Talking about how all government is only destructive solves nothing, it just encourages anarchy.

 

What's wrong with anarchy?

 

Have you ever seriously considered what life would be like without government? Give it some thought, because you might be surprised at what would actually happen.

What's wrong with anarchy?

 

Have you ever seriously considered what life would be like without government? Give it some thought, because you might be surprised at what would actually happen.

Oh believe me I've given it lots of thought.

 

I used to dream of a world where everyone was given an acre of farmland and everyone is responsible for themselves.

 

But what if bad weather comes? What if a virus forms?

 

What if aliens attacked (extreme but not impossible)?

I don't think anarchy would work very well.

I don't think anarchy would work very well.

Right. Your solution is "everyone move to Asia"

I don't think anarchy would work very well.

 

I think it could work quite well. Of course it hasn't been tried, because usually when a government collapses it's replaced by another one very quickly. But you can view humanity one of three ways:

 

1. People are all fundamentally evil.

 

2. People are all fundamentally good.

 

3. People are all some mix of good and evil.

 

If you look at 1, then you have to discount government altogether. Because giving evil people a monopoly on the use of force really isn't going to help things.

 

Looking at 2, in a society of angels government really isn't necessary.

 

And 3, which is the most likely situation, it makes no sense to take a chance with government. It's like saying "Well, a little bit of cancer is good. But not the whole tumor."

I think it could work quite well. Of course it hasn't been tried, because usually when a government collapses it's replaced by another one very quickly. But you can view humanity one of three ways:

 

1. People are all fundamentally evil.

 

2. People are all fundamentally good.

 

3. People are all some mix of good and evil.

 

If you look at 1, then you have to discount government altogether. Because giving evil people a monopoly on the use of force really isn't going to help things.

 

Looking at 2, in a society of angels government really isn't necessary.

 

And 3, which is the most likely situation, it makes no sense to take a chance with government. It's like saying "Well, a little bit of cancer is good. But not the whole tumor."

But how can you possibly say complete anarchy isn't just as much of a risk as government? They're both risks, but government seems to be doing okay right now in America, we just need someone like Obama to work out some of the kinks.

All right. I want to make something very clear to everyone. I'm extremely tired, I've been alone debating you all for an hour now. I am going to log off and go to bed. I just want to understand I am not backing down, I am not quitting, I am not admitting defeat. I merely cannot keep my eyes open any longer.

 

 

So, if you will....to be continued...yes?

Jay, I'm going to bed, but tomorrow I'll look over your last post and let you know what I think.

But how can you possibly say complete anarchy isn't just as much of a risk as government?

 

Aha! Very good question.

 

Let's say we were playing God with a group of savages on an island somewhere. I suggest tossing a few guns on the island, and you respond: "That's a ridiculous idea! The clans will all kill each other!"

 

So I ask you what your alternative solution is. You suggest giving the three guns to a single island clan, in effect giving that clan a monopoly on the use of force on the island. Your solution is a government.

 

Now the rest of the islanders all vote for policies according to democratic ideals, but they inevitably vote for the islander who offers them the most ice cream. To get the ice cream, the clan uses their guns to take it from the rich islanders and give it to the poor ones. This continues until there is less incentive to produce ice cream, and the total amount of island ice cream is less than it was when the experiment began.

 

______________________________________________________

 

So now take a look at what would happen if each of the three island clans had a gun. You suggest the island would devolve into a state of chaos, without a government to control things. But a curious thing happens - the islanders are aware of this scenario, and avoid it at all costs! They know the risk of losing their own lives is high, and that if they killed another islander their families would make them outcasts.

 

Instead they trade among each other. There is no politician to vote for, so they don't worry about taking ice cream from the rich islanders. Instead, they work to buy it. Other islanders see the potential to make money, so they start producing ice cream, too. The increase in total island ice cream causes the COST of ice cream to fall!

Look, we're going to bed now

 

 

See you later Saffire...and remember, no matter what we all think differently about politics, we can all agree on our view of life:

 

 

"Viva la Vida!"

 

 

 

Goodnight!

You know what's funny?

 

My college campus is so conservative that according to a poll by the university newspaper, if the election depended on the student body, Bob Barr would have a better chance of winning than Obama.

 

hey mrcool! Maybe you convince them that the antichrist will surely be a republican, a libertarian candidate will one day have a chance!

You know what's funny?

 

My college campus is so conservative that according to a poll by the university newspaper, if the election depended on the student body, Bob Barr would have a better chance of winning than Obama.

 

hey mrcool! Maybe you convince them that the antichrist will surely be a republican, a libertarian candidate will one day have a chance!

 

Bob Barr?!? I wish I had gone to your school. What university is it, just out of curiosity?

Look, we're going to bed now

 

 

See you later Saffire...and remember, no matter what we all think differently about politics, we can all agree on our view of life:

 

 

"Viva la Vida!"

 

 

 

Goodnight!

 

 

Of course I believe in Viva la Vida - it is the view that you should live your own life! Not anybody else's. That's what anarchy is all about.

I'd like to see YOU prove Obama has integrity....and no words do not count. All Obama has is words, empty promises he never follows, show some intelligent proof why you support him, not just he had a good book.

 

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous, how can you possibly judge him following through on promises? Are you just assuming all politicians are liars and never follow through on promises?

 

I hate people using the fact that he is a good poublic speaker against him, he is a very good public speaker, that doesn't mean he is any worse in other areas, it just means he is a good public speaker.

 

If you don't like wither candidate then don't sit there getting really angry about it, if you really do hate America, just leave, it's really not that hard.

 

As for banding Obama supporters into a group of morons who shout one word slogans, well that is just ridiculous, sure there are people who are like that, but the vast majority of his supporters are not idiots and were not won over by one word, he is by far a better candidate for the job than John McCain and that is why he is getting my support

 

 

-----

 

Anarchy is one of those things, that in theory sounds brilliant and in a perfect world would be great, the world sadly is not perfect, people are corrupt and they would fuck it all up for everyone else

Anarchy is one of those things, that in theory sounds brilliant and in a perfect world would be great, the world sadly is not perfect, people are corrupt and they would fuck it all up for everyone else

 

Government is one of those things, that in theory sounds brilliant and in a perfect world would be great, the world sadly is not perfect, people are corrupt and they would fuck it up for everyone else.

I think we are better off under government than we would be in anarchy.

I think we are better off under government than we would be in anarchy.

 

Fascinating. So you believe we should have an institution with a monopoly on the use of force and violence?

 

Let me ask you: Does the existence of a government make people nicer or more logical? Does it change the nature of humanity fundamentally?

Yeah I'm a big fan of opression...

 

No it doesn't change the mentality of people, but that's not the point, a murderous raping criminal can be taken off the streets in a governmental system, in anarchy they can't. You might argue you could take some measures against raping murderers, but as soon as you do that, it's just leading down the road until you reach a governmental system of some sort.

Yeah I'm a big fan of opression...

 

No it doesn't change the mentality of people, but that's not the point, a murderous raping criminal can be taken off the streets in a governmental system, in anarchy they can't. You might argue you could take some measures against raping murderers, but as soon as you do that, it's just leading down the road until you reach a governmental system of some sort.

 

So you're saying any privately-managed security business has the potential to become a government, and therefore anarchy is dangerous?

 

It sounds like an admission government is a bad thing to me.

Don't twist my words.

 

I was saying, anarchy is likely to become government anyway. I wasn't saying that was a good or bad thing, it's merely a point against Anarchy as a long term system

Don't twist my words.

 

I was saying, anarchy is likely to become government anyway. I wasn't saying that was a good or bad thing, it's merely a point against Anarchy as a long term system

 

If anyone attempted to start a government, they'd quickly be put down by a competing security firm.

 

Anarchy isn't chaos, it is the recognition that society is based on the principle of voluntary exchange of value. Government adds no value to society because its social contracts are based on the instigation of force.

I know what Anarchy is, don't patronise me, like you have been throughout this discussion.

 

Trust me, I agree that a system of trusting one another would be brilliant in theory, but it's just not a practical system.

 

There are several ways in which that system could and would go wrong.

I know what Anarchy is, don't patronise me, like you have been throughout this discussion.

 

Trust me, I agree that a system of trusting one another would be brilliant in theory, but it's just not a practical system.

 

There are several ways in which that system could and would go wrong.

 

Anarchy isn't a "system" in the way government is. This is precisely the reason it is more stable than government ever could be - nobody has a monopoly on violence.

 

Trust is what makes society tick. The vast majority of human interaction is based on voluntary contracts and trust. Government has nothing to do with it. If you choose to not pay your bills, your credit score will take a hit - you pay your bills on time because you want to avoid the inconvenience that comes from a lower credit score, not because someone has a gun to your head.

 

And yes, I feel it necessary to patronize anyone who advocates such a terrible system as centralized government, which has its root in violence.

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous, how can you possibly judge him following through on promises? Are you just assuming all politicians are liars and never follow through on promises?

 

I hate people using the fact that he is a good poublic speaker against him, he is a very good public speaker, that doesn't mean he is any worse in other areas, it just means he is a good public speaker.

 

If you don't like wither candidate then don't sit there getting really angry about it, if you really do hate America, just leave, it's really not that hard.

 

As for banding Obama supporters into a group of morons who shout one word slogans, well that is just ridiculous, sure there are people who are like that, but the vast majority of his supporters are not idiots and were not won over by one word, he is by far a better candidate for the job than John McCain and that is why he is getting my support

 

 

-----

 

Anarchy is one of those things, that in theory sounds brilliant and in a perfect world would be great, the world sadly is not perfect, people are corrupt and they would fuck it all up for everyone else

 

To be so in love and have so much hope for someone, intelligence requires having proof or evidence to support your views. Unless you simply put words over actions, in that case Obama's your man.

 

Asking someone who constantly does the opposite of what he says, and is one the most corrupt in Washington to lead our nations is foolish to say the least.

 

A man is only as good as his actions, and if Barack has done nothing worthy, how can you or anyone support him based upon mere words??

I wouldn't mind Obama supporters if they could back up what they say, or prove why barack is the right choice. Yet none of them can, they can only yell hope. They leave out any logic, or evidence, that is the sign of true ignorance.