ClumsyMonkey.net

I think Aerin has basically coverd all my points, so I'll just say this:

Mmm... I'd love to marry me a good hammer...

Corey wrote:Then why isn't Affirmative Action unconstitutional?

Affirmative Action is a tough issue, one which I see both sides of. No, I don't think it's unconstitutional, as I don't believe it's discriminatory. I see it more of a necessary evil to combat ingrained racism/classism/sexism. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need it, and I think it says a lot about the sorry state of our society that we do. However, I think the other side of the issue has some very valid points, so it's not something I'm strongly for or strongly against.

Also, if taxpayers don't want to pay for the benefits that are given to a couple in a marriage that they don't believe in, shouldn't the taxpayers have the choice of whether or not the marriage should be legal?

Again, the Constitution trumps majority rule. You could just as easily say "if taxpayers don't like black people and don't want to pay for the government to offer services to black people in any way, shouldn't they have that right?" And there are some areas of the U.S. where that's true, scarily enough. The Bill of Rights exists for just this purpose, though, to protect people's rights no matter what.

The fact is, the people who are anti-gay-rights almost uniformly feel that way because of their own personal prejudices. They can think of no incontrivertible proof to back up their position that gay marriage would spell the downfall of society; it always goes back to "because my religion says being gay is a sin". Their religion also says that adultery is a sin, but adultery is not illegal. Why should laws in a secular society conform to their prejudices at the expense of people who don't share them?

Well, first off, religion isn't the only reason people are against it.

For instance:

There are several individuals who believe the proper parent structure for a child is a mother and a father. I'm not going to argue this point but I will say it makes sense to a point because after all.. it takes one man, and one woman to create a child.

So, there are several credentials that are taken into consideration when a child is up for adoption. One of them is that a married couple is more favorable than an unmarried couple. Given gay marriages, this puts a gay couple on the same playing field as a straight couple. This upsets people because they believe that a straight couple is more suited for the role of parents. Again, not going to argue for or against this position. My point being that religion is not the ONLY argument as you claim.

Furthermore, homosexuality doesn't just go against religion, it goes against science. If everyone was gay, life would cease to exist. Please don't take my comment as saying homosexuality is wrong because I'm not. I wish gay couples all the best because after all this country is partly about "the pursuit of happiness", but you can't argue against basic biology.

Let's make a baby!



i'm sorry, i'll go away now.


continue on...

but its being proven or at least studied that it might be biology that does make me people gay. A guy is a guy that got too many female hormones when he was created and a a gay girl is a girl that got too many male hormones, a lot of gay people don't want to be gay because of the way they are treated, but they can't help the way feel, because its how they are, you can't go against your DNA, so therefore discriminating against someone because of their gentic make up is pretty sickening

Yeah, yeah. Discriminate is bad. Whatever. Thats not what we are talking about.


Darwin would say that biology fucked up and those traits should eventually be eliminated through the theory of evolution. But as humans we like to say "fuck Darwin" and do whatever the hell we want. So yeah, we cheated the system and biology is going to let homosexuality continue, and now we have to deal.

One-Eye wrote:No, I don't support FORCING anybody to do anything.

Yes you do. ALL government is based on force. The government CANNOT exist without coercive power. It is KEY to the existence and survival of a ruling class.

I support people being ruled by their own consent. Majority rule goes like this: everyone votes according to their own position, but, if the majority feels differently, everyon agrees to live under the majority's law.

But everyone doesn't agree. Blacks didn't agree in the civil rights era and gays don't agree today. Look at canada - half the country doesn't agree.

democracy doesn't work.

It's based on the idea that people generally know what's best for themselves and the society they want to live in, so even if you're not with the majority on certain points, your life won't be unbearable.

And if you don't agree with the minority? You will be shot or imprisoned. if you should refuse to submit to unethical prosecution? they will kill you.

I've stated before that I agree with you that you should not be forced to live under a government that you disagree with, however. If you don't buy into the majority rule thing, fine, you shouldn't be forced to live under it. And you aren't.

I'm not? According to you and your social contract, being BORN indicates my agreement.

How is there a choice there?

But you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You don't want to work too hard to start up your own lawless society; you don't want to move away to a place that would better suit your ideals. So all you're doing is whining about it. Not very revolutionary.

I'm not whining. And this is a very clever thing you do here, trying to make it about me and my methods of spreading anarchy.

Well bad news. Even if i never lift a finger for the anarchist cause, government will still be based on force. It will still be ethically flawed. It will still exist only to exploit and expand.

who cares about how i behave? does that make my beliefs any less true?

"move away move away"

to where?

why? contrary to your completely unfounded opinion of me, i do work hard. I have property and a life where i live right now. Why should i have to leave that behind? because of the so-called "social contract?" a contract i didn't sign and have no choice to cancel?

We define them differently, yes. I believe in freedom, but I understand that freedom must necessarily be limited, else it infringe on the freedom and rights of others.

How? prove it. Show me how being free to act in rational self interest could ever infringe on anybody else's rights.

I believe in ethics, and I believe a society governed correctly is an ethical one.

So you believe that coercion is ethical?

Because all government is based on force.

All government. is based on force.

I believe in choice, which is why I believe in democracy.

Democracy, a system where canadians don't have a choice. Didn't vote liberal? Tough shit. ANd what about that american democracy.. if you're not a republicrat you're in the same boat as canada.

Not to mention, democracy is a system that starts by taking away your choice. The social contract is put into effect at birth, right? and by breathing air you're consenting to everything in this contract you've never read, seen, or heard of.

No, not everyone's going to be happy in a democracy, but most people will be. I believe very few people would be happy in an anarchist society; there'd be no sense of safety, there'd be no trust of your neighbors, there'd be no one to turn to when things went wrong.

How do you know? how do you know people are happy in democracy? it seems to me that plenty of people AREN'T happy. How do you know what a free civil society would be like? how how how?

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: If most people shared your ideals, we'd be living in an anarchist society today.

I don't know why you would think this makes me wrong.

also

let the gays get married

thanks.

mosaik wrote:

One-Eye wrote:No, I don't support FORCING anybody to do anything.

Yes you do. ALL government is based on force. The government CANNOT exist without coercive power. It is KEY to the existence and survival of a ruling class.

It's called the Social Contract. You enter into it by living in the country under the governing body. By living there, you agree to give up limited rights and freedoms to the government in exchange for benefits provided by said government. The citizens, however, have the right to protest any limitations that they feel are unfair. And, should the government go too far, the citizens have a right to begin an uprising. Rousseau wrote extensively about this, as have many others.

mosaik wrote:also

let the gays get married

thanks.

I have an innocent question for you doug. There is no ulterior motive, just curiosity. Being an anarchist and all, if you were to get married, would you have it recognized by government, as in a legal marriage, or would it be strictly ceremonial? Unless of course you don't plan on ever getting married.

Jeezum Christ, Doug, the more you rant, the less sense you make.

mosaik wrote:

One-Eye wrote:No, I don't support FORCING anybody to do anything.

Yes you do. ALL government is based on force. The government CANNOT exist without coercive power. It is KEY to the existence and survival of a ruling class.

What orifice are you pulling this out of? Yes, the government uses force, because we agree to it. And this ruling class stuff? Elaborate?

I support people being ruled by their own consent. Majority rule goes like this: everyone votes according to their own position, but, if the majority feels differently, everyon agrees to live under the majority's law.

But everyone doesn't agree. Blacks didn't agree in the civil rights era and gays don't agree today. Look at canada - half the country doesn't agree.

democracy doesn't work.

No, blacks didn't agree in the civil rights era. So they rallied and got support, and look where we're at today. Gays don't agree today; that's why there are so many gay rights and gay-marriage support groups, and gay marriage will be legal sooner or later. The system may take a long time to work, but it does work.

It's based on the idea that people generally know what's best for themselves and the society they want to live in, so even if you're not with the majority on certain points, your life won't be unbearable.

And if you don't agree with the minority? You will be shot or imprisoned. if you should refuse to submit to unethical prosecution? they will kill you.

You are so full of shit it's coming out of your fucking ears, you know that? Yes, if you break the law, you'll be imprisoned. But the laws for the most part are ethical. And "they will kill you" too in an anarchist society. You do something that pisses someone - anyone - else off? For any reason? They'd kill you with impugnity and never face a jury. Woo, sounds like a place I want to live!

I've stated before that I agree with you that you should not be forced to live under a government that you disagree with, however. If you don't buy into the majority rule thing, fine, you shouldn't be forced to live under it. And you aren't.

I'm not? According to you and your social contract, being BORN indicates my agreement.

How is there a choice there?

Yes, when you're born into a country you fall under their rules, just as when you're born into a family you fall under your parent's rules. You don't have a choice where you're born. But nothing is stopping you from leaving your country once you make the decision that you don't want to follow their rules anymore. No one will shoot you for trying to leave Canada. There are places with less restrictive governments, and there are places with no governments. But your argument is, "I was born here, I shouldn't have to leave, and the entire system should just change to fit my ideals." Yeah, that'd be nice, but it ain't gonna happen. So choose to live under their rule, or choose to go elsewhere, or choose to change the system, or choose to sit there and whine about how it's not fair (which is the path you seem to have chosen).

But you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You don't want to work too hard to start up your own lawless society; you don't want to move away to a place that would better suit your ideals. So all you're doing is whining about it. Not very revolutionary.

I'm not whining. And this is a very clever thing you do here, trying to make it about me and my methods of spreading anarchy.

Well bad news. Even if i never lift a finger for the anarchist cause, government will still be based on force. It will still be ethically flawed. It will still exist only to exploit and expand.

who cares about how i behave? does that make my beliefs any less true?

"move away move away"

to where?

why? contrary to your completely unfounded opinion of me, i do work hard. I have property and a life where i live right now. Why should i have to leave that behind? because of the so-called "social contract?" a contract i didn't sign and have no choice to cancel?

I covered most of this above. Why should you have to leave your home behind? You don't. But in the REAL world, there are tough choices. In the REAL world, nobody's going to conform to your idea of the perfect social order just because you want them to. If complete and utter freedom is that important to you (you've said before that "live free or die" is your motto), you have a number of choices to live a freer life. If the comfortable life you've built up under your current "oppressive government" is more important to you than freedom, well... that's your choice too.

You're not going to convince me that anarchy would solve all the world's problems. So it's basically are argument is going like this:

You: "Whine, whine, it's not fair, some dude wrote a manifesto that I believe in."
Me: "Fine, live how you want, but shut up already."
You: "Whine, whine, whine, government uses force!"
Me: "So?"
You: "Don't you hear me whining over here?"

If you want to continue this discussion in this manner, go right ahead.

We define them differently, yes. I believe in freedom, but I understand that freedom must necessarily be limited, else it infringe on the freedom and rights of others.

How? prove it. Show me how being free to act in rational self interest could ever infringe on anybody else's rights.

Oh, puh-leeze. Off the top of my head (there are a billion other examples). Couple wants a baby. Couple can't have a baby. The family upstairs has a kid, but they physically abuse her. So couple says, "Hey! It's in OUR rational self interest to take the kid, and it's in the KID'S rational self interest, because her parents are beating her!" So they take the kid. And the kids parents go after them and kill all three. And nothing is done, because ANY social systems at all would by necessity use force, and in your mind would be OMGEVIL!

I believe in ethics, and I believe a society governed correctly is an ethical one.

So you believe that coercion is ethical?

Because all government is based on force.

All government. is based on force.

Yeah huh. And force wouldn't be used in anarchy? Give me a break. Whenever large groups of people interact, force is going to be used. It's human nature. In a democracy, the people vote on how that force will be used against them? Don't like the death penalty? Convince enough people that it's wrong, and the government changes. In anarchy, however, individuals would use force against other individuals - with no fear of consequences - groups would be formed which would use force against individuals and other groups - with no fear of consequences. You might be ethical, Doug, but not everyone else is. People will always be hungry for power, money, and control, and in anarchy, it would be all too easy to get those things at the expense of innocents. Because there would be no higher elected power to put such things to an end.

And yes, I believe coersion is ethical with the implicit consent of the coerced. Living in a place where coersion is used = implicit consent. You have the choice to leave, and you don't. You have the choice to change things, and you don't. Ergo, you consent.

I believe in choice, which is why I believe in democracy.

Democracy, a system where canadians don't have a choice. Didn't vote liberal? Tough shit. ANd what about that american democracy.. if you're not a republicrat you're in the same boat as canada.

Not to mention, democracy is a system that starts by taking away your choice. The social contract is put into effect at birth, right? and by breathing air you're consenting to everything in this contract you've never read, seen, or heard of.

*Sigh* You keep spouting off the same nonsense. Democracy is all about choice. I've explained why majority rule is the best option. I've explained about being born under the social contract. Now, you tell me why your life is so unbearable because the liberals are in power in Canada? How the oppression is so horrible that you just can't stand it?

No, not everyone's going to get what they want all the time. That's life. The best government will give most of the people what they want most of the time, be flexible to change, and keep all freedoms intact that don't impinge upon the freedoms of others. Yes, it's an imperfect system. But it's there to guarantee everyone's freedoms and rights. Without that system in place, no one would have freedom or basic rights. The idea that government is bad just because it uses force is a reductio ad absurdum from the idea that freedom is ethical. Yes, freedom is ethical. But in order to guarantee the freedom of all people that freedom must be limited. Anarchy is an inherently selfish idea that would result in an inherently selfish society. And when everyone's being selfish, nobody gets what they want.

No, not everyone's going to be happy in a democracy, but most people will be. I believe very few people would be happy in an anarchist society; there'd be no sense of safety, there'd be no trust of your neighbors, there'd be no one to turn to when things went wrong.

How do you know? how do you know people are happy in democracy? it seems to me that plenty of people AREN'T happy. How do you know what a free civil society would be like? how how how?

Because I've studied anthropology, and I know more than a little bit about human nature. I also know that anarchy would work fine with certain small groups of like-minded individuals, but for a whole society? It'd be, well, anarchy. It's be madness, insane. No, I don't know for sure what it'd be like, because there's never been an anarchic society. That says a lot about human nature, eh? A power vacuum can not exist for very long without someone coming to power. If anarchy were a system that everyone would benefit from; if it were the most ethical and perfect society, and if it's so obvious, and if it would be so stable, then tell me, Doug, why there's so little support for it, why none has ever existed?

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: If most people shared your ideals, we'd be living in an anarchist society today.

I don't know why you would think this makes me wrong.

It doesn't make you wrong, it makes you in the minority. As the minority, it's your job to convince the majority that we should change our opinion, and so far, you're not doing a very good job of that. And before you say, "but just because I'm in the minority doesn't make me wrong!", let me say that, yes, I know that, but it puts you in the position where you have to work harder. You think the anti-slavery movement, or the civil rights movement, or the feminist movement had it easy? Nope, they all started out as little groups fighting millions of people who disagreed. So if you want to overthrow the government, that's your right, but you've got your work cut out for you.

wow that was well said

Axtech wrote:It's called the Social Contract. You enter into it by living in the country under the governing body. By living there, you agree to give up limited rights and freedoms to the government in exchange for benefits provided by said government. The citizens, however, have the right to protest any limitations that they feel are unfair. And, should the government go too far, the citizens have a right to begin an uprising. Rousseau wrote extensively about this, as have many others.

The social contract is nothing. It's a figment of one man's imagination. It does not exist. There is no way to quantify what things are covered under said contract or what things can be amended in said contract. It is an arbitrary, subjective, idea.

This figment is the basis for your entire argument. But let's look at things objectively for one minute.

If i don't pay taxes, the government will be upset. They would like me to pay taxes? Do they:

a) come to my house to try and convince me of the virtue of taxes, with no pressure to pay should i choose not to?
b) come to my house with guns and demand that i pay else i face prosecution?

I think the answer is b). Do you see what i mean? The circumstances do not matter. All that matters is that when the government wants something from a subject, they will take it by force.

ONWARD:

One-Eye wrote:Jeezum Christ, Doug, the more you rant, the less sense you make.

I disagree.

One-Eye wrote:What orifice are you pulling this out of? Yes, the government uses force, because we agree to it. And this ruling class stuff? Elaborate?

I didn't agree to it. See above re: social contract. It does not exist. It is not binding. It is arbitrary. Suppose Rousseau had never been born - what would you say to me then?

The ruling class can only rule if they have a method of preventing the other classes from reaching equilivent status. The only way to do this is to use force. Force is required in order for a ruling class to form.

No, blacks didn't agree in the civil rights era. So they rallied and got support, and look where we're at today. Gays don't agree today; that's why there are so many gay rights and gay-marriage support groups, and gay marriage will be legal sooner or later. The system may take a long time to work, but it does work.

Look, gay marriage is a great example. One way or another, about half the country is going to be alienated by whatever the government decides.

I don't need to tell that you that when everyone gets to make up their own mind, everybody is happy... do i?

Does everybody get to make up their own mind in a democracy? No, the politicians make up your mind for you.

What if there was no democracy, what then? Hmmm.

You are so full of shit it's coming out of your fucking ears, you know that?

If that's meant to be part of your argument, prove it.

Yes, if you break the law, you'll be imprisoned. But the laws for the most part are ethical.

Sure, if you agree with the government's ethics. If you agree that drugs are bad, so is consentual sex for money, so is speeding, etc. But if you live by a rational code based on natural law and choice, well.

Not so ethical then.

So what gives the government the right to impose their ethics on me? can they prove that their ethics are superior?

Tell me what gives them the right.

And "they will kill you" too in an anarchist society. You do something that pisses someone - anyone - else off? For any reason?

What, and that doesn't happen today?

They'd kill you with impugnity and never face a jury. Woo, sounds like a place I want to live!

You should do some reading on violent crime in your country. 1/4 violent criminals see a jury. the other 75% go free.

and of that quarter, most are people who knew their victim. 1 out of every 100 random acts of violence is prosecuted.

And by the way, not everybody who goes to court is found guilty. Just ask OJ.

If somebody tries to shoot me, i'm going to do the only rational thing: shoot him first. That's way better to me then having me end up dead and him having a 1% chance of being arrested.

Yes, when you're born into a country you fall under their rules, just as when you're born into a family you fall under your parent's rules. You don't have a choice where you're born. But nothing is stopping you from leaving your country once you make the decision that you don't want to follow their rules anymore. No one will shoot you for trying to leave Canada. There are places with less restrictive governments, and there are places with no governments. But your argument is, "I was born here, I shouldn't have to leave, and the entire system should just change to fit my ideals." Yeah, that'd be nice, but it ain't gonna happen. So choose to live under their rule, or choose to go elsewhere, or choose to change the system, or choose to sit there and whine about how it's not fair (which is the path you seem to have chosen).

That'd be nice but it ain't going to happen. That's what i'd like to say to everybody who doesn't want prayer in public school or to all those homos that want to get married.

Why don't they just move someplace where they're allowed to get married? Shit! Why should our system change to suit them?

I covered most of this above. Why should you have to leave your home behind? You don't. But in the REAL world, there are tough choices. In the REAL world, nobody's going to conform to your idea of the perfect social order just because you want them to. If complete and utter freedom is that important to you (you've said before that "live free or die" is your motto), you have a number of choices to live a freer life. If the comfortable life you've built up under your current "oppressive government" is more important to you than freedom, well... that's your choice too.

My point: i shouldn't have to move. They've got no right to any of my property or any of my life.
Your point: tough shit. this is the way it is, baby.

You're not going to convince me that anarchy would solve all the world's problems.

Nice to see you've got an open mind

Oh, puh-leeze. Off the top of my head (there are a billion other examples). Couple wants a baby. Couple can't have a baby. The family upstairs has a kid, but they physically abuse her. So couple says, "Hey! It's in OUR rational self interest to take the kid, and it's in the KID'S rational self interest, because her parents are beating her!" So they take the kid. And the kids parents go after them and kill all three. And nothing is done, because ANY social systems at all would by necessity use force, and in your mind would be OMGEVIL!

kidnapping is not acting in rational self interest. I thought you understood what i meant by that. simple definition is that the freedoms of your fist end where the rights of my nose begin. In other words, taking a baby from it's family (by force) does not fall under that category.

However, you keep coming back to this "there'd be nobody to look out for us" cry, so i want to adress that.

You're right. There'd be nobody. That's the way it should be. If you get robbed, how exactly is it my problem, if i didn't do it? It's not.

Don't want to get robbed? Get an alarm. Still don't feel safe? Hire a guard. Sleep with a gun under the pillow.

It's a concept i like to call taking care of yourself by yourself. being independent. i like it a lot.

Yeah huh. And force wouldn't be used in anarchy? Give me a break. Whenever large groups of people interact, force is going to be used.

If it did, nobody would condone it. But at least, at the very least, the people using force would be doing it on their behalf and in person, instead of voting in a government to do it for them.

It's human nature.

Is not.

In a democracy, the people vote on how that force will be used against them? Don't like the death penalty? Convince enough people that it's wrong, and the government changes. In anarchy, however, individuals would use force against other individuals - with no fear of consequences - groups would be formed which would use force against individuals and other groups - with no fear of consequences. You might be ethical, Doug, but not everyone else is. People will always be hungry for power, money, and control, and in anarchy, it would be all too easy to get those things at the expense of innocents. Because there would be no higher elected power to put such things to an end.

It's the same in democracy.

mosaik wrote:

Axtech wrote:It's called the Social Contract. You enter into it by living in the country under the governing body. By living there, you agree to give up limited rights and freedoms to the government in exchange for benefits provided by said government. The citizens, however, have the right to protest any limitations that they feel are unfair. And, should the government go too far, the citizens have a right to begin an uprising. Rousseau wrote extensively about this, as have many others.

The social contract is nothing. It's a figment of one man's imagination. It does not exist. There is no way to quantify what things are covered under said contract or what things can be amended in said contract. It is an arbitrary, subjective, idea.

This figment is the basis for your entire argument. But let's look at things objectively for one minute.

If i don't pay taxes, the government will be upset. They would like me to pay taxes? Do they:

a) come to my house to try and convince me of the virtue of taxes, with no pressure to pay should i choose not to?
b) come to my house with guns and demand that i pay else i face prosecution?

I think the answer is b). Do you see what i mean? The circumstances do not matter. All that matters is that when the government wants something from a subject, they will take it by force.

So, in other words, "I don't want to give anything to the government, but instead of leaving and living of my own accord, I'm going to sit here and bitch."

By the way, there is nothing that has been said in the thread that one couldn't say is "a figment of one man's imagination". The point of the Social Contract is that if you don't agree with something, you do something about it. That is your resposibility. Sitting back and whining about it isn't going to get you anywhere.

Yes, they will do "b". That is because, by living as a citizen of the country, you are agreeing to abide by their rules. One such rule is the paying of taxes. To be quite frank, the solution is either put up or shut up. If you feel that the government is corrupt and unstoppable, leave. I'm not saying that I don't want you around, but that's the fact of the matter. If the government of the country you're living in is so insufferably oppressive that you can't stand it, find a country that is more bearable. Or, if you can't find one that suits your needs, go live off the land.

Alright, all this splitting hairs bullshit aside, I want to know one thing.

I like living under a government. I support it. I understand my rights and responsibilities under my government, I understand and value my role in my government, and I'd be pretty pissed off if my government up and disappeared, leaving a power vacuum, an unchecked capitalist market, nothing to protect my property and my rights, and a bunch of idealists spouting off rants about "rational self-interest" that don't hold up in the real world.

You, on the other hand, don't like living under a government. You don't support it. You reject the rights and responsibilities the government provides for you and you reject your role in the system. You'd be thrilled if the whole system shut down.

Now, assume we're neighbors, we've both worked hard for our property and have no intention of moving anywhere because we both feel we shouldn't have to.

So tell me, Mr. Ethics, why is your happiness more important than mine?

I honestly think you have a number of valid points, but I also think you're arguing theory instead of reality. In reality, there are always going to be people who are unhappy, there are always going to be people whose rights are violated, under any system, even if that system is no system at all. It's an imperfect world. There's some validity to your assumption that complete freedom from all social systems is the way to true freedom for all. But there are also a number of problems and fallacies that go along with anarchy, which you have yet to admit to. One is the problem of justice. One is the problem of exploitation. One is the problem of violence. One is the problem of rampant capitalism. There are more I could name. But in your idealistic fervor you have yet to admit that there could ever be problems in an anarchist society, and that weakens your argument.

My stance is and always has been that I sympathize with your feelings, and I'd have no qualms if you wanted to work toward your goals (I've said before that I thought the Free State Project was a great idea). I'm not closed-minded when I say that I don't and won't share your ideals, though. If I'm closed-minded, then so are you for rejecting my opinions so utterly. And I do respect your desire to live under rules you personally support (or no rules at all). Why can't you respect my contentment with the system under which I live?

mosaik wrote:If i don't pay taxes, the government will be upset. They would like me to pay taxes? Do they:

a) come to my house to try and convince me of the virtue of taxes, with no pressure to pay should i choose not to?
b) come to my house with guns and demand that i pay else i face prosecution?

Actually, in this case YOU are the one intitating the force, the government is responding in rational self-interest. It is enforcement of contract, in this case an explicit social contract (live in our country, pay our taxes). You make a big deal of "men with guns" enforcing laws, yet you try to overlook the fact that "men with guns" are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system. Even if you reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate force", you would still enforce with guns.

mosaik wrote:I didn't agree to it. See above re: social contract. It does not exist. It is not binding. It is arbitrary. Suppose Rousseau had never been born - what would you say to me then?

The ruling class can only rule if they have a method of preventing the other classes from reaching equilivent status. The only way to do this is to use force. Force is required in order for a ruling class to form.

And suppose Rand had never existed - what would you say then? What's the point?

Nothing about rational self-interest is binding in any sense, either. If I walk up behind you and belt you across the head with a board and steal your wallet, then it's in no-one else's rational self interest to do anything about it. I can clearly belt you in the head, what's so binding about your philosophy?

Before you go off (again) about the subjectivness of the social contract, that's what laws are. They're objective. They're right there, no subjectiveness, there for anyone to see.

There are several explicit means by which people make the social contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.

Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they take political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases, most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc.

Some libertarians/randians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Go to a restaurant, see if you think it ethical to walk out without paying because you didn't sign anything. Even if it is a restaurant with a minimum charge and you haven't ordered anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the method of contract so that even your presence creates a debt. What is a libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation?

Look, gay marriage is a great example. One way or another, about half the country is going to be alienated by whatever the government decides.

I don't need to tell that you that when everyone gets to make up their own mind, everybody is happy... do i?

My neighbor decides to drop a burned out, rusted pinto in his front yard on cement blocks, let his yard go, and do shit for his roof. My property value dies a horrible death. He made up his mind, and my mind for me.
I do still enjoy how much you fail to acknowledge the impact people have on each other, irregardless of how much the acts fall under the "rational self-interest" banner.

Does everybody get to make up their own mind in a democracy? No, the politicians make up your mind for you.

What if there was no democracy, what then? Hmmm.

As the size of a population increases, the need for a formalized system of information distribution also increases. There's a reason that major companies have a hierarchical management system. The CEO of Chevrolet can hardly tell all the thousands of people employeed by the company how to do their jobs on a daily basis. The same thing goes for society. In order to have a society, even one full of rational, self-interested people there needs to be an organized form of information distribution.
Let's say that someone does, of their own free choice, set up such a system in your society. They now control the information. Information is, and always has been, the most imporatant commodity in the world. So this person is suddenly in a position of huge damn power. In your society, there's nothing at all to prevent him from fucking everyone, telling one big lie, pocketing the money and running. Not only that, but in his wake there's a massive disorganization of information, leaving him all but imporssible to track down. No punishment. With an overseeing government, there's a reason to not fuck around like that. What promise do you offer that this won't happen? "Well, people will just act better." Yeah. Great. I have a few thousand years of human history to show you otherwise.

Sure, if you agree with the government's ethics. If you agree that drugs are bad, so is consentual sex for money, so is speeding, etc. But if you live by a rational code based on natural law and choice, well.

Not so ethical then.

So what gives the government the right to impose their ethics on me? can they prove that their ethics are superior?

Tell me what gives them the right.

You're on their land. And yes, I've heard the "what right does the government have to it?!" arguement. They have the same rights you're extending for yourself. The US government can demonstrate ownership of such rights through treaty, purchase, bequeathment by the original colonies and some other states, and conquest. The EXACT same sources as all other forms of land ownership in the US. Also note that governance rights are merely a subset of the rights that anarcho-libertarians would want landowners to have. For example, insistence on contractual obedience to regulations and acceptance of punishment for violations.

You should do some reading on violent crime in your country. 1/4 violent criminals see a jury. the other 75% go free.

and of that quarter, most are people who knew their victim. 1 out of every 100 random acts of violence is prosecuted.

And by the way, not everybody who goes to court is found guilty. Just ask OJ.

If somebody tries to shoot me, i'm going to do the only rational thing: shoot him first. That's way better to me then having me end up dead and him having a 1% chance of being arrested.

You should do some supporting of these stats.

That'd be nice but it ain't going to happen. That's what i'd like to say to everybody who doesn't want prayer in public school or to all those homos that want to get married.

Why don't they just move someplace where they're allowed to get married? Shit! Why should our system change to suit them?

Nope. This is a distinction that seems too subtle for a lot of libertarians: the difference between having a choice and having to leave.

For example, let's say you live in a condominium, and are very fond of it. As long as you can move out, you have a choice. No matter how firmly you intend to stay. No matter how much you prefer your current condo. No matter how good or bad your current condo is for you, you still have a choice.

This is analogous to living in a nation. You choose which one to live in, and you can change. You may not be able to improve some things about it all by yourself, because it is not entirely yours.

You have at least 4 choices. 1) Tolerate the social contract, and perhaps try to amend it. 2) Leave it by emigrating. 3) Violate it. 4) Revolt.

kidnapping is not acting in rational self interest. I thought you understood what i meant by that. simple definition is that the freedoms of your fist end where the rights of my nose begin. In other words, taking a baby from it's family (by force) does not fall under that category.

However, you keep coming back to this "there'd be nobody to look out for us" cry, so i want to adress that.

You're right. There'd be nobody. That's the way it should be. If you get robbed, how exactly is it my problem, if i didn't do it? It's not.

Don't want to get robbed? Get an alarm. Still don't feel safe? Hire a guard. Sleep with a gun under the pillow.

It's a concept i like to call taking care of yourself by yourself. being independent. i like it a lot.

Again, I call up the "property value" analogy. Under your system, there's nothing to stop someone from opening up a slaughter house right next door to me, and dropping my property values straight into the shitter. They act in rational self interest, yet their actions are taking money from me. In essence, they are robbing me. You can be as independent as you like, but in the end if you rely on anyone for anything, you are impacted by their decisions.

If it did, nobody would condone it. But at least, at the very least, the people using force would be doing it on their behalf and in person, instead of voting in a government to do it for them.

And in theory, a democracy would be a perfect system where everyone got a vote, and logical discourse would rule the day. I'm sure you have plenty of links as to where that idea fell through because people are fallible. The same fallibilities will fuck your system in the ass. But when democracy goes crazy, the checks and balances minimize the suck. But when anarchy goes crazy, there's nothing to prevent the ass-reaming.

How? prove it. Show me how being free to act in rational self interest could ever infringe on anybody else's rights.

For once I think I agree with Narbus

And government was created for a purpose. In a perfect world, Doug, people WOULD be able to govern themselves with no need of help from the government. But, due to human nature, that will never EVER happen. Unless of course you believe in the after life. Sooner of later, even though your sleeping with your gun under your pillow, someone would probably decide they didn't like you and kill you dead. Then your family would get mighty pissed. Then everyone would be mighty pissed at eachother, and bloodshed and other things would ensue. Then your family might wish there had been some sort of system where they MIGHT have the chance to bring them to justice. It's still their choice to go out and shoot the guy for shooting you.

Robbo, if a man had been living in your house since before you were born, and he had been cooking your meals, doing your laundry and mowing your lawn in exchange for some annual percentage of your income, but all the while he let you know that trying to stop him would result in your death, would he be right?

Does your staying in your own home imply consent to his rule? Does he have a right to do that to you?

One-Eye wrote:So tell me, Mr. Ethics, why is your happiness more important than mine?

Here's why. Say the government goes away, and we're neighbors. You want a governed society? Start one. Right there on your own property. Encourage other landowners to move to live near you and form your own little United States.

Whose going to stop you? The governm.... oh, right.

One is the problem of justice.

You mean like, who would punish criminals? you would have to look out for yourself for the most part, which is a hell of a lot safter then counting on the cops. But say somebody robs you and you want to know who it is... hire a private detective. He'll probably do a better job then the police, too, because his income is on the line.

One is the problem of exploitation.

Eh? I don't understand. You want to talk about exploitation? How about how the top 1% of income earners in america pay the first 25% of the taxes. That's exploitation. Made possible by the state.

One is the problem of violence.

10,000 estimated Iraqi dead. 6000 Americans dead or wounded. Not possible without a government.

One is the problem of rampant capitalism.

Which, really, is not a problem at all. Capitalism is great. The more the better.

There are more I could name. But in your idealistic fervor you have yet to admit that there could ever be problems in an anarchist society, and that weakens your argument.

Of course there will be problems, but problems because PEOPLE act poorly. The same way PEOPLE act poorly today. You act like as long as we have a government all murderers will be punished. That's not the way it is.

People get out of line, no matter whose running the country. Or whose not running it.

I could respect your contentment if it didn't come at the cost of mine. The harsh truth is, your system needs the people who get hurt the worst by it in order to survive.

oh boy. What would happen to the government if Atlas Shrugged?

Narbus wrote:Actually, in this case YOU are the one intitating the force, the government is responding in rational self-interest. It is enforcement of contract, in this case an explicit social contract (live in our country, pay our taxes). You make a big deal of "men with guns" enforcing laws, yet you try to overlook the fact that "men with guns" are the basis of enforcement of any complete social system. Even if you reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate force", you would still enforce with guns.

I think it's been proven to you that doing nothing does not iniate anything. If i don't pay taxes, how is that in any way an act of coercion?

You're tying to tell me that the social contract is explicit? Could you show me where it's written out? Could you read me the relevant sections pertaining to tax enforcement?

And suppose Rand had never existed - what would you say then? What's the point?

There would still be natural law for me to cite.

Nothing about rational self-interest is binding in any sense, either. If I walk up behind you and belt you across the head with a board and steal your wallet, then it's in no-one else's rational self interest to do anything about it. I can clearly belt you in the head, what's so binding about your philosophy?

Except for that it's in everybody's best interest to live in a community free of board wielding wallet thieves. So if somebody saw you do that to me, it would be in their interest to help my prosecute you accordingly.

Before you go off (again) about the subjectivness of the social contract, that's what laws are. They're objective. They're right there, no subjectiveness, there for anyone to see.

But they're often based on people's subjective moral compasses. Ie prostitution, drug and gambling laws. "sin" laws.

There are several explicit means by which people make the social contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.

But the entire civilized world is part of this type of contract. Where could i go?

Some libertarians/randians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Go to a restaurant, see if you think it ethical to walk out without paying because you didn't sign anything. Even if it is a restaurant with a minimum charge and you haven't ordered anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the method of contract so that even your presence creates a debt. What is a libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation?

Some, but not me. I understand the concept of a market transaction, ie, my money for their time and food.

My neighbor decides to drop a burned out, rusted pinto in his front yard on cement blocks, let his yard go, and do shit for his roof. My property value dies a horrible death. He made up his mind, and my mind for me.
I do still enjoy how much you fail to acknowledge the impact people have on each other, irregardless of how much the acts fall under the "rational self-interest" banner.

I disagree. For starters, his choices in no way affect the value of your home. People will still want to buy your place if you keep your place up. If your neighbor builds a mansion on his lot, does your property value go up?

Let's say that someone does, of their own free choice, set up such a system in your society. They now control the information. Information is, and always has been, the most imporatant commodity in the world. So this person is suddenly in a position of huge damn power. In your society, there's nothing at all to prevent him from fucking everyone, telling one big lie, pocketing the money and running. Not only that, but in his wake there's a massive disorganization of information, leaving him all but imporssible to track down. No punishment. With an overseeing government, there's a reason to not fuck around like that. What promise do you offer that this won't happen? "Well, people will just act better." Yeah. Great. I have a few thousand years of human history to show you otherwise.

Monopolies are impossible in an unregulated market. I have a few hundred years of economic sciense to show you that. Information and the trade of it would be a highly competitive industry... wait for it... JUST LIKE IT IS NOW.

In fact, more competitive then it is today.

You're on their land. And yes, I've heard the "what right does the government have to it?!" arguement. They have the same rights you're extending for yourself.

Well i bought it from them. Or Somebody did. and they sold it to me. I own it now. I paid fair value for it.

You should do some supporting of these stats.

I did. I can't remember which thread they're in.. I think the "question for doug and chris" thread.

You have at least 4 choices. 1) Tolerate the social contract, and perhaps try to amend it. 2) Leave it by emigrating. 3) Violate it. 4) Revolt.

So i could say the same thing to gays. How was i wrong?

Again, I call up the "property value" analogy. Under your system, there's nothing to stop someone from opening up a slaughter house right next door to me, and dropping my property values straight into the shitter. They act in rational self interest, yet their actions are taking money from me. In essence, they are robbing me. You can be as independent as you like, but in the end if you rely on anyone for anything, you are impacted by their decisions.

But they're not robbing you. There's no force involved. What happened there was, you made a bad investment.

And in theory, a democracy would be a perfect system where everyone got a vote, and logical discourse would rule the day. I'm sure you have plenty of links as to where that idea fell through because people are fallible. The same fallibilities will fuck your system in the ass.

No, you're wrong. The same faults don't apply because democracy is flawed in the one place anarchy isn't : P R I N C I P L E.

As in, even if it worked perfectly, it'd still suck. Coercion is required to enforce a majority rule. Coercion is ethically bankrupt. Democracy is ethically bankrupt.

mosaik wrote:Robbo, if a man had been living in your house since before you were born, and he had been cooking your meals, doing your laundry and mowing your lawn in exchange for some annual percentage of your income, but all the while he let you know that trying to stop him would result in your death, would he be right?

Does your staying in your own home imply consent to his rule? Does he have a right to do that to you?

That's quite skewed... I mean, it's not like "he" would kill me for "moving out" (ie, you're not going to die if you decide to leave the country).

And yes, my staying in the house (since there's nothing stopping me from leaving) would equate consent, because, by staying, I am agreeing to his terms and conditions (his services for a cut of my income).

mosaik wrote:Here's why. Say the government goes away, and we're neighbors. You want a governed society? Start one. Right there on your own property. Encourage other landowners to move to live near you and form your own little United States.

Whose going to stop you? The governm.... oh, right.

Yeah, that makes sense, except it already happened about 200 years ago when a bunch of colonists formed their own country. It's almost exactly the same thing you're talking about.

Now, assume I did what you're suggesting. I and some of my friends get together and form our own country on our own property. And our government works really well, so a lot more people move to the area and become part of my "country". It grows to, say, the size of Rhode Island. And this is all cool with you, right, because everyone's there of their own volition, everyone agrees to the rules, and we're not bugging anybody else.

Everything would work fine for exactly ONE generation. Because once we all have kids and they grow up, there's bound to be one or two who don't like the system we've set up. 99% of the next generation thinks it's great and are continuing to run the system. But say that 1% is like you, Doug. They don't think it's fair that they're part of the system simply by being born into it, and, what's more, instead of moving outside our country to someplace they'd like better, they say they shouldn't have to because it's their land. Should the 99% of the surrounding landowners, who've worked hard for their government and support it with their work and money, disband because of the 1% who are dissatisfied and don't want to exercise their right to leave? Because that's what you're saying we should do, except on a much larger scale.

You mean like, who would punish criminals? you would have to look out for yourself for the most part, which is a hell of a lot safter then counting on the cops. But say somebody robs you and you want to know who it is... hire a private detective. He'll probably do a better job then the police, too, because his income is on the line.

Speculation. Show me proof. Oh, wait, you can't. So don't try and argue realities with me.

Eh? I don't understand. You want to talk about exploitation? How about how the top 1% of income earners in america pay the first 25% of the taxes. That's exploitation. Made possible by the state.

I was talking more about exploitation of children, elderly, disabled, and other people unable to care for or make decisions for themselves. You've already admitted anarchy offers no answers for issues like child abuse.

10,000 estimated Iraqi dead. 6000 Americans dead or wounded. Not possible without a government.

Murder wouldn't happen in your anarchic society? Please.

Which, really, is not a problem at all. Capitalism is great. The more the better.

See the documentary The Corporation, then get back to me on how great capitalism is.

Of course there will be problems, but problems because PEOPLE act poorly. The same way PEOPLE act poorly today. You act like as long as we have a government all murderers will be punished. That's not the way it is.

People get out of line, no matter whose running the country. Or whose not running it.

Of course. 99% of your complaints about democracy are because the system is fallible. The system is fallible because people are fallible, and much of the same problems (and a host of different ones) would occur in anarchy. People are not going to suddenly become shining beacons of Randian philosophy just because the system changes.

I could respect your contentment if it didn't come at the cost of mine. The harsh truth is, your system needs the people who get hurt the worst by it in order to survive.

Not true. Let me say this again. You. Are. Free. To. Leave. Just because you don't want to does not mean you aren't free to. Freedom does not mean you have to like your choices.

oh boy. What would happen to the government if Atlas Shrugged?