Thank God for Roosevelt thru Bush 41

[XxGodJrxX]

The Constitution is the contract, all of the southern states had signed it in order for it to be ratified. On the other hand, if they no longer feel that they are being represented under the contract, then why should they not be allowed to get out of it? Kind of like how Locke said that the people have the right to revolt should they feel they are not being represented by the governing body. I think the Confederacy certainly had the RIGHT to get out of the United States for this reason. On the other hand, the Union also had the right to conquer them.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
chaos is the inevitable result of anarchy.

[/ QUOTE ]

The largest, most destructive instances of chaos I can think of were all results of government action.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that the anarchist's idealism clouds his vision on what would happen were there no real consequences in the form of laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you get the idea that anarchy means the lack of consequences or order?

[ QUOTE ]
Governments make such institutions as banks and military possible. The reason that we do not kill each other and rob banks is because we fear the punishment that would be bestowed upon us by the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

People make banks possible. The fact that governments have given themselves monopolies on enforcement does not in any way prove that they are the only method that such enforcement could be provided.

[ QUOTE ]
We fear the government because it is the most powerful entity we can immediately observe. The government, since it has the power to do so, makes various rules, and if we do not obey them, then we are punished.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. This is your argument *for* statism? Sounds wonderful.

[ QUOTE ]
This goes for all types of governemnts, including Democracies, where we willingly give the government the power to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who's "we"?

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, if there is no governemnt, and we had the responsibility ourselves, then there would not longer be a strongest entity. What that would lead to is internal wars among the citizens, until one person or group is the most powerful, and he/they would then be the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumes every man would fight for ultimate domination or nothing. No cooperation is possible without government? Come on.

[ QUOTE ]
With no government, there is constant fear of being killed, and constant battle with everybody else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody gets killed when there's government? I don't know how many wars have been started by individuals, but I'm pretty sure the number is extremely small.

[ QUOTE ]
Governemnts are created by the people, which means at one point, there was a state of anarchy. If anarchy is such a good thing, then why would the people have created governemnts in the first place? It is because they saw the need for a central authorityo to protect them from being slaughtered.

[/ QUOTE ]

*Some* people did.

[ QUOTE ]
Bank robbery is not a good thing, not because it is "wrong" to rob banks, but because we will be thrown in prison or killed by the people that make the banks possible. Therefore, robbing banks is -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. The status quo is always correct by virtue of the fact that it is the status quo. This is really amazing stuff.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the Confederacy certainly had the RIGHT to get out of the United States for this reason. On the other hand, the Union also had the right to conquer them.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wait, I thought

[ QUOTE ]
there is not really any such thing as RIGHT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is it?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who in the CSA signed any contract with the Union?

[/ QUOTE ]
The Constitution is the "contract", I suppose. They established the Constitution partly to form a "more perfect Union". So trying to set up a new nation is detrimental to that goal. I'll admit I don't know as much as I'd like to about this area.

[/ QUOTE ]

They who? As far as I can tell, none of the people that declared secession signed the constitution. How can a man be held to a contract he didn't sign?

[XxGodJrxX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the Confederacy certainly had the RIGHT to get out of the United States for this reason. On the other hand, the Union also had the right to conquer them.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wait, I thought

[ QUOTE ]
there is not really any such thing as RIGHT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]


RIGHTS and RIGHT are two seperate concepts. For example, I have the RIGHT to speak freely. On the other hand, some people do not think the death penalty is RIGHT. I think you know the difference between the two.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the Confederacy certainly had the RIGHT to get out of the United States for this reason. On the other hand, the Union also had the right to conquer them.

[/ QUOTE ]

But wait, I thought

[ QUOTE ]
there is not really any such thing as RIGHT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]


RIGHTS and RIGHT are two seperate concepts. For example, I have the RIGHT to speak freely. On the other hand, some people do not think the death penalty is RIGHT. I think you know the difference between the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. However, you seem to be saying that there can be "rights" (in the "right to free speech" sense) but no "right" or "wrong". If I have the right to free speech, then surely denying me that right must be wrong. And asserting that I have such rights must be right. So again, which is it?

[XxGodJrxX]

I dont like quoting these kinds of posts, they take forever, so again, in order.

The fact that the most destruction has been caused by governments only proves that I am right. There are two reasons for this. One, although there are governments that prevent anarchy, there is no governing body for governments, meaning that the world is still anarchic in nature. Nothing prevents wars from breaking out. Obviously, on an international scale, there is a lot of destruction, and it is caused by the inherint anarchy of the world. Now, imagine that same destruction and chaos within a state. This brings me to my second point. Remember New Orleans after Katrina? I remember hearing about lots of looting, rapes, and general killing. That happened because there was few police officers to stop them. You say that military can work without government, but instead you will get what you got in NO, Roaming gangs that are out strictly for themselves.

Now, banks may be made by people, but the only reason they can safely exist is with protection. If there is no protection from bank robbers, then there are no banks; they will go out of business. If there are private means of enforcement, like you say there should be, then that can only lead to those groups either taking over the banks or fighting other banks. You will have a real mob rule, and by mob, I mean in a mafia sense.

I would love to hear your argument for NO statism.

We is the people. In theory, government's are formed by social contract. If you don't like our form of government, you are certainly welcome to do something about it.

I never said cooperation is not possible without government. People will cooperate and fight each other for land, food, weapons, etc. In the end, this does equal "ultimate domination", and you like to put it. What I think you are saying is that people will cooperate out of the goodness of their hearts, and I HIGHLY disagree with any such notion. Show me that happening once in all of human history. I don't think you will be able to, everything can be spun in such a way to make it look like it is pure self-interests.

People die within governments, but they certainly live longer. The average age that a person lives now is around 78 years old or so. How long will it be when there is constant fighting? Here is an example: deers live in the wild, so it can be said that they live in an anarchic state. How many deers die of old age? Most deers are either killed by predators, hunted by humans, or die of some other unnatural cause. Deers do not die of old age, when they get old enough to be weak, they are killed and eaten. That is what would happen to US were we to live in the same state of nature. As a philosopher once said, life would be "nasty, brutish, and short".

The majority of the people created the government. The ones that did not want in, stayed out, and were killed off by a government or within themselves.

"Wow. The status quo is always correct by virtue of the fact that it is the status quo. This is really amazing stuff."

Sorry, I do not know what this means, nor what it has to do with my example of robbing banks being -EV.

Look forward to your reply [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that the most destruction has been caused by governments only proves that I am right.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that governments wontonly destroy proves that you're right? Wait, what exactly are you right about? Are you saying that this destruction shows that government is a good thing?

[ QUOTE ]
There are two reasons for this. One, although there are governments that prevent anarchy, there is no governing body for governments, meaning that the world is still anarchic in nature. Nothing prevents wars from breaking out. Obviously, on an international scale, there is a lot of destruction, and it is caused by the inherint anarchy of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's caused by governments. Anarchy doesn't force anyone to act aggressively.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, imagine that same destruction and chaos within a state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have to imagine it. I just turn on my TV and see it. It's all caused by governments. Within a state, in civil war, the carnage seems to be worse.

If you're saying we'd have carnage on the same scale without governments, I say you're totally nuts. Who is going to build up huge armies and large-scale weapons of mass destruction? You might (*might*) get more street brawls, but you'll have fewer Antietams, Tiananmen Squares, and Nagasakis.

[ QUOTE ]
This brings me to my second point. Remember New Orleans after Katrina? I remember hearing about lots of looting, rapes, and general killing. That happened because there was few police officers to stop them. You say that military can work without government, but instead you will get what you got in NO, Roaming gangs that are out strictly for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

New Orleans had the same government and police force before Katrina that they had after Katrina. There wasn't anarchy in New Orleans, there was chaos - they had all the "archy" they wanted, and more. The difference in New Orleans before and after the storm is that the *property owners* were not present. They were forced out by the government (mandatory evacuation) and those that did stay behind to defend their property were treated as criminals (cf. government roundups of guns, etc).

[ QUOTE ]
Now, banks may be made by people, but the only reason they can safely exist is with protection. If there is no protection from bank robbers, then there are no banks; they will go out of business. If there are private means of enforcement, like you say there should be, then that can only lead to those groups either taking over the banks or fighting other banks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Such action would be unprofitable. Would you do business with a bank run by known thugs?

[ QUOTE ]
You will have a real mob rule, and by mob, I mean in a mafia sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. The mafia only exists to fill markets that are restricted by government. Without government, the mafia disappears.

[ QUOTE ]
I would love to hear your argument for NO statism.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've presented a wonderful case for no statism. I'm not sure I could improve upon it.

[ QUOTE ]
We is the people. In theory, government's are formed by social contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh. Where is this contract? I'm pretty sure I didn't sign it.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said cooperation is not possible without government. People will cooperate and fight each other for land, food, weapons, etc. In the end, this does equal "ultimate domination", and you like to put it. What I think you are saying is that people will cooperate out of the goodness of their hearts, and I HIGHLY disagree with any such notion.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think they will cooperate because doing so is more profitable than fighting. Fighting, especially on a large scale, is mainly an endeavor of ego, enabled by the crime of taxation (and inflationary counterfeiting). Nobody that is paying with their own money out-of-pocket is going to be able to hire huge armies on the free market, or at least, they won't be able to do so profitably.

[ QUOTE ]
People die within governments, but they certainly live longer. The average age that a person lives now is around 78 years old or so. How long will it be when there is constant fighting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, why is there constant fighting? Isn't that what we have now?

[ QUOTE ]
As a philosopher once said, life would be "nasty, brutish, and short".

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that many initiatives to extend human life are actively opposed by governments. I don't see how you're coming to this conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]
The majority of the people created the government. The ones that did not want in, stayed out, and were killed off by a government or within themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? It's the same "the existence of the status quo justifies the status quo" argument. A majority of people decided to enslave a minority. Is there no deeper significance for you?

[ QUOTE ]
"Wow. The status quo is always correct by virtue of the fact that it is the status quo. This is really amazing stuff."

Sorry, I do not know what this means, nor what it has to do with my example of robbing banks being -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

It means you're making a circular argument. "Robbing banks is bad because the government says robbing banks is bad. What the government says is bad is bad because the government says so." You end up right where you started.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In both cases, a group of people was tired of being ruled by another group of people.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's much more to it than just being "tired" of being ruled by another group of people. Before the American Revolution, the colonists had little to no representation. Before the Civil War the South DID have representation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares? The people who agreed on the succession didn’t sign the Constitution. Representation means nothing if they don’t agree to the system (which they were born into) which provides it. 10 people are on an island, and one guy wants to escape. The island votes and there is a 6-4 vote in favor of him staying. The guy tries to escape anyway and is killed. Are the other 9 justified in killing him for making an attempt at escape because their grandfathers had agreed that nobody should be allowed to escape without majority vote?


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How do you justify killing over a half million men to "preserve the union"?

[/ QUOTE ]
It was better for the U.S.'s future. It won't make sense to you because you don't accept the premise that some government is okay, so further argument is pointless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will temporarily accept that government is viable just to hear this. How was it better for the future of the US to kill 600,000 of their own citizens with the goal of preserving an unwanted union?

[XxGodJrxX]

It is not that hard. Governments attack each other because there is anarchy. If all of a sudden, God came out and said "the next one that attacks another dies and goes to hell", there would be no more war. There would be no more war, since the anarchy disappeared. As citizens, that is what the government does to us. If I kill you, then I can expect to be executed or be put in prison for a very long time.

Anarchy DOES force people to act aggressively. Let put it to you this way: once there is no more government to stop me, I can go ahead and kill you PVN. Now, what are you going to do? Are you going to stand there and die or are you going to try to kill me? Choice is yours, but there seems to me that there is only one logical course of action you can take.

I never said that destruction is not caused by governments. Obviously destruction is caused by government for various reasons. The problem with your argument is that you are not thinking big enough or far enough. Your idea of anarchy seems to me to be of a prehistoric society where big weapons do not exist and big wars cannot occur. Street brawls evolve into street wars, and they keep evolving from there.

Here is a timeline of how I think it would happen

I kill a guy, take his wallet.
Guy's family comes and kills me.
Another larger group kills them.
A larger group is formed in reaction to the threat.
Multiple groups begin forming in order to protect themselves from the ever-increasing threat.
Groups go around killing each other for resources and land, in order to be able to gain an edge.
Eventually, people get tired of living in fear of death constantly, so the groups come together and form a pact.
The pact is that they agree to lay down their arms, and put their trust into a few that will ensure that the killing within themsleves will stop.

If no government is formed, then the killing would simply continue and people will get more and more desperate and afraid of dying. The super-group may have to fight with other large groups (wars), but at least they know that they do not have to fear each other.



You only prove my point about banks not being able to operate without government. Banks need protection, that is a fact, otherwise they will be robbed. Without government, banks need to get their own protection (THUGS!). The protection may rob the bank themselves, or they may not be big enough to take on a large force that is bent on robbing the bank. The bank needs protection from the largest possible force available, or risk being robbed. Since, without government, there is no largest force to protect banks, then they can not operate profitably.

Armies cannot be hired out of pocket? Maybe you should look up "feudalism" in a dictionary.

What you are basically saying is that without government, large wars and armies cannot exist. I contend that they can, and inevitably will to meet the needs of protection against ever increasing threats. With governments, there is still constant fighting with other nations as one large army, since the world is still anarchic in nature. The difference is that we do not fight amongst ourselves, so we are able to live longer and happier.

And I am not making a circular argument. Robbing banks is now not good because doing so will be met with swift punishment. The swift punishment comes from the government that we have put in place in order to protect us from such things as bank robberies, which is obviously not desirable for society as a whole.

I am making a big case for why governments are necessary, and you can only say "you are making a good argument for no statism". The reason you do so is because you can't come up with a logical progression on how anarchy would work, and instead insist that the government is a thief and that it is immoral. I want to hear PRACTICAL reasons on how anarchy would work better than a government. I myself am not a fan of large or powerful governments, but I am a realist, and can accept the fact that governments are necessary.