jail, police force, lawyers, etc in order to run a large society.

Therefore, a statement like "This "Whatever, I'll do what I want!" approach isn't viable with a group comprised of two or more people" is provably wrong. Not only is it viable with two people, it's viable with over 100K people.

Could you govern something the size of New York City through a social structure? Probably not. Do we really need cities the size of New York City? That's a matter of opinion.

-DBTrek

 

[Rick Deckard]

Wow - it's the 'all' versus 'nothing' argument again - very productive.

IMO, we do need government - but it has to serve the people and be accountable to them. In recent times I've seen the roles reversing.

In the UK, we'll soon be on a national database - our fingerprints, our DNA, our iris scans. We'll need the governments permission to walk down the street. We'll have to carry a card wherever we go and present it to prove who we are. There'll be penalities if we go out without it or misuse it in any way. Everytime we use it, it will be logged. For me, this is a step too far. It is no business of a government what it's law-abiding citizens are up to on a day-to-day basis.

We've now got one CCTV camera for every 10 people in the country - they've just introduced cameras with loud speakers - act suspiciously and the operator can now warn you via the speakers that you're being watched.

Once the cards have been around for a while, they'll want to put 'chips' in people - I kid you not.

But all this is for our own good - "nothing to hide, nothing to fear", right?

Bulls***. I demand my right to go about my daily business without the bureaucrats logging my every step from cradle to grave.

Three things that bug me about the UK government - the royal family, the church and Big Business. All are closely tied to the government and all have influence. The sooner those ties are broken, the better.

 

[CapnG]

Therefore, a statement like "This "Whatever, I'll do what I want!" approach isn't viable with a group comprised of two or more people" is provably wrong. Not only is it viable with two people, it's viable with over 100K people.

But at what level? Native Americans were living in stone age conditions for centuries (perhaps millenia) while those living under the evil auspices of government were advancing in greater leaps and bounds every century. No government means no schools, no hospitals, nothing we would consider civilization. It's not merely anarchy, it is barbarism.

 

[DBTrek]

But at what level? Native Americans were living in stone age conditions for centuries (perhaps millenia) while those living under the evil auspices of government were advancing in greater leaps and bounds every century. No government means no schools, no hospitals, nothing we would consider civilization. It's not merely anarchy, it is barbarism.

Quite right, that's the likely trade off that would have to be made. People (left to their own free will) won't choose to work in a factory 40 hours a week. That means a lot less technilogical gizmos for everyone involved. That means no hospitals. It also means no nuclear/chemical/biological weapons. No concentration camps. No prisons.

Of course the Native Americans were not familiar with these things while you and I are. If modern man were to willingly resort back to a tribalistic society we would have the option of choosing to make the necessary sacrifices to keep modern conveniences. I imagine most people would want to keep roads, electricity, personal vehicles etc, and would therefore choose to do what was necessary within their community to keep these things around. The main difference being that under anarchy the individual would have a choice in the matter.

I would point out that the Soviet Union moved from a society composed of farmers, dirt roads, and horse/cart technology to a nuclear world super power in the span of some thirty-odd years under Stalin. The progress the achieved in the life of that one ruler is breath taking . . . but was it worth the cost to the individual?

That's what we must each wrestle with. I think Rick Deckard made some excellent points about Great Britain. Those people once had a massive empire. Now they are virtual prisoners of their own government and meekly asking Iran to 'please, please, please' give back the soldiers they kidnapped. That's a tragic turn of events. It may well happen here in America as well. When we're all under surveillance 24/7, when we're spending the majority of our lives slaving for corporate masters so our elected masters can take the bounty, when we're disarmed and powerless to resist the 'representatives' that dictate the rules we live by will we be celebrating our progress?

I find the idea of a One-World government horrifying personally.

-DBTrek

 

[interestedINitall]

Like many threads this has turned into silly bickering. I'd been warned this would happen but didn't listen. When some hick tries to embarrass you about using the word "tout" and doesn't even realize what it means it's truly time to pack it in.

If silly little boys out in the sticks want to pretend they answer to no one, fine. That type of intellectual / social dropout has very little to no influence in this society and I'm thankful for it.

People who debate by accusing people of "ad hominem attacks" (the buzz phrase of the coward these days) while reveling in their own (pick one) aren't worth the time and effort.

This experience has reminded me of my first thread on here. Some ridiculous, Right-leaning rube was arguing that David and Gene were "too political" and that "The Paracast wasn't a place to espouse political views." Of course, he did this after writing that the Left is "America bashing, blah blah blah." I'll say it again - "I don't like oranges.", "They're awful and they probably cause cancer BUT I don't want to talk about oranges so let's drop it." Do people even bother to read their posts after typing them? If grammar and spelling are any indication the answer is a definite - no.

Those who call that kind of obtuseness "debate" should stick to their godforsaken little burg, zone out with their Xbox and stay out of society's way. That or go to Klingon Camp and work on that anger. Either way...

That said, I'm sure some "victory dances" ( I was warned about those, too) will be done but there's nothing I can do or say about that except that it's a shame.

I'm finished with this issue. It has gone nowhere.

 

[hopeful skeptic]

I find the idea of a One-World government horrifying personally.

If "secret government" conspiracy nuts are funny now, they'll be rip-roaring hilarious when Biedny's hoped-for "unified" government comes around. I don't suppose any social evolution (or, in the case of a unified government, devolution) would be safe from the wacko fringe. More fodder for paranormalists, though.

My favorite part of the "unified government" statement was the nonsense about how all nation-states are artificial constructs. I guess they're not teaching political science or history in Venezuela. (Or science, or logic, or....)

 

[DBTrek]

When some hick tries to embarrass you about using the word "tout" and doesn't even realize what it means it's truly time to pack it in.

If silly little boys out in the sticks want to pretend they answer to no one, fine.

That type of intellectual / social dropout. . .

People who debate by accusing people of "ad hominem attacks" (the buzz phrase of the coward these days). . .

Those who call that kind of obtuseness "debate" should stick to their godforsaken little burg,. . .

yawn . . .

I'm finished with this issue. It has gone nowhere.

So sorry to see you go. Really, as usual you brought so much to the table and will be sorely missed.
Buh-bye.



-DBTrek

 

[interestedINitall]

Ah, there's that victory dance I've heard so much about, right on schedule.

Well, if nothing else you're consistent.

You people usually are.

 

[DBTrek]

Ah, there's that victory dance I've heard so much about, right on schedule.

Well, if nothing else you're consistent.

You people usually are.

Awww see, you didn't really leave. Shocking. Who could have foreseen that?

You have no counter-argument, sir. I've roughly outlined in this thread the benefits and drawbacks I see in anarchy vs. government.

Your response has been to call me: a hick, a coward, juvenile, absurd, intellectually lazy, irresponsible, adolescent and a host, of other things for which you offer no support.

Brilliant counter-arguments . . . on par with your usual fare. Unfortunately for all your rantings and temper-tantrums you still fail to support why your ideas are right, and mine are wrong. Double posting your responses does not make up for their lack of substance.

-DBTrek

 

[interestedINitall]

Awww see, you didn't really leave. Shocking. Who could have foreseen that?

You have no counter-argument, sir. I've roughly outlined in this thread the benefits and drawbacks I see in anarchy vs. government.

Your response has been to call me: a hick, a coward, juvenile, absurd, intellectually lazy, irresponsible, adolescent and a host, of other things for which you offer no support.

Brilliant counter-arguments . . . on par with your usual fare. Unfortunately for all your rantings and temper-tantrums you still fail to support why your ideas are right, and mine are wrong. Double posting your responses does not make up for their lack of substance.

-DBTrek

That's because I have no defense against your brilliant assertions.

All of your arguments are based on intelligent assessment of the facts while mine are simply based on wanting what I want and wanting it now.

In fact, I've gone and joined the Libertarian party. I thank you for setting me straight. The next time I hear "They're just a waste of space and resources." at a cocktail party I will bring up this exchange and make sure the naysayer is chastened.

Bless you and everything you don't stand for!

 

[DBTrek]

In fact, I've gone and joined the Libertarian party.

You're confused sir, I'm not a Libertarian. I'm an anarchist. Libertarians are ok with giving up some amount of personal sovereignty. They would trade their elected masters for corporate ones, whereas I propose each individual be their own master.

-DBTrek

 

[interestedINitall]

You're confused sir, I'm not a Libertarian. I'm an anarchist. Libertarians are ok with giving up some amount of personal sovereignty. They would trade their elected masters for corporate ones, whereas I propose each individual be their own master.

-DBTrek

Oh, well then I'll run out and be an Anarchist. If it works for you then it must be okay.

Thanks again for putting me on the right path.

Many blessings...

 

[DBTrek]

My favorite part of the "unified government" statement was the nonsense about how all nation-states are artificial constructs. I guess they're not teaching political science or history in Venezuela. (Or science, or logic, or....)

Ah, you mean the "All forms of social organization are artificial, but we need SOME sort of law, some sort of cooperative alliance, otherwise we're toast" part?

Shhh . . . don't tell that to the wolves.
. . . or birds.
. . . or fish.
. . . or all those other animals with their artificial social constructs.

But I digress . . .

As far as nation-states go, I suppose that depends how one wants to define 'artificial'. If any cooperative concept or agreement between people is considered artificial because "humans made it up" the I suppose most everything we deal with on a daily basis is artificial. What bearing that has on the reality we inhabit is beyond me.

"The Mongolian Hordes are artificial constructs!"

Maybe so . . . labelling it as such didn't save any towns though, did it?

*shrug*

-DBTrek

 

[interestedINitall]

Ah, you mean the "All forms of social organization are artificial, but we need SOME sort of law, some sort of cooperative alliance, otherwise we're toast" part?

Shhh . . . don't tell that to the wolves.
. . . or birds.
. . . or fish.
. . . or all those other animals with their artificial social constructs.

But I digress . . .

-DBTrek

You're so right! Again!

Just the other day I was trying to get a bunch of friends to migrate with me but one had accidentally jumped up on the shore and was suffocating so I just said the heck with her. Two of the others had lost children to packs of rapacious hungry bargain hunters at Loehmann's so they were of no help, you know how it is.

It's so funny because I while I had one of them on the ?phone? I thought to myself, "We're so lucky not to have any laws regulating any of this behavior." If we had such petty hindrances I know a few guys who would never stop barking about it - literally.

Have you written a book? When you do, let me know. I want a copy.

If you'll excuse me now, I have to go catch a cab and maybe - I don't know - eat the driver.

Bye.

 

[CapnG]

Far be it from me to introduce some actual discussion back into this pissing contest but what the hell, I'm just that kind of crazy!

Quite right, that's the likely trade off that would have to be made. People (left to their own free will) won't choose to work in a factory 40 hours a week. That means a lot less technilogical gizmos for everyone involved. That means no hospitals. It also means no nuclear/chemical/biological weapons. No concentration camps. No prisons.

Omlettes and eggs...

I imagine most people would want to keep roads, electricity, personal vehicles etc, and would therefore choose to do what was necessary within their community to keep these things around. The main difference being that under anarchy the individual would have a choice in the matter.

If you're not already familiar with it, I suggest you do some reading on "game theory" and how it applies to humans. The abriged version? Left to their own devices, humans will happily screw over their neighbor to benefit themselves. Anarchy at it's finest.

I would point out that the Soviet Union moved from a society composed of farmers, dirt roads, and horse/cart technology to a nuclear world super power in the span of some thirty-odd years under Stalin. The progress the achieved in the life of that one ruler is breath taking . . . but was it worth the cost to the individual?

Ah but was that endemic to the system or the man? Would not those same advances have been possible under benevolent dictatorship? I can't see why not.

Now they are virtual prisoners of their own government and meekly asking Iran to 'please, please, please' give back the soldiers they kidnapped. That's a tragic turn of events.

Those sailors were illegally in Iranian waters. Not that it matters, they're free now anyway.

It may well happen here in America as well. When we're all under surveillance 24/7, when we're spending the majority of our lives slaving for corporate masters so our elected masters can take the bounty, when we're disarmed and powerless to resist the 'representatives' that dictate the rules we live by will we be celebrating our progress?

It's already that way NOW. And your precious second ammendment will avail you naught against a nakedly tyrannical government that can simply obliterate resistence at the push of a button.

I find the idea of a One-World government horrifying personally.

I'm not thrilled with it myself but I prefer it to lawless, anarchical, primitive savagery.