164 replies to this topic

[Rational Madman]

A life spent in a world where everywhere is a potential combat zone between competing "police" forces, all of whom will be armed to the teeth and engaged in arms races with every other "police force" doesn't sound very appealing to me. So sorry. I actually value human life, all human life, as opposed to thinking that I alone have value.

Oh, you mean a world where governments are at war with each other? It doesn't appeal to me either.

I still have to read both Molyneuxs, but tell me - since you use the analogy of states as individuals living in anarchy to each other - doesn't it follow that in such case you should then also strongly advocate arming exactly every single state on the planet with enough nuclear armaments to have the ability to wipe out any other single state so that everybody has everybody else by the balls and the anarchy remains intact, in the same manner that Libertarians advocate private gun ownership to keep the power balanced between individuals ?

I don't support states (=monopolies of violence over geographic areas) in any form, which are always funded through theft and monetary inflation, so it makes little difference philosophically whether states are armed to the teeth or not. But from the perspective of a "balance of power", if you will, it would seem that the scenario you describe is better than one where only a handful of states have the weapons.

And anyone who opposes anarchy should logically support a one-world government. All else is bullshit.

Binary logic, gotta love it. So what evidence do you have to support the notion that the anarchic structure of the international system is harmonious? I see only perpetual discord, a ceaseless security dilemma between nation-states, and relations marked by a disastrous regional and global war every century. Are you struggling with the definition of evidence, because I'm sure a Google search would add some much needed clarity. Anyway, like financial markets, peace in the international system is not largely due to self-correcting mechanisms, but sustained delicately through norms, laws, institutions, hegemony, diplomacy, economic interdependence, the threat of force, and to some degree, by balance of power dynamics. But there is still no guarantee that this precarious peace will not quickly fall apart, and that states won't revert to the pre-Westphalian norm.

Edited by Rol82, 22 December 2010 - 10:34 PM.

[Rational Madman]

You do realize that that is a case of perfectly circular reasoning don't you JLL? You just "logic-ed" humanity out of existence. That's the problem with creating syllogisms that are based on false premises.

Your false premise? That the"State" exists as anything other than a collective of individuals that have joined together to increase the odds of survival of all individuals in the group. As humans instinctively form such groups, the "state" will always exist. That's the point you always seem to miss, that even your "anarchy" would STILL BE A STATE.

So given that the "state" is an unavoidable consequence of human instincts, which is preferable, a state governed for the greatest good of all the individuals in it, in which each individual has a say, or a state in which he with the most guns can inflict their will at random on anyone around them until they get shot by another alpha predator?

And lest you forget, WE ARE ALPHA PREDATORS. We didn't stop being predators just because we became intelligent. We are every bit as competitive as we are co-operative, and it's that competitive nature that will turn your anarchy into the disaster that you continually deny.

I voted this post up because I found it to be well-reasoned, and overall, a good contribution to the thread.

[EmbraceUnity]

Man, what the fuck - you do not "know" I'm lying, so don't claim you do. I have NEVER voted ANYONE'S post down on this forum, and let me tell you, if I was in the voting business, it sure as hell wouldn't be Connor's posts I'd be voting down, you arrogant little prick.

Upboats for you

[Rational Madman]

Man, what the fuck - you do not "know" I'm lying, so don't claim you do. I have NEVER voted ANYONE'S post down on this forum, and let me tell you, if I was in the voting business, it sure as hell wouldn't be Connor's posts I'd be voting down, you arrogant little prick.

Upboats for you

Upboats, really?

[chris w]

I don't support states (=monopolies of violence over geographic areas) in any form, which are always funded through theft and monetary inflation, so it makes little difference philosophically whether states are armed to the teeth or not. But from the perspective of a "balance of power", if you will, it would seem that the scenario you describe is better than one where only a handful of states have the weapons.

And anyone who opposes anarchy should logically support a one-world government. All else is bullshit.

Duh, that's all part of the plan, dude - the President of Earth must already be in office when The Contact is made - it was in the deal between Green Annunaki and Harry Truman back in 1947 !


So now there are two issues I'd like to hear you opinion on :

* Army. Should the states of Earth dissolve, what do you think would/should happen to all the military equipment, regular and WMDs ? The question of who they belong to I suppose is solved Rothbardian style - the first who put their hands on them, can keep them, by default these will be the soldiers. So basically you have in effect groups of males scattered all over the world in possession of deadly means that they know how to operate, yet with allegiance only to themselves. From here 2 options arise : some groups decide to seize power and reintroduce themselves as governments, as happened very often in history, others - to sell the gear to the highest bidder. And I assume we can both agree that people willing to buy nukes or Ebola are exactly those that should never possess those. So we now have to hope for a few benevolent gazzilionaires who show up and buy them ALL before they resurface in the midst of Pashtunistan and later forge them into neat, harmless ash treys. How do you see this thing solved in absence of state force ?

* Counterterrorism. You may argue that the fall of governments will render many causes of terrorism obsolete, but it's not that easy - they might have beef not with politics per se, but with the financial system, Mickey Mouse or whatever else, so the threat is still there, especially given the situation above, with the black market ( well, now it's just simply part of "the market" ) bloated with all kinds of destructive stuff. Something tells me that a private "Manhattan Intelligence Co." would have done even a worse job preventing 9/11 than CIA has, especially that there isn't a strong reason why private entities dealing with terrorism would exchange vital information between themselves, thus is the nature of free market competition. It wasn't working too well even right now, with state counterterrorist agencies who actually *wanted* to cooperate efficiently, that's why SPIRNET was introduced in the first place. So ?


BTW
Don't take too much confidence from the system you adhere to being internally coherent, in itself that means exactly jack squat, if, as was said, for ex you start with premises that aren't shared by most humans or overlook something critical ( I think on moral grounds people lean on average more utilitarian than deontological, appart maybe from religious nut jobs, and you won't find that many who hold NAP sacred when faced with particular, ethical dillemas ) then it's doomed to fail, "garbage in, garbage out". That is - at least for anyone other then some moral/IQ elite group, unless you're ok with that, which is unarguable essentially, but IMHO makes an ideology definitely less appealing.

[mia22]

this story is unfolding in a painful manner. Assange is arrested for failing to wear a condom in one instance and for continuing sex despite a broken condom in another instance. this is horrific.

No, not all of the facts surrounding the case have been made public, and I think it would be quite hypocritical to presume innocence before the legal proceedings are finished. I strongly suspect that there is much more to this case, because I find it difficult to fathom that a prosecutor in Sweden---of all countries---would allow herself to become a US pawn, and create a potentially career destroying case of prosecuting a man for merely refusing to wear a condom---which is not an illegal act in Sweden. At the very least, Assange is a misogynist with deep seeded issues with the opposite sex, and admitting as much wouldn't be the same as yielding to criticisms of Wikileaks as an organization. The man and the organization must be separated in this case, and if he is guilty of the charges, he must be punished without regard to his other actions. Of all the countries in the European Union, Sweden is one of the least likely to be a US pawn, so the attempts of Assange and his contemptible lawyer to suggest otherwise must be treated with great suspicion. Additionally, to suggest the actions of Marriane Ny, and the government of Sweden are analogous to fascism demonstrates a very infantile understanding of political philosophy and history, and diminishes the wisdom of your past posts. So let's at least stop carelessly throwing the word around, and in general, dispense with the flimsy analogies.

Just skimming this thread quite frankly I'm a little shocked by people whom I would consider to be smarter than the average citizen cow going after Assange in such a manner and putting forth such crap analogies and arguments.

"I find it difficult to fathom that a prosecutor in Sweden---of all countries---would allow herself to become a US pawn, and create a potentially career destroying case of prosecuting a man for merely refusing to wear a condom"
I would have to say you're quite naive. Hell Summers, Rubin, and Geithner helped tank the world economy and their careers seem to be doing alright. Your assertion doesn't compute. If you would like a long list of examples of our geopolitical influence I'd be happy to provide you with one. Would you like soft power or maybe something a little more hard such as overthrowing of democratic regimes? Maybe our own government flooding cities with cocaine in the 80's? Plenty of choices....
You do know the case against Assange was dropped by the lead prosecutor in Stockholm, which I believe is the jurisdiction where the alleged incidents took place, don't you? She had said the case was crap in so few words. One of the leaders of the social democratic party of Sweden then got involved and subsequently a lower level prosecutor out of Gottingen(?), which is nowhere near the alleged incidents, reopened and filed charges, just coincidentally after the big hoorah of the dump a few months back which blew everything up in the news. Weird coincidence wouldn't you say?
Your assumptions regarding his sexual issues do not help to lend credibility to your position. And my understanding is that it is illegal not to wear a condom in Sweden.
And contrary to Maxwatt and many others' suggestions, the leaks are not just diplomatic gossip, that is a very bogus argument. Tell that to the families of the children in Niger who died after Pfizer conducted illegal experimental drug tests on them.
If everyone knew all this stuff already as some people are claiming attempting to minimize the issue with, what's the big deal then guys? Why get upset?
Diplomats talking smack about each other? Lame argument. Again point missed.
I think a lot of people here live in a comfortable bubble of ignorance, denial, or complicity. It's only when one goes through it that they understand how important the truth is. Secrecy and deception are the common underlying tools that I have seen in all corruption whether it be Madoff and corporations, or politics and wars.
The truth needs to be brought to light. Credit card and social security arguments are beyond stupid. You people don't see the bigger picture.
I have seen firsthand agencies of our government try to take everything away from their citizens. Wrongly and knowingly.
I guess my life experiences and worldview are different than many here.
I try to stay away from this stuff most of the time but have a feeling I'll be spending a lot more than a five minute skim and rant in here when I get the time over the next week,

Edited by mia22, 23 December 2010 - 10:23 AM.

[JLL]

Binary logic, gotta love it.

Yeah, you should try it sometime. I know the leftists don't favor it, though. Logic, I mean.

I see only perpetual discord, a ceaseless security dilemma between nation-states, and relations marked by a disastrous regional and global war every century.

Don't we have all that now? And much worse:

http://www.hawaii.ed...kills/NOTE1.HTM

[JLL]

So now there are two issues I'd like to hear you opinion on :

* Army. Should the states of Earth dissolve, what do you think would/should happen to all the military equipment, regular and WMDs ? The question of who they belong to I suppose is solved Rothbardian style - the first who put their hands on them, can keep them, by default these will be the soldiers. So basically you have in effect groups of males scattered all over the world in possession of deadly means that they know how to operate, yet with allegiance only to themselves. From here 2 options arise : some groups decide to seize power and reintroduce themselves as governments, as happened very often in history, others - to sell the gear to the highest bidder. And I assume we can both agree that people willing to buy nukes or Ebola are exactly those that should never possess those. So we now have to hope for a few benevolent gazzilionaires who show up and buy them ALL before they resurface in the midst of Pashtunistan and later forge them into neat, harmless ash treys. How do you see this thing solved in absence of state force ?

In the first scenario, at least the military equipment would be divided among many groups instead of one. I don't see that as a bad thing. And without governments, the production of military gear would come to a grinding halt, because there would be no taxes to fund such expenses with.

Do you really see a small group of armed bandits reintroducing themselves as a government? It's not that easy when the geographical area is large and people are armed.

* Counterterrorism. You may argue that the fall of governments will render many causes of terrorism obsolete, but it's not that easy - they might have beef not with politics per se, but with the financial system, Mickey Mouse or whatever else, so the threat is still there, especially given the situation above, with the black market ( well, now it's just simply part of "the market" ) bloated with all kinds of destructive stuff. Something tells me that a private "Manhattan Intelligence Co." would have done even a worse job preventing 9/11 than CIA has, especially that there isn't a strong reason why private entities dealing with terrorism would exchange vital information between themselves, thus is the nature of free market competition. It wasn't working too well even right now, with state counterterrorist agencies who actually *wanted* to cooperate efficiently, that's why SPIRNET was introduced in the first place. So ?

Like you say, MANY causes of terrorism would become obsolete. If you wanted to blow up Disneyland as an act against Mickey Mouse, and this was a common thing, I assume Disneyland would hire people to watch out for dudes with bombs.

As for Islamic terrorists who will blow up things just for the hell (or heaven) of it, well, I don't think the government is doing a very good job at protecting us from that. And if counter-terrorism is the only thing a state is needed for, can anyone really argue in favor of a full-blown government anymore? That's like hiring someone to protect you from rapists while allowing your guard to rape you once a day.

I do think that the private market could do counter-terrorism too, however, just like they can provide police forces etc. I'm just doubtful that there would be a market for it. But assuming there would be, then my guess is that it would revolve around private property -- i.e. you'd have people making sure someone doesn't blow up the department store you own, instead of trying to watch over an entire country. Who's to say you can't carry around a bomb in your own backyard? It's only when you hurt other people or their property that it becomes an issue.

And the exchange of vital information... I think there is a strong reason; it's better business in the long run. You see similar things in all business areas. People always assume it's all about corporate secrets, but there's more to it than that. Think about standards, for example. In many cases, no one forced businesses to adopt a standard, and yet they did. The fact that state counterterrorist agencies could not cooperate efficiently does not imply that private agencies would do even worse, it implies that all government agencies are by their very nature inefficient.

Don't take too much confidence from the system you adhere to being internally coherent, in itself that means exactly jack squat, if, as was said, for ex you start with premises that aren't shared by most humans or overlook something critical ( I think on moral grounds people lean on average more utilitarian than deontological, appart maybe from religious nut jobs, and you won't find that many who hold NAP sacred when faced with particular, ethical dillemas ) then it's doomed to fail, "garbage in, garbage out". That is - at least for anyone other then some moral/IQ elite group, unless you're ok with that, which is unarguable essentially, but IMHO makes an ideology definitely less appealing.

Utilitarianism is a horrible philosophy. Do you think it's okay to burn a redhead as a witch every now and then if it pleases the majority (the collective enjoyment is greater than the suffering of the witch), or is it wrong in all cases?

[mia22]

My link

My link

Links of interest.

[EmbraceUnity]

Upboats, really?

Yea, you were being kind of a prick in this thread. Accusing people without evidence is bad form.

[valkyrie_ice]

In the first scenario, at least the military equipment would be divided among many groups instead of one. I don't see that as a bad thing. And without governments, the production of military gear would come to a grinding halt, because there would be no taxes to fund such expenses with.

Do you really see a small group of armed bandits reintroducing themselves as a government? It's not that easy when the geographical area is large and people are armed.

Easily, because the "bandits" would be better armed, and better organized, and would kill anyone daring to resist, at which point the majority would hand over their guns rather than being killed.


Has happened too many times in history to doubt the result.


You SERIOUSLY need to learn history JLL, and get over this childish cowboy hero mentality you have. Until you have stared down the barrel of a gun and had the guts to pull the trigger first, all you have is bravado. You seem to think that every person in the world would rather die than submit to someone else's authority at gunpoint, and that's just not true. Violence WILL ALWAYS be a winning strategy for Alpha Domination, and in the absence of a bigger badder Alpha predator that forbids it, will be the first choice of 80% of the human race when faced with a challenge to their personal desires.


That's why your "paradise" will devolve into a bad post apocalypse movie in short order.

[Rational Madman]

Binary logic, gotta love it.

Yeah, you should try it sometime. I know the leftists don't favor it, though. Logic, I mean.

I see only perpetual discord, a ceaseless security dilemma between nation-states, and relations marked by a disastrous regional and global war every century.

Don't we have all that now? And much worse:

http://www.hawaii.ed...kills/NOTE1.HTM

By citing Rummel, you're acting as if there is no difference between the effects of different modes of governance. Just because some governments are destructive, that is not anywhere close to sufficient evidence to conclude that all governments are destructive. And you have the temerity to criticize my logical reasoning?

Edited by Rol82, 23 December 2010 - 08:20 PM.

[Rational Madman]

Upboats, really?

Yea, you were being kind of a prick in this thread. Accusing people without evidence is bad form.

I've regrettably made my share of ad-hominem and unbecoming attacks in the past, but rather than criticize me, I've observed that in several cases, you hypocritically either implicitly or explicitly cheerleaded me when we were in agreement. So it seems that my real offense here is composing posts that you find to be disagreeable. Indeed, in this context, you've bizarrely reached the conclusion that profane name-calling is somehow in good form, and that only my conduct was out of bounds.

As a separate issue, this thread has degenerated into another nauseating debate about the role of governance, which would be more appropriate in another thread. So as a suggestion, could we maybe create a separate thread where this line of discourse would be more fitting?

Edited by Rol82, 23 December 2010 - 09:25 PM.

[chris w]

In the first scenario, at least the military equipment would be divided among many groups instead of one. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Actually, that might be a very bad thing if the force they have at disposal is evenly distributed, because then they know they have a shot against each other.

And without governments, the production of military gear would come to a grinding halt, because there would be no taxes to fund such expenses with.

Yes, and ? They still have some good time before the engines go rust from the lack of maintenance means.

Do you really see a small group of armed bandits reintroducing themselves as a government? It's not that easy when the geographical area is large and people are armed.

They don't neccesarily have to have an appetite for the whole former country, most groups would probably try to implement their rule in their respective areas or cities at least for the immediate post - state period, however the regiments stationed in midst of uninhabited places might decide to go rogue and try to take their share of the turf somewhere else.

And the armed people...well, let's just say I'm dubious about the chances of civilians ( and you still have to count only able bodied men here, not grannies with Saturday Night Special in their purses ) against tanks, rocket launchers and what not.

...But assuming there would be, then my guess is that it would revolve around private property -- i.e. you'd have people making sure someone doesn't blow up the department store you own, instead of trying to watch over an entire country. Who's to say you can't carry around a bomb in your own backyard? It's only when you hurt other people or their property that it becomes an issue.

So basically you're saying that every owner of a sky scrapper should also have his own sonar crew and fighting jets to take down an incoming kindnapped Boeing. My guess is - most owners would just cut corners on such security issuess, because it's natural to assume you're not going to get hit in a crowd of potential victims. Which is basically inviting an attack.

Plus, the bomb in the backyard is a perfect example of detachement from reality for the sake of ideology - would you really, I mean REALLY be ok with living in a bloc with a couple of amateur meth labs that can blow any minute ? You can always move someplace else, but there are people who can't, believe me or not.

And the exchange of vital information... I think there is a strong reason; it's better business in the long run. You see similar things in all business areas. People always assume it's all about corporate secrets, but there's more to it than that. Think about standards, for example. In many cases, no one forced businesses to adopt a standard, and yet they did.

Examples, give me serious examples, I still think the victims of Union Carbide would have a diiferent opinion here. If you take the golden age of laissez - faire in XIX/XX century then this is not the case, most of if not all safety/ethical standards were not given out of the goodness of hearts of tycoons but because workers struggled for it, sometimes with some blodsheed involved on their part.

And I think you're missing one very crucial thing here. Competition in providing protection services is something qualitatively different than competition in providing products of everyday use. If there is a restaurant serving crappy meals, customers will not like their lunches there and it will go broke, end of story. But when do you know a private intelligence agency was crappy ? When it failed to save the lifes of those who subsribed to its service. And all that one can say then is "oh well, bad luck, they should have chosen better". The thing is - this is too important to allow Joe Blows to establish their own backyard - made counterterrorist agencies on an absolutely new born market ( where reputation for every actor has yet to be established by incompetent actors failing ).

The fact that state counterterrorist agencies could not cooperate efficiently does not imply that private agencies would do even worse, it implies that all government agencies are by their very nature inefficient.

I'd say it has more to do with their decentralisation resulting in effective chinese walls, something that would be only strengthend in a free market.
I would risk to say that today a lot ( although most probably not all of them too ) of people who become counter-terrorist agents do this from a sense of patriotism ( which I personally find a pretty dumb feeling, but if that does the job in saving my butt, then great ), free market doesn't really help such ethos if "protect and serve" becomes just another job.

Why would agency A want neighbouring agency B to succeed, if actually the failure of B would only leave a lot of former B's customers to be bouhgt in by A? Don't you see how instability and "creative destruction" in such delicate matter could be catastrophic ?

Utilitarianism is a horrible philosophy. Do you think it's okay to burn a redhead as a witch every now and then if it pleases the majority (the collective enjoyment is greater than the suffering of the witch), or is it wrong in all cases?

You're basically asking if I think gladiator fights are ok. No, it's not ok to burn a witch for the sake of angry mobs' fun. Actually, what you say is an argument against your system if you change "collective" for "individual", and activity ( of burning ) for lack of activity ( to let die ) - in yours one person can have all the pleasure he/she wishes for, and if the whole world around suffers of deprivation - well, tough shit, as long as the sacred negative rights are kept intact. What I advocate is essentially to keep the extremes closer to each other - less fun for the top, less suffering for the bottom, no one has to die in the process, but some beauty surgeons might not have a third car and similar tragedies will take place.

When I said that people lean more utilitarian, I was thinking about that old example I once used when one person is drowning, one person has a rope, but is not using it, and a third person takes the rope from the procrastinator. You said that the guy with the rope has no duty to help, and that's fair enough, I can agree. What I definitely cannot agree with though is that the one who is actually willing to help can only please, beg, condemn the guy with the rope, but has no right whatsoever to take it from him. I think most people would agree with me in this particular case.

Edited by chris w, 24 December 2010 - 04:45 AM.

[chris w]

Don't we have all that now? And much worse:

http://www.hawaii.ed...kills/NOTE1.HTM

10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

What the f.. is "Depraved Nationalist Regime" ?

1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing

Ok, I don't even know who this Rummel dude is, but clearly he consults his ass for historical info. I can't think of anything like this in the last two centuries. There was one thing during the II War with Ukrainians that would fit the definition, but not anywhere near that number, and there were no states then obviously as this under the occupation of 3rd Reich.

Also the Titoist Yugoslavia wasn't a slaughethouse, given the time and situation in Eastern Bloc, it was actually not bad.

And anyway, there is an important "but" to what he writes. None of the states he enumerates are/were stable, liberal democracies. The only state that is any war - prone today among them is the US ( sorry guys, but it's not like you didn't know that already )



And yeah, good call, probably the mods should move all that to "Libertarianism"

[Rational Madman]

In the first scenario, at least the military equipment would be divided among many groups instead of one. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Actually, that might be a very bad thing if the force they have at disposal is evenly distributed, because then they know they have a shot against each other.

And without governments, the production of military gear would come to a grinding halt, because there would be no taxes to fund such expenses with.

Yes, and ? They still have some good time before the engines go rust from the lack of maintenance means.

Do you really see a small group of armed bandits reintroducing themselves as a government? It's not that easy when the geographical area is large and people are armed.

They don't neccesarily have to have an appetite for the whole former country, most groups would probably try to implement their rule in their respective areas or cities at least for the immediate post - state period, however the regiments stationed in midst of uninhabited places might decide to go rogue and try to take their share of the turf somewhere else.

And the armed people...well, let's just say I'm dubious about the chances of civilians ( and you still have to count only able bodied men here, not grannies with Saturday Night Special in their purses ) against tanks, rocket launchers and what not.

...But assuming there would be, then my guess is that it would revolve around private property -- i.e. you'd have people making sure someone doesn't blow up the department store you own, instead of trying to watch over an entire country. Who's to say you can't carry around a bomb in your own backyard? It's only when you hurt other people or their property that it becomes an issue.

So basically you're saying that every owner of a sky scrapper should also have his own sonar crew and fighting jets to take down an incoming kindnapped Boeing. My guess is - most owners would just cut corners on such security issuess, because it's natural to assume you're not going to get hit in a crowd of potential victims. Which is basically inviting an attack.

Plus, the bomb in the backyard is a perfect example of detachement from reality for the sake of ideology - would you really, I mean REALLY be ok with living in a bloc with a couple of amateur meth labs that can blow any minute ? You can always move someplace else, but there are people who can't, believe me or not.

And the exchange of vital information... I think there is a strong reason; it's better business in the long run. You see similar things in all business areas. People always assume it's all about corporate secrets, but there's more to it than that. Think about standards, for example. In many cases, no one forced businesses to adopt a standard, and yet they did.

Examples, give me serious examples, I still think the victims of Union Carbide would have a diiferent opinion here. If you take the golden age of laissez - faire in XIX/XX century then this is not the case, most of if not all safety/ethical standards were not given out of the goodness of hearts of tycoons but because workers struggled for it, sometimes with some blodsheed involved on their part.

And I think you're missing one very crucial thing here. Competition in providing protection services is something qualitatively different than competition in providing products of everyday use. If there is a restaurant serving crappy meals, customers will not like their lunches there and it will go broke, end of story. But when do you know a private intelligence agency was crappy ? When it failed to save the lifes of those who subsribed to its service. And all that one can say then is "oh well, bad luck, they should have chosen better". The thing is - this is too important to allow Joe Blows to establish their own backyard - made counterterrorist agencies on an absolutely new born market ( where reputation for every actor has yet to be established by incompetent actors failing ).

The fact that state counterterrorist agencies could not cooperate efficiently does not imply that private agencies would do even worse, it implies that all government agencies are by their very nature inefficient.

I'd say it has more to do with their decentralisation resulting in effective chinese walls, something that would be only strengthend in a free market.
I would risk to say that today a lot ( although most probably not all of them too ) of people who become counter-terrorist agents do this from a sense of patriotism ( which I personally find a pretty dumb feeling, but if that does the job in saving my butt, then great ), free market doesn't really help such ethos if "protect and serve" becomes just another job.

Why would agency A want neighbouring agency B to succeed, if actually the failure of B would only leave a lot of former B's customers to be bouhgt in by A? Don't you see how instability and "creative destruction" in such delicate matter could be catastrophic ?

Utilitarianism is a horrible philosophy. Do you think it's okay to burn a redhead as a witch every now and then if it pleases the majority (the collective enjoyment is greater than the suffering of the witch), or is it wrong in all cases?

You're basically asking if I think gladiator fights are ok. No, it's not ok to burn a witch for the sake of angry mobs' fun. Actually, what you say is an argument against your system if you change "collective" for "individual", and activity ( of burning ) for lack of activity ( to let die ) - in yours one person can have all the pleasure he/she wishes for, and if the whole world around suffers of deprivation - well, tough shit, as long as the sacred negative rights are kept intact. What I advocate is essentially to keep the extremes closer to each other - less fun for the top, less suffering for the bottom, no one has to die in the process, but some beauty surgeons might not have a third car and similar tragedies will take place.

When I said that people lean more utilitarian, I was thinking about that old example I once used when one person is drowning, one person has a rope, but is not using it, and a third person takes the rope from the procrastinator. You said that the guy with the rope has no duty to help, and that's fair enough, I can agree. What I definitely cannot agree with though is that the one who is actually willing to help can only please, beg, condemn the guy with the rope, but has no right whatsoever to take it from him. I think most people would agree with me in this particular case.

What is most striking about his policy proposals is that he has almost no notion of the distinction between what would be in his mind idyllic, and with what is either possible or proven. If he was serious with his beliefs, he would understand that progress towards his desired end would need to be preceded repeatedly by positive findings of success. Much of his scheme depends on his very flawed interpretation of data on human behavior, history, and popular sentiments---which he evidently doesn't have much regard for anyway. Indeed, before one arrives at the letter z, there must be a careful movement through the preceding letter stages, but recklessly, he seems to be advocating a jettisoning of any sense of modesty, because the ostensible correctness of his ideas is deemed sufficient to make life and death decisions about governance. This in effect, is a call to remove the science from political, and an endorsement for degrading a field of study to capricious superstitions. Even though I'm utterly convinced that his pet project would be a colossal failure, I would counsel moderation, and urge that several pilot projects be launched before we even seriously consider such a profound paradigm change. To be sound, notions in philosophy must be subjected to empirically rigorous standards, if they are to have any chance of being implemented to any degree. Otherwise, we're engaging in a pointless dialogue that treats philosophy and political science contemptuously as subjects that haven't undergone any methodological advances, and unworthy of the same demands that are invariably made of the sciences.

Edited by Rol82, 24 December 2010 - 06:23 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Don't we have all that now? And much worse:

http://www.hawaii.ed...kills/NOTE1.HTM

10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

What the f.. is "Depraved Nationalist Regime" ?

1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing

Ok, I don't even know who this Rummel dude is, but clearly he consults his ass for historical info. I can't think of anything like this in the last two centuries. There was one thing during the II War with Ukrainians that would fit the definition, but not anywhere near that number, and there were no states then obviously as this under the occupation of 3rd Reich.

Also the Titoist Yugoslavia wasn't a slaughethouse, given the time and situation in Eastern Bloc, it was actually not bad.

And anyway, there is an important "but" to what he writes. None of the states he enumerates are/were stable, liberal democracies. The only state that is any war - prone today among them is the US ( sorry guys, but it's not like you didn't know that already )



And yeah, good call, probably the mods should move all that to "Libertarianism"

Rummel coined the term "democide," or death by government, and has become noted for quantifying the number of deaths attributable to the actions of governments. But he has failed to prove that the rate of democide has a strong causal relationship with government size, and made laughably simplistic conclusions about his findings that provide a poor scholarly cover for the anti-government zealots. In general, his scholarship is pretty shoddy, and has ensured that he remains confined as a tenured professor at a second rate university. The mode of governance is what counts, not the size, but Rummel pays no heed to this inconvenient finding. But what's more, we're living in period marked by the lowest incidence of democide in history, which means relatively speaking, the emerging norm of governance is approaching what might be the ideal.

Edited by Rol82, 24 December 2010 - 06:19 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Upboats, really?

Yea, you were being kind of a prick in this thread. Accusing people without evidence is bad form.

I'm still a bit troubled by your double standard for discourse, and at the risk of inviting what I expect will be a series of impulsive votes against my posts, I decided to at least vote against this entry.

[JLL]

Easily, because the "bandits" would be better armed, and better organized, and would kill anyone daring to resist, at which point the majority would hand over their guns rather than being killed.

Has happened too many times in history to doubt the result.

Examples?

You SERIOUSLY need to learn history JLL, and get over this childish cowboy hero mentality you have. Until you have stared down the barrel of a gun and had the guts to pull the trigger first, all you have is bravado. You seem to think that every person in the world would rather die than submit to someone else's authority at gunpoint, and that's just not true. Violence WILL ALWAYS be a winning strategy for Alpha Domination, and in the absence of a bigger badder Alpha predator that forbids it, will be the first choice of 80% of the human race when faced with a challenge to their personal desires.

That's why your "paradise" will devolve into a bad post apocalypse movie in short order.

It is not childish to not want to aggress against people and to want to not be aggressed against. Your idea that by giving all the power and all the guns into the hands of ruling group and then hoping they won't turn against you, however, is as childish as it gets.

[JLL]

Rummel coined the term "democide," or death by government, and has become noted for quantifying the number of deaths attributable to the actions of governments. But he has failed to prove that the rate of democide has a strong causal relationship with government size, and made laughably simplistic conclusions about his findings that provide a poor scholarly cover for the anti-government zealots. In general, his scholarship is pretty shoddy, and has ensured that he remains confined as a tenured professor at a second rate university. The mode of governance is what counts, not the size, but Rummel pays no heed to this inconvenient finding. But what's more, we're living in period marked by the lowest incidence of democide in history, which means relatively speaking, the emerging norm of governance is approaching what might be the ideal.

Talk about cognitive dissonance. "Good news, boys -- this century, governments have killed less of their own citizens than ever before!"

I think zero would be an okay number.

[JLL]

By citing Rummel, you're acting as if there is no difference between the effects of different modes of governance. Just because some governments are destructive, that is not anywhere close to sufficient evidence to conclude that all governments are destructive. And you have the temerity to criticize my logical reasoning?

I think even Rummel notes the difference between democratic and non-democratic governments -- he's not an anarchist. I'm pretty sure he's pro-democracy, unlike me.

That was just to point out that governments have done worse things to their own people than most people realize; and that the terrible things they envision will happen without governments has already happened dozens of times WITH governments.

[JLL]

This discussion is getting out of hand here, we can argue about all the details of anarchistic vs. democratic societies, but you will never be convinced based on them alone, and obviously in many cases we'd be talking about hypothetical scenarios, because any and all examples of stateless societies (Somalia doesn't really count due to other governments' involvement) are from the past, before there even were terrorist attacks.

Examples, give me serious examples, I still think the victims of Union Carbide would have a diiferent opinion here. If you take the golden age of laissez - faire in XIX/XX century then this is not the case, most of if not all safety/ethical standards were not given out of the goodness of hearts of tycoons but because workers struggled for it, sometimes with some blodsheed involved on their part.

Are we talking about standards like USB or safety standards?

And I think you're missing one very crucial thing here. Competition in providing protection services is something qualitatively different than competition in providing products of everyday use. If there is a restaurant serving crappy meals, customers will not like their lunches there and it will go broke, end of story. But when do you know a private intelligence agency was crappy ? When it failed to save the lifes of those who subsribed to its service. And all that one can say then is "oh well, bad luck, they should have chosen better". The thing is - this is too important to allow Joe Blows to establish their own backyard - made counterterrorist agencies on an absolutely new born market ( where reputation for every actor has yet to be established by incompetent actors failing ).

My answer to all these things is the same -- do you really think monopolies can do a better job than what free competition can produce? You are questioning the ability of people to know which private intelligence agencies are crappy, before shit hits the fan. I suppose you are correct in assuming that one could start a shitty agency, get a couple of unknowing customers who then die because of the agency. But don't you think this kind of news will spread fast? Do you really think businesses like this stay in business for long? Since this worries you, I assume several other people would be worried too, which means there is demand for a business that reports on various intelligence agencies.

When you have several private intelligence agencies, at least you can switch to a better one whenever you like. This is what puts pressure on the agencies to do a good job. How could a government monopoly do a better job? When the government agency does a bad job, what can you do? There is no other agency to turn to, other than to move to another country. Government agencies are TERRIBLY INEFFECTIVE IN EVERYTHING THEY DO, because monopolies have very little motivation to do a good job -- they simply don't need to, because there is no alternative to turn to. You pay for your "government intelligence" (two words combined that can't make sense) whether you want to or not.

This is basic economics, and as long as anyone tries to tell me that monopolies are better for the consumer than the free market, there is nothing I can say to convince them. It is useless to discuss for eight pages the details of how apples would be produced on the free market, and then turn to the problem of oranges on the free market, then the bananas, etc when they are all examples of the same basic principle -- that monopolies are ALWAYS ineffective compared to competition.

You're basically asking if I think gladiator fights are ok. No, it's not ok to burn a witch for the sake of angry mobs' fun. Actually, what you say is an argument against your system if you change "collective" for "individual", and activity ( of burning ) for lack of activity ( to let die ) - in yours one person can have all the pleasure he/she wishes for, and if the whole world around suffers of deprivation - well, tough shit, as long as the sacred negative rights are kept intact. What I advocate is essentially to keep the extremes closer to each other - less fun for the top, less suffering for the bottom, no one has to die in the process, but some beauty surgeons might not have a third car and similar tragedies will take place.

Then you are saying that burning the witch is okay? How can you argue that it's okay to steal to please the mob (no third car for the surgeon) but not to kill? Where do you draw the line?

There are no such lines in utilitarianism.

And it is *not* deprivation to keep one's property. That just makes no sense.

When I said that people lean more utilitarian, I was thinking about that old example I once used when one person is drowning, one person has a rope, but is not using it, and a third person takes the rope from the procrastinator. You said that the guy with the rope has no duty to help, and that's fair enough, I can agree. What I definitely cannot agree with though is that the one who is actually willing to help can only please, beg, condemn the guy with the rope, but has no right whatsoever to take it from him. I think most people would agree with me in this particular case.

Marginal examples (the lifeboat example is famous) are not very interesting when comparing philosophies; however, in the rope case I would completely understand why someone would just grab the rope to save the drowning person. If the rope owner then wanted to press charges, he would have the legal right to do so -- his moral character would be in serious question, but he would nonetheless have the right. But imagine how his life would be from there on, when everybody would know that "this is the guy who wouldn't even borrow a rope to save another man's life".

Are you saying it's okay for poor people to break into buildings and steal stuff? That's your rope example in a more common context.

[Rational Madman]

Okay, the reasons that I know that you're lying is that reputation score changes have coincided with your visits to this thread, and because no one else would have had the incentive to vote down Connor's harmless post.

Man, what the fuck - you do not "know" I'm lying, so don't claim you do. I have NEVER voted ANYONE'S post down on this forum, and let me tell you, if I was in the voting business, it sure as hell wouldn't be Connor's posts I'd be voting down.

Keeping with my policy, I should disclose that I previously voted this post down.

[valkyrie_ice]

Easily, because the "bandits" would be better armed, and better organized, and would kill anyone daring to resist, at which point the majority would hand over their guns rather than being killed.

Has happened too many times in history to doubt the result.

Examples?

Open a history book, JLL. I've given these examples in the past. Not the least of which you can simply look at much of the African continent and it's warlords. A organized, BRUTAL gang will win every time over a disorganized, though armed, group who is not willing to die rather than submit. Whoever is most willing to kill will always dominate in an anarchy.

You have based your ideology on a very poor model of real human behavior. Like I've said previously feel free to go found your perfect society on some island. I'll laugh when they bury you after the first time you try to enforce your will at gunpoint and get shot for your troubles. You don't have what it takes to live in a society ruled by the gun you so cherish. Your unwillingness to agress will make you little more than a victim to someone who is willing to agress.

You SERIOUSLY need to learn history JLL, and get over this childish cowboy hero mentality you have. Until you have stared down the barrel of a gun and had the guts to pull the trigger first, all you have is bravado. You seem to think that every person in the world would rather die than submit to someone else's authority at gunpoint, and that's just not true. Violence WILL ALWAYS be a winning strategy for Alpha Domination, and in the absence of a bigger badder Alpha predator that forbids it, will be the first choice of 80% of the human race when faced with a challenge to their personal desires.

That's why your "paradise" will devolve into a bad post apocalypse movie in short order.

It is not childish to not want to aggress against people and to want to not be aggressed against. Your idea that by giving all the power and all the guns into the hands of ruling group and then hoping they won't turn against you, however, is as childish as it gets.

You do so love to twist things to suit your worldview don't you? I never claimed it was childish to not want to be aggressed against. I said it was childish to assume that EVERYONE ELSE WOULD HAVE THAT SAME DESIRE and it is childish to project an obviously false bravado that you would be able to prevent being dominated when someone starts shooting at you. You can't even stay calm when you're on these forums, and you expect anyone to believe you could keep calm when someone is shooting at you? Grow up JLL. This isn't cowboys and indians, and you aren't the Lone Ranger and guns aren't magic wands that make everyone respect you. The last guy who thought that and stuck a gun in my face ended up in the hospital with a shattered wrist. (maglites are heavy for a reason). Why? Because he thought that gun gave him power, and it didn't because he didn't have the guts to shoot, but I had the guts to smash his wrist against a wall with a steel flashlight. You are advocating for a society in which you have no hope of survival.

Nor have I ever advocated giving all the power to a "ruling group" another fact which you conveniently ignore over and over. There is no government that AT PRESENT that I consider fully trustworthy, because no system to enforce accountability has yet been created. However, once transparency and accountability are enforcible, a democracy of informed citizens, another thing which does not currently exist , is a better choice for an administration model than an anything goes anarchy in which violence will become the dominant decision making method.

And until then, regardless of it's flaws, a democracy is STILL a better admin model than the majority of previously tried admin models, INCLUDING ANARCHY.

[Rational Madman]

Easily, because the "bandits" would be better armed, and better organized, and would kill anyone daring to resist, at which point the majority would hand over their guns rather than being killed.

Has happened too many times in history to doubt the result.

Examples?

Open a history book, JLL. I've given these examples in the past. Not the least of which you can simply look at much of the African continent and it's warlords. A organized, BRUTAL gang will win every time over a disorganized, though armed, group who is not willing to die rather than submit. Whoever is most willing to kill will always dominate in an anarchy.

You have based your ideology on a very poor model of real human behavior. Like I've said previously feel free to go found your perfect society on some island. I'll laugh when they bury you after the first time you try to enforce your will at gunpoint and get shot for your troubles. You don't have what it takes to live in a society ruled by the gun you so cherish. Your unwillingness to agress will make you little more than a victim to someone who is willing to agress.

You SERIOUSLY need to learn history JLL, and get over this childish cowboy hero mentality you have. Until you have stared down the barrel of a gun and had the guts to pull the trigger first, all you have is bravado. You seem to think that every person in the world would rather die than submit to someone else's authority at gunpoint, and that's just not true. Violence WILL ALWAYS be a winning strategy for Alpha Domination, and in the absence of a bigger badder Alpha predator that forbids it, will be the first choice of 80% of the human race when faced with a challenge to their personal desires.

That's why your "paradise" will devolve into a bad post apocalypse movie in short order.

It is not childish to not want to aggress against people and to want to not be aggressed against. Your idea that by giving all the power and all the guns into the hands of ruling group and then hoping they won't turn against you, however, is as childish as it gets.

You do so love to twist things to suit your worldview don't you? I never claimed it was childish to not want to be aggressed against. I said it was childish to assume that EVERYONE ELSE WOULD HAVE THAT SAME DESIRE and it is childish to project an obviously false bravado that you would be able to prevent being dominated when someone starts shooting at you. You can't even stay calm when you're on these forums, and you expect anyone to believe you could keep calm when someone is shooting at you? Grow up JLL. This isn't cowboys and indians, and you aren't the Lone Ranger and guns aren't magic wands that make everyone respect you. The last guy who thought that and stuck a gun in my face ended up in the hospital with a shattered wrist. (maglites are heavy for a reason). Why? Because he thought that gun gave him power, and it didn't because he didn't have the guts to shoot, but I had the guts to smash his wrist against a wall with a steel flashlight. You are advocating for a society in which you have no hope of survival.

Nor have I ever advocated giving all the power to a "ruling group" another fact which you conveniently ignore over and over. There is no government that AT PRESENT that I consider fully trustworthy, because no system to enforce accountability has yet been created. However, once transparency and accountability are enforcible, a democracy of informed citizens, another thing which does not currently exist , is a better choice for an administration model than an anything goes anarchy in which violence will become the dominant decision making method.

And until then, regardless of it's flaws, a democracy is STILL a better admin model than the majority of previously tried admin models, INCLUDING ANARCHY.

Indeed, well said.

[Rational Madman]

Easily, because the "bandits" would be better armed, and better organized, and would kill anyone daring to resist, at which point the majority would hand over their guns rather than being killed.

Has happened too many times in history to doubt the result.

Examples?

Open a history book, JLL. I've given these examples in the past. Not the least of which you can simply look at much of the African continent and it's warlords. A organized, BRUTAL gang will win every time over a disorganized, though armed, group who is not willing to die rather than submit. Whoever is most willing to kill will always dominate in an anarchy.

You have based your ideology on a very poor model of real human behavior. Like I've said previously feel free to go found your perfect society on some island. I'll laugh when they bury you after the first time you try to enforce your will at gunpoint and get shot for your troubles. You don't have what it takes to live in a society ruled by the gun you so cherish. Your unwillingness to agress will make you little more than a victim to someone who is willing to agress.

You SERIOUSLY need to learn history JLL, and get over this childish cowboy hero mentality you have. Until you have stared down the barrel of a gun and had the guts to pull the trigger first, all you have is bravado. You seem to think that every person in the world would rather die than submit to someone else's authority at gunpoint, and that's just not true. Violence WILL ALWAYS be a winning strategy for Alpha Domination, and in the absence of a bigger badder Alpha predator that forbids it, will be the first choice of 80% of the human race when faced with a challenge to their personal desires.

That's why your "paradise" will devolve into a bad post apocalypse movie in short order.

It is not childish to not want to aggress against people and to want to not be aggressed against. Your idea that by giving all the power and all the guns into the hands of ruling group and then hoping they won't turn against you, however, is as childish as it gets.

You do so love to twist things to suit your worldview don't you? I never claimed it was childish to not want to be aggressed against. I said it was childish to assume that EVERYONE ELSE WOULD HAVE THAT SAME DESIRE and it is childish to project an obviously false bravado that you would be able to prevent being dominated when someone starts shooting at you. You can't even stay calm when you're on these forums, and you expect anyone to believe you could keep calm when someone is shooting at you? Grow up JLL. This isn't cowboys and indians, and you aren't the Lone Ranger and guns aren't magic wands that make everyone respect you. The last guy who thought that and stuck a gun in my face ended up in the hospital with a shattered wrist. (maglites are heavy for a reason). Why? Because he thought that gun gave him power, and it didn't because he didn't have the guts to shoot, but I had the guts to smash his wrist against a wall with a steel flashlight. You are advocating for a society in which you have no hope of survival.

Nor have I ever advocated giving all the power to a "ruling group" another fact which you conveniently ignore over and over. There is no government that AT PRESENT that I consider fully trustworthy, because no system to enforce accountability has yet been created. However, once transparency and accountability are enforcible, a democracy of informed citizens, another thing which does not currently exist , is a better choice for an administration model than an anything goes anarchy in which violence will become the dominant decision making method.

And until then, regardless of it's flaws, a democracy is STILL a better admin model than the majority of previously tried admin models, INCLUDING ANARCHY.

Indeed, well said.

According to the visitor log, either Embrace Unity, but almost certainly Shadowhawk, felt the urge to single out my concurrence with Valkyrie---which I should note, wasn't an endorsement of every word composed. Indeed, very becoming and laughable. Anyway, I shall retire for the day, and tend to my grave wound. But I've decided to no longer reduce myself to playing the tit-for-tat voting contest, so the guilty party need not lose any sleep over discovering a greatly diminished digital reputation.

It just occurred to me, though, Shadowhawk's dramatic reputation score change coincided with the introduction of Crepitus and his sock puppets, who evidently share the religious fervor of the former, and seemingly embarked on a concerted voting war in the religion threads---where my mockery made me a favorite target. If I'm right, and they're all the same individual, I have to say I'm a bit flattered, because this person created at least five different identities, to be used for the partial purpose of voting against my postings. Wow, I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

Edited by Rol82, 24 December 2010 - 09:45 PM.

[mia22]

Easily, because the "bandits" would be better armed, and better organized, and would kill anyone daring to resist, at which point the majority would hand over their guns rather than being killed.

Has happened too many times in history to doubt the result.

Examples?

Open a history book, JLL. I've given these examples in the past. Not the least of which you can simply look at much of the African continent and it's warlords. A organized, BRUTAL gang will win every time over a disorganized, though armed, group who is not willing to die rather than submit. Whoever is most willing to kill will always dominate in an anarchy.

You have based your ideology on a very poor model of real human behavior. Like I've said previously feel free to go found your perfect society on some island. I'll laugh when they bury you after the first time you try to enforce your will at gunpoint and get shot for your troubles. You don't have what it takes to live in a society ruled by the gun you so cherish. Your unwillingness to agress will make you little more than a victim to someone who is willing to agress.

You SERIOUSLY need to learn history JLL, and get over this childish cowboy hero mentality you have. Until you have stared down the barrel of a gun and had the guts to pull the trigger first, all you have is bravado. You seem to think that every person in the world would rather die than submit to someone else's authority at gunpoint, and that's just not true. Violence WILL ALWAYS be a winning strategy for Alpha Domination, and in the absence of a bigger badder Alpha predator that forbids it, will be the first choice of 80% of the human race when faced with a challenge to their personal desires.

That's why your "paradise" will devolve into a bad post apocalypse movie in short order.

It is not childish to not want to aggress against people and to want to not be aggressed against. Your idea that by giving all the power and all the guns into the hands of ruling group and then hoping they won't turn against you, however, is as childish as it gets.

You do so love to twist things to suit your worldview don't you? I never claimed it was childish to not want to be aggressed against. I said it was childish to assume that EVERYONE ELSE WOULD HAVE THAT SAME DESIRE and it is childish to project an obviously false bravado that you would be able to prevent being dominated when someone starts shooting at you. You can't even stay calm when you're on these forums, and you expect anyone to believe you could keep calm when someone is shooting at you? Grow up JLL. This isn't cowboys and indians, and you aren't the Lone Ranger and guns aren't magic wands that make everyone respect you. The last guy who thought that and stuck a gun in my face ended up in the hospital with a shattered wrist. (maglites are heavy for a reason). Why? Because he thought that gun gave him power, and it didn't because he didn't have the guts to shoot, but I had the guts to smash his wrist against a wall with a steel flashlight. You are advocating for a society in which you have no hope of survival.

Nor have I ever advocated giving all the power to a "ruling group" another fact which you conveniently ignore over and over. There is no government that AT PRESENT that I consider fully trustworthy, because no system to enforce accountability has yet been created. However, once transparency and accountability are enforcible, a democracy of informed citizens, another thing which does not currently exist , is a better choice for an administration model than an anything goes anarchy in which violence will become the dominant decision making method.

And until then, regardless of it's flaws, a democracy is STILL a better admin model than the majority of previously tried admin models, INCLUDING ANARCHY.

Indeed, well said.

According to the visitor log, either Embrace Unity, but almost certainly Shadowhawk, felt the urge to single out my concurrence with Valkyrie---which I should note, wasn't an endorsement of every word composed. Indeed, very becoming and laughable. Anyway, I shall retire for the day, and tend to my grave wound. But I've decided to no longer reduce myself to playing the tit-for-tat voting contest, so the guilty party need not lose any sleep over discovering a greatly diminished digital reputation.

It just occurred to me, though, Shadowhawk's dramatic reputation score change coincided with the introduction of Crepitus and his sock puppets, who evidently share the religious fervor of the former, and seemingly embarked on a concerted voting war in the religion threads---where my mockery made me a favorite target. If I'm right, and they're all the same individual, I have to say I'm a bit flattered, because this person created at least five different identities, to be used for the partial purpose of voting against my postings. Wow, I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

I don't really understand why you care so much about who votes for or against you or whatever the deal is.
Is it really that important?
Also, you chose not to respond to my previous response to one of your posts, which is not the end of the world or anything but I was curious to see what you had to say.
Anyways happy holidays to all.

[JLL]

Open a history book, JLL. I've given these examples in the past. Not the least of which you can simply look at much of the African continent and it's warlords. A organized, BRUTAL gang will win every time over a disorganized, though armed, group who is not willing to die rather than submit. Whoever is most willing to kill will always dominate in an anarchy.

You open a history book and look at the examples of stateless societies, and then tell me which ones you prefer -- states or stateless societies.

You have based your ideology on a very poor model of real human behavior. Like I've said previously feel free to go found your perfect society on some island.

I'm glad you would grant me the opportunity to do so, but I'm afraid others aren't ready to do the same. I would be quite happy with this experiment, but all land is owned by governments at the moment.

I'll laugh when they bury you after the first time you try to enforce your will at gunpoint and get shot for your troubles.

And this tells me everything I need to know about your persona. You are a cruel and twisted human being.

You don't have what it takes to live in a society ruled by the gun you so cherish.

Are you saying your society is not ruled by the gun? It sure as hell isn't ruled through voluntarism. Just try not paying your taxes and you'll see what I mean.

never claimed it was childish to not want to be aggressed against. I said it was childish to assume that EVERYONE ELSE WOULD HAVE THAT SAME DESIRE and it is childish to project an obviously false bravado that you would be able to prevent being dominated when someone starts shooting at you.

I don't assume everyone else has that same desire. I do, however, assume that the majority does. Do you?

You can't even stay calm when you're on these forums, and you expect anyone to believe you could keep calm when someone is shooting at you?

Why should I keep calm if someone is shooting at me?

Grow up JLL. This isn't cowboys and indians, and you aren't the Lone Ranger and guns aren't magic wands that make everyone respect you. The last guy who thought that and stuck a gun in my face ended up in the hospital with a shattered wrist. (maglites are heavy for a reason). Why? Because he thought that gun gave him power, and it didn't because he didn't have the guts to shoot, but I had the guts to smash his wrist against a wall with a steel flashlight. You are advocating for a society in which you have no hope of survival.

OK, tough guy/girl.

Nor have I ever advocated giving all the power to a "ruling group" another fact which you conveniently ignore over and over.

But you have.

And until then, regardless of it's flaws, a democracy is STILL a better admin model than the majority of previously tried admin models, INCLUDING ANARCHY.

And yet you have never shown this to be the case; all you can say is that in anarchy, another government would be quickly formed -- which is not worse, just the same.

[valkyrie_ice]

You open a history book and look at the examples of stateless societies, and then tell me which ones you prefer -- states or stateless societies.

Name one? Just one, because I've yet to run across any.

I'm glad you would grant me the opportunity to do so, but I'm afraid others aren't ready to do the same. I would be quite happy with this experiment, but all land is owned by governments at the moment.

Excuses excuses. If you really believed your own words you'd find that there are plenty of islands that are for sale, on which you could found your little experiment. But it's much easier to talk about "how the man is keeping you down" isn't it?

And this tells me everything I need to know about your persona. You are a cruel and twisted human being.

This from someone who would condemn every person in america on disability and ever american who cannot afford insurance to death because they are "leeches". I'd laugh because I had given you plenty of warning of the stupidity of your actions. I'm human. Stupidity on someone else's part is funny.

Are you saying your society is not ruled by the gun? It sure as hell isn't ruled through voluntarism. Just try not paying your taxes and you'll see what I mean.

Yes I am. Despite it's flaws, and the corruptions you keep trying to pin on the government instead of special interests, Americans can and have gone their entire lives without having held, fired, or pointed a gun at another human being, or had one pointed at them. In your society, EVERYONE would have to have a gun, and be willing to use it, with intent to kill, on a daily basis, because violence would once again be the final arbitrator instead of the law.

I don't assume everyone else has that same desire. I do, however, assume that the majority does. Do you?

No. I don't. Personal experience shows me an entirely different reality than yours.

Why should I keep calm if someone is shooting at me?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

Thank you for proving my point.


Why? because being able to maintain relative calm, think clearly, and not panicking will determine whether you live or die. If you don't even know this, you truly are living in a dream world.

OK, tough guy/girl.

Tough girl? Like hell. But I DID keep my calm, while he didn't. This simply illustrates how little you really understand what you advocate. You seem to have this idea that guns give people power, and that all YOU need to become an ALPHA ELITE is freedom to use your little gun to inflict your will on someone. As someone who has BEEN IN THAT SITUATION, I can assure you, based on your behavior in these forums, YOU WILL DIE, because of your lack of clear thinking skills under pressure, your refusal to comprehend that most people have NO AVERSION TO VIOLENCE and simply abide by "non-violent" social interactions because of the penalties of law for refusing too, and because of your delusions of the "power" freedom to use your gun will bring you. You'll go to pull your gun on someone, and his five buddies will fill you full of lead. Bye Bye JLL.

But you have.

No, JLL. I have stated that a "ruling body" is an inevitable result of collective organization, and that accountability of that ruling body must be enforcible to prevent individuals from co-opting collective resources into personal gain. As no government currently exists in which accountability is enforcible, I must default to supporting that government closest to what a collective ideally should be, which at the present, is a democracy. Why? because despite special interests, it is the sole administration system in which the majority have a say in what is done with collective resources.

And yet you have never shown this to be the case; all you can say is that in anarchy, another government would be quickly formed -- which is not worse, just the same.

The problem with trying to communicate with you is that you have a vastly different idea of what happens in an anarchy than historical records show. You won't accept the reality that without a top down imposed law, the general results are that small groups of heavily armed "warlords" begin carving out mini empires and begin to war with rival empires until a larger, better armed warlord comes along and stomps them. This more or less continues until a large enough group seizes power and enforces stability on a region. We already see this happening in the drug cartels. There is no "everybody plays nice because it's the civilized thing to do" that you seem to think will occur.

Why is this worse than what we have now? Because what we have now is a final stabilized of centuries of overcoming anarchy to create a government which is functional, and responsive (under normal circumstances, which are not the current case) to the will of the masses as opposed to working for a single special interest.

I will not argue with you that the current US government is highly corrupted from this form, but that is going to be relatively short-lived, based on current technology trends, and historic examples. The ability to enforce accountability on that "ruling group" is what this thread is indirectly about. Whether I agree with Wikileaks's tactics or not, it is still causing reactions that, once all the various cycles have run their course, will result in vastly greater accountability on all levels, including that of the "ruling body" due to massive universal transparency, a vastly better educated public, and nearly universal ability to participate in a true democracy without "representatives", in which the "ruling body" has no legislative power, only administrative. Compared to an anarchy where I have to make my voice heard with a bullet, I'll take democracy any day.

[JLL]

This is useless. You take democracy, I'll take anarchy.