Pages:
Author

Topic: End of Governments - page 6. (Read 6575 times)

donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1010
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
March 17, 2013, 08:46:42 PM
#93
Look. He threw the first ad hominem.

I agreed with you. You said you weren't a historian. That's not ad hominem.

Quote
Unless you are an accredited historian

Yes, I have publicly acknowledged expertise in certain branches of history, mostly having to do with the rise of central banking in America. What would you like to know?
You did not answer my question about supporting the posited Oppenheimer hypothesis in a peer reviewed science journal. Or at least some historical example that demonstrates the dynamic. Or maybe you too are a naive person? According to you, that is not ad hominem.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
March 17, 2013, 08:35:47 PM
#92
Look. He threw the first ad hominem.

I agreed with you. You said you weren't a historian. That's not ad hominem.

Quote
Unless you are an accredited historian

Yes, I have publicly acknowledged expertise in certain branches of history, mostly having to do with the rise of central banking in America. What would you like to know?
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1010
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
March 17, 2013, 08:30:05 PM
#91
Let's see something that has been written in recent anthropological or sociological peer reviewed journals.

Moving the goalposts isn't an intellectually honest approach. It was your claim that only "trolls" would posit that the State is a gang of thieves. Now that your claim is disproved, it might serve you better to educate yourself further or refrain from commenting out of ignorance again.

Quote
I am not an historian

That's quite obvious. I can safely discount your further opinions of anything having to do with historical matters, theories of the State being one of them.
Look. He threw the first ad hominem. Calling him a troll was for that more than the argument. Besides, Oppenheimer's opinions are interesting, but hardly prove or disprove anything. Perhaps he was only trolling Marx or vice verse. As far as my opinions, you may discount anything you like. Your feelings add nothing to the conversation. Unless you are an accredited historian, shall I discount your conjecture as well?
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
March 17, 2013, 08:14:44 PM
#90
Let's see something that has been written in recent anthropological or sociological peer reviewed journals.

Moving the goalposts isn't an intellectually honest approach. It was your claim that only "trolls" would posit that the State is a gang of thieves. Now that your claim is disproved, it might serve you better to educate yourself further or refrain from commenting out of ignorance again.

Quote
I am not an historian

That's quite obvious. I can safely discount your further opinions of anything having to do with historical matters, theories of the State being one of them.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1010
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
March 17, 2013, 07:16:59 PM
#89
Government isnt protection from bandits naive person, government is what resulted from the bandits winning and taking over.
That is probably the dumbest, most poorly contrived argument ever trolled. It belongs in the Internet Troll Hall of Shame.

if cbeast didn't have me on ignore, he'd learn that a troll got onto a German stamp for exactly the idea put forward by Anon136:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Oppenheimer#Der_Staat_.28The_State.29
Let's see something that has been written in recent anthropological or sociological peer reviewed journals. Anyone can conjecture. Again, if you are going to assert an opinion, base it on some evidence. I am not an historian, but at least I used Rome as an example of a developing state. That's the difference between philosophy and science. You can prove facts wrong, that is how science is done. Since philosophy cannot be falsified it is not science. Maybe I'll look for a discourse between Oppenheimer and Marx. It sounds like an interesting subject on labor philosophy. This will be very important in the post central bank era.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
March 17, 2013, 01:37:06 PM
#88
Government isnt protection from bandits naive person, government is what resulted from the bandits winning and taking over.
That is probably the dumbest, most poorly contrived argument ever trolled. It belongs in the Internet Troll Hall of Shame.

if cbeast didn't have me on ignore, he'd learn that a troll got onto a German stamp for exactly the idea put forward by Anon136:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Oppenheimer#Der_Staat_.28The_State.29
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
March 17, 2013, 12:40:16 PM
#87
A completely philisophical thought experiment. You may believe this argument if you wish, but it is not based on forensic sciences. There are a lot of ifs used and no historical examples.
Right, no historical examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_commonwealth
And since it's St. Patrick's day, let's not forget the Irish Tuatha: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tuath

Historically, anarchies have been more stable, long-term, than States.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
March 17, 2013, 10:59:37 AM
#86
Do you want roads, police, courts, firemen, water, and electricity?
Of course I do.
Are you willing to live near people that would not pay for those because they can get what they want by force instead? Would you pay for them as well?
No. That's why I am an anarchist.
What you think you are is irrelevant. Before the extant of public commons, there was no civilization. Without civilization, you are merely food.

this is so amazingly backward. Government cant exist with out leaching resources from society. Reseources can not be leached from a society that does not have surplus production. A society can not have surpluss production with out specialization and the division of labor. Specialization and the division of labor are the hallmarks of civilization.

civilization necessarily comes before government because government has no means with which to sustain its self with out civilization.
Society cannot aggregate resources until they have protection from anarchist bandits and warlords. Tribes paying for good governance is far cheaper and more efficient than losing everything to roving barbarians. That's why people choose to live in the protection of castle walls. Eventually, the castle walls are replaced by roads (i.e. Rome) and standing armies that police the environs. Finally feudalism evolves into empire and into modern civilization.

Government isnt protection from bandits naive person, government is what resulted from the bandits winning and taking over.
That is probably the dumbest, most poorly contrived argument ever trolled. It belongs in the Internet Troll Hall of Shame.

and that was not a rebuttal Wink nice try tho, i haven't fallen for tricks like that since i was very young.
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1010
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
March 17, 2013, 10:51:01 AM
#85
Do you want roads, police, courts, firemen, water, and electricity?
Of course I do.
Are you willing to live near people that would not pay for those because they can get what they want by force instead? Would you pay for them as well?
No. That's why I am an anarchist.
What you think you are is irrelevant. Before the extant of public commons, there was no civilization. Without civilization, you are merely food.

this is so amazingly backward. Government cant exist with out leaching resources from society. Reseources can not be leached from a society that does not have surplus production. A society can not have surpluss production with out specialization and the division of labor. Specialization and the division of labor are the hallmarks of civilization.

civilization necessarily comes before government because government has no means with which to sustain its self with out civilization.
Society cannot aggregate resources until they have protection from anarchist bandits and warlords. Tribes paying for good governance is far cheaper and more efficient than losing everything to roving barbarians. That's why people choose to live in the protection of castle walls. Eventually, the castle walls are replaced by roads (i.e. Rome) and standing armies that police the environs. Finally feudalism evolves into empire and into modern civilization.

Government isnt protection from bandits naive person, government is what resulted from the bandits winning and taking over.
That is probably the dumbest, most poorly contrived argument ever trolled. It belongs in the Internet Troll Hall of Shame.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
March 17, 2013, 10:45:49 AM
#84
Do you want roads, police, courts, firemen, water, and electricity?
Of course I do.
Are you willing to live near people that would not pay for those because they can get what they want by force instead? Would you pay for them as well?
No. That's why I am an anarchist.
What you think you are is irrelevant. Before the extant of public commons, there was no civilization. Without civilization, you are merely food.

this is so amazingly backward. Government cant exist with out leaching resources from society. Reseources can not be leached from a society that does not have surplus production. A society can not have surpluss production with out specialization and the division of labor. Specialization and the division of labor are the hallmarks of civilization.

civilization necessarily comes before government because government has no means with which to sustain its self with out civilization.
Society cannot aggregate resources until they have protection from anarchist bandits and warlords. Tribes paying for good governance is far cheaper and more efficient than losing everything to roving barbarians. That's why people choose to live in the protection of castle walls. Eventually, the castle walls are replaced by roads (i.e. Rome) and standing armies that police the environs. Finally feudalism evolves into empire and into modern civilization.

Government isnt protection from bandits naive person, government is what resulted from the bandits winning and taking over.
member
Activity: 73
Merit: 10
March 17, 2013, 08:39:39 AM
#83
A completely philisophical thought experiment. You may believe this argument if you wish, but it is not based on forensic sciences. There are a lot of ifs used and no historical examples.

Yes, of course, this stuf never made it to real world. Yet. Of course it was only thught of few decades ago, when the implementation was impossible, because the existing solutions worked fine for western world. Which is no more so.

There are ifs for sure (nice song, btw), however about historical examples following could be said:
-every empire, when only founded and rising to power (Say Greek, Roman, etc), had same rules: low taxes, low or inexistent welfare, simple and small set of laws. Yet population managed to grow, technical progres was made and civilisation was thriving. When empires were slowly dying, things above were mostly opposite. When romans realized that their budget spending will make them lose all the gold soon, they started to mix other metals to their coins while coins were maintaining same value. And they postponed their decline for a while.

-some of things that are described in video worked just fine in the wild west, includng basically  no welfare support.



donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1010
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
March 17, 2013, 07:29:43 AM
#82
So the basic question of this thread is:

If we disband government, can we stil have a free and safe society?

Answer: YES, WE CAN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
A completely philisophical thought experiment. You may believe this argument if you wish, but it is not based on forensic sciences. There are a lot of ifs used and no historical examples.
member
Activity: 73
Merit: 10
March 17, 2013, 04:56:05 AM
#81
So the basic question of this thread is:

If we disband government, can we stil have a free and safe society?

Answer: YES, WE CAN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
hero member
Activity: 632
Merit: 500
March 17, 2013, 12:44:59 AM
#80
The "end of government" would mean the end of peace, security, freedom, and all the infrastructure that has never worked without a governing authority.

People love to talk about how the U.S. government oppresses them.  I would suggest spending some coins on a world history course. We live in the safest, free-est conditions the world has ever known. You can expect to get old and have many of your diseases cured. You likely won't die in a war or starve.


Do a little traveling.  I don't know how you are measuring freedom, but I feel far more free outside the US then I ever did in it.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
March 17, 2013, 12:16:46 AM
#79
Darn Anarchists.  Just as bad as those darn Atheists.  Always gotta go around shouting your hoo-haw and your fiddley-fud.

Tongue

Ruining your comfortable illusions with our pesky logic....
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
March 16, 2013, 11:35:29 PM
#78
Darn Anarchists.  Just as bad as those darn Atheists.  Always gotta go around shouting your hoo-haw and your fiddley-fud.

Tongue
full member
Activity: 238
Merit: 100
March 16, 2013, 08:55:23 PM
#77
I think you should be free to choose which country you want to live in up till you are 18-25. By this I mean you arent a citizen untill you actually sign a contract. A child cant understand or sign contracts so why should they be forced into one because of birth ?

This is why the Amish let their teenagers go into the world for a year or two as teenagers so that when they return it is their own choice.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
March 16, 2013, 07:56:29 PM
#76
Do you want roads, police, courts, firemen, water, and electricity?
Of course I do.
Are you willing to live near people that would not pay for those because they can get what they want by force instead? Would you pay for them as well?
No. That's why I am an anarchist.
What you think you are is irrelevant. Before the extant of public commons, there was no civilization. Without civilization, you are merely food.

this is so amazingly backward. Government cant exist with out leaching resources from society. Reseources can not be leached from a society that does not have surplus production. A society can not have surpluss production with out specialization and the division of labor. Specialization and the division of labor are the hallmarks of civilization.

civilization necessarily comes before government because government has no means with which to sustain its self with out civilization.
Society cannot aggregate resources until they have protection from anarchist bandits and warlords. Tribes paying for good governance is far cheaper and more efficient than losing everything to roving barbarians. That's why people choose to live in the protection of castle walls. Eventually, the castle walls are replaced by roads (i.e. Rome) and standing armies that police the environs. Finally feudalism evolves into empire and into modern civilization.

And then we start selecting our defenders ourselves, instead of our defenders forcing their protection upon us. Progress!

But again, you seem to forget that the roving bandits would have nothing to steal, if the tribe had not been already specializing... (ie, practicing civilization)
donator
Activity: 1736
Merit: 1010
Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.
March 16, 2013, 07:44:02 PM
#75
Do you want roads, police, courts, firemen, water, and electricity?
Of course I do.
Are you willing to live near people that would not pay for those because they can get what they want by force instead? Would you pay for them as well?
No. That's why I am an anarchist.
What you think you are is irrelevant. Before the extant of public commons, there was no civilization. Without civilization, you are merely food.

this is so amazingly backward. Government cant exist with out leaching resources from society. Reseources can not be leached from a society that does not have surplus production. A society can not have surpluss production with out specialization and the division of labor. Specialization and the division of labor are the hallmarks of civilization.

civilization necessarily comes before government because government has no means with which to sustain its self with out civilization.
Society cannot aggregate resources until they have protection from anarchist bandits and warlords. Tribes paying for good governance is far cheaper and more efficient than losing everything to roving barbarians. That's why people choose to live in the protection of castle walls. Eventually, the castle walls are replaced by roads (i.e. Rome) and standing armies that police the environs. Finally feudalism evolves into empire and into modern civilization.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
March 16, 2013, 06:56:26 PM
#74
Do you want roads, police, courts, firemen, water, and electricity?
Of course I do.
Are you willing to live near people that would not pay for those because they can get what they want by force instead? Would you pay for them as well?
No. That's why I am an anarchist.
What you think you are is irrelevant. Before the extant of public commons, there was no civilization. Without civilization, you are merely food.

this is so amazingly backward. Government cant exist with out leaching resources from society. Reseources can not be leached from a society that does not have surplus production. A society can not have surpluss production with out specialization and the division of labor. Specialization and the division of labor are the hallmarks of civilization.

civilization necessarily comes before government because government has no means with which to sustain its self with out civilization.
Pages:
Jump to: