0
   

We will be way better of without a government!

 
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jul, 2020 10:44 pm
@Palandre,
Oh, so how is that going?
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2020 02:05 am
@Palandre,
Quote:
What is it you think I can't comprehend?

Peoples drives and emotions it seems.
Palandre
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2020 03:45 am
@vikorr,
Quote:
Peoples drives and emotions it seems.


Very funny, considering what I have studied.

Well ok, but why do you think that?
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2020 06:33 pm
@Palandre,
Because your writings show a lack of understanding of peoples drives and emotions.

For example, you are quite right that from a pure logic perspective, government shouldn't exist / shouldn't have authority etc...but to use this perspective as foundation for your claim 'We will be way better of without government' , you must completely ignore (or not comprehend) the nature of peoples drives and emotions - which aren't truly logical, and never will be (as a whole, rather than in specific aspects of human endeavour). And your writings don't appear to be ignoring the nature of peoples drives and emotions - it appears simply that you don't comprehend them.

By the way, studying human nature/drives/emotions is often undertaken by those who don't comprehend such, in order to try and comprehend it..so unfortunately, studying human nature / emotions / drives doesn't mean you understand such.

For clarification - I'm not saying this in any way to be judgemental. This is simply how your writings appear to me.
Palandre
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 30 Jul, 2020 08:12 pm
@vikorr,
spoken as a a true believer in the belief of 'government'.
You are boxed in too much into that idea. Yes, including the emotions of people etc. Not your fault, but you are misguided,
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 05:37 am
@Palandre,
Misguided while somehow agreeing with you regarding your view on the 'logic' of government. And yet somehow, at the same time, believing in the concept of government.

As I said - you speak like a person who does not understand other people at all. It appears to me that all of your claims, and all of your objections, have this one issue at their heart.
Palandre
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 07:13 am
@vikorr,
you don't seem to understand what I am saying, that's all.


Let's see .have you watched the video I posted? If not, why not?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 11:53 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Well, if the British East India company had not messed up so badly (ie. managed to keep control of its standing armies), and corporations had sprung up sooner in history, and been allowed standing armies...

I'm envisioning a parallel universe with a world ruled by corporations, where parallel-vikorr and parallel-oralloy are right now wondering if public government could have stepped in to protect society had the corporations not done so.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 05:36 pm
@oralloy,
Rofl. Come now, corporations would have removed every historical note of other forms of government. They wouldn't want anyone to get ideas now, would they?
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Jul, 2020 06:05 pm
@Palandre,
Quote:
Let's see .have you watched the video I posted? If not, why not?
I haven't seen you post a video in this thread, and just had a look back without success. Perhaps you'd care to post the link to it - the link can be found to the very top right of each post (just right click and 'copy link address')

Quote:
you don't seem to understand what I am saying, that's all
Quite frankly, you generally offer no explanation, argument or example for your many claims. And you ask questions, and when people poke holes in them, you don't answer any of the issues brought up, but just ask more questions. These behaviours lead me to think you are incapable of explaining or backing up your own position. If you can't explain/make a case for your own claims, in a thread you started, then accusing others of not understanding them is quite redundant.

Just to be clear - claims are not explanation.
Palandre
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2020 02:59 am
@vikorr,
Quote:
I haven't seen you post a video in this thread, and just had a look back without success. Perhaps you'd care to post the link to it - the link can be found to the very top right of each post (just right click and 'copy link address')


Here ya go:

https://able2know.org/topic/549508-6#post-7042303

Quote:
Quite frankly, you generally offer no explanation, argument or example for your many claims. And you ask questions, and when people poke holes in them, you don't answer any of the issues brought up, but just ask more questions. These behaviours lead me to think you are incapable of explaining or backing up your own position. If you can't explain/make a case for your own claims, in a thread you started, then accusing others of not understanding them is quite redundant.



First watch the video, he does a way better job then I can here.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2020 06:21 am
@Palandre,
Quote:
First watch the video, he does a way better job then I can here.
Watching a video doesn't show that you can think for yourself. If you can't think for yourself, then anyone with a good argument will sway you, or anyone with a good argument for what you want to believe will sway you...without you properly questioning why you believe what you believe.

I found this passage of the video to be at it's heart:

Quote:
13:40 We would be fools to argue that if we simply got rid of the State, we would produce heaven on earth. That’s not the nature of the human raw material.

14:10 Some in society are inclined to be criminals. If we have no State to deal with it, we will have a bad situation

1420 he maintains if we do have a state to deal with it, we will have a worse situation

1430 many of them are irredeemably viscious in the extreme

1435 I conjecture that any outcome in society under a state will be worse

1445 the most viscious people in society will tend to gain control of the state

1500 in gaining control of the states mechanisms of death and destruction, they will reek vastly more harm


He admits it's conjecture. I unfortunately found it to be vastly filled with conjecture. He at least admits somewhat to human nature, though he seems quite sheltered. He even offers Somalia as an example of a the fact that societies function without a State...which almost made my eyes water.

So what were his other points?

Quote:
2120 people fear that without the States protection, society will lapse into disorder, and people will suffer great harm
2200 harm suffered by the State is evidenced
2215 the harms alleged to suffer without the State are spectres of the mind
And yet those in largely stateless societies tend to live in poverty, with poor utilities if any, poor health solutions, incredibly high crime rates, and shorter life expectancies.
Quote:
2230 Anarchists didn’t: Armenian death marches, holocaust, Hiroshima/Nagasaki etc
2844 the State is easily the greatest instrument of destruction known to man
A passage where he actually has a point

Quote:
3230 Where is the social order
Social order is comparative. Ie. compare a well run state to a place will no state, and you will see the social order. By the way - you would need to compare similar population centres, because the smaller the population, the less need there is a for a State (ie. a village often self regulates)
Quote:
3430 social disorder tends to increase the longer the state goes
How odd...crime has been falling in a lot of States for the past 3 decades, as has fatal traffic crashes (traffic requires order)
Quote:
3515 at time will come when the degree of social disorder will exceed that of a society with not state
So very true...usually decades to hundreds of years apart...while those in places without State live with disorder daily.
Quote:
3600 without a state social disorder tends to decrease
maybe in a village, where it was never necessary in the first place. In cities, this is not the case at all.
Quote:
3740 neighbourhood watch / neighbourliness spreads naturally and beneficially
He offers the solution of neighbours protecting each other...Do I really need to explain this hasn't worked in most of the places where neighbourhood watches were formalised?

I didn't go past this. This speaker continually brought up arguments that contained multiple issues. He also offered very few solutions to the problems he admitted to, and those he did were flawed. He also didn't appear at all interested in the benefits of well run government (which go so very far beyond 'protection), nor the benefits of lessened corruption (you would have to read economics theory), etc.


There's a book called "The dictators handbook" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita. It's a book about how people gain power in systems of society, whether it be politics, corporations, or other. I think you would find it very interesting.

Perhaps you care to show that you can think for yourself, and actually offer a response with explanation - if you have any issues with any of the above.
Palandre
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2020 08:27 am
@vikorr,
well ok pity you didn't watch the hole video.

Of all your comments this one made me laugh enormoulsy and really proved to me you don't understand at all.

Quote:
He also didn't appear at all interested in the benefits of well run government


Of course he didn't go into that! That is an impossibility by deafult!
You can not and will never have a 'well run 'government' .
It is logically impossible and besides that a 'government'/ authority' is a myth.
It can't really exist in any reality. It is an illusion, it only exist between people's ears.
It seems you don't really understand what I mean with 'illogical'

Distinguished
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2020 09:59 am
@Palandre,
I've watched The Walking Dead, so I know the need for some type of government.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Aug, 2020 06:16 pm
@Palandre,
Unfortunately you keep proving my point: you seem unable to argue your position for yourself, making claim after claim without any argument, evidence, explanation, while ignoring any serious flaw in your views.
Quote:
'government'/ authority' is a myth.
Yep, such 'authority' is collectively given to the government by the people. By the way, in almost every single society (independent of whether government exists or not), leaders arise (even at village / clan level). The more organised leaders have lieutenants. The larger the society, the more complex the leadership mechanisms tend to be. Where there are competing leaders within the same area (whether rural, city, or country), 'territories' tend to arise. This occurs throughout all history, and throughout all lands, regardless of your beliefs of anarchy.
Quote:
It is an illusion, it only exist between people's ears.
Yep, we agree with this. Just like money is an illusion (which even economists admit). But that illusion has real effect, for it is an illusion collectively accepted by the people.
Quote:
It seems you don't really understand what I mean with 'illogical'
Considering you have never actually logically argued why it is illogical, I'd say there is a good chance I don't know what your version of illogical entails. If I had to guess, I'd go:

- no person can truly make any other person do anything they don't want to
- therefore 'authority' doesn't actually exist over another - it can only be granted by one individual to the other. Ie. it is always within the individuals power to take back that granted authority. This means authority doesn't actually exist, but rather is a consented transaction
- government being a form of granted authority, doesn't actually exist, but rather is a consented transaction, and as per the very start, the individual can refuse to continue to consent, meaning government no longer, and never really existed

And also that government isn't within the realms of pure logic. It has no foundation in pure logic.


The above logic, while flawed, is as close as I can get to what I think you are trying to say. Now, that is what it appears you mean..but as you've never actually bothered to try and argue your own position for yourself, that is also a guess on my part.

vikorr wrote:
He also didn't appear at all interested in the benefits of well run government
palandre wrote:
Of course he didn't go into that! That is an impossibility by deafult!
This response is vague. It could mean ‘1. government can’t exist’ or ‘2. government can’t provide benefits’

1. I'm presuming you aren't arguing that the State doesn't exist (as not even your video lecturer is trying to do that) - because if you are trying to do that, then you are arguing against the flow of money (which is a logical transaction, being based largely on computer code), the existence of structured laws (which written words and their structure exist), with mechanisms to back up those laws (which mechanisms exist and function to back them up), the existence of contracts between the State and Private enterprise (which exist), the existence of State run insitutions (they aren't run by private enterprise, and the pay for them comes from that flow of money), the existence of roads (which are produced at the behest of the State), etc, etc, etc. The existence of State is different from whether or not it should exist as a logical entity. That existence has direct evidence: it functions & acts as a State in thousands of ways. It also has reverse inferred evidence: people acting as a collective could not function in a similar way to a State without agreeing to rules that would effectively turn the decision makers into a State.

2. If you mean government can’t provide benefits, well, if you answer my previous list of benefits provided by a State, which you ignored at the time, then perhaps we have a foundation to talk about this.
Palandre
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2020 12:00 am
@vikorr,
Quote:
Unfortunately you keep proving my point: you seem unable to argue your position for yourself, making claim after claim without any argument, evidence, explanation, while ignoring any serious flaw in your views.


We'll see, but to me it still seems you don't understand it, at all.

Quote:
Yep, such 'authority' is collectively given to the government by the people. By the way, in almost every single society (independent of whether government exists or not), leaders arise (even at village / clan level). The more organised leaders have lieutenants. The larger the society, the more complex the leadership mechanisms tend to be. Where there are competing leaders within the same area (whether rural, city, or country), 'territories' tend to arise. This occurs throughout all history, and throughout all lands, regardless of your beliefs of anarchy.


What you wrote here is not 'government'. You seem to confuse things a lot, hence you don't comrehend what I mean.

Quote:
Yep, we agree with this. Just like money is an illusion (which even economists admit). But that illusion has real effect, for it is an illusion collectively accepted by the people.



Yes, and the real effect of that illusion is immense immorality.
Nothing good about it, at all. And effect or not, illusion remains illusion.
And in this case, a very dangeous illusion.

Quote:

If you mean government can’t provide benefits, well, if you answer my previous list of benefits provided by a State, which you ignored at the time, then perhaps we have a foundation to talk about this.

- can't call education services fear and force
- can't call health care fear and force
- can't call welfare fear and force
- can't call roads fear and force
- can't call setting up water supplies fear and force
- can't call setting up utilities fear and force
- you can't call environmental research fear and force
- you can't call keeping orderly records (eg land titles) fear and force
- and there is an extensive list of such things


Ok, well I missed that one indeed.

Here ya go.

Well, all that can be done privately and even way way better.

Furthermore, There is no 'education' only indoctrination by 'government'
(Any idea where 'education' came from?)
And btw yes force will be used if you don't send your kids to a 'proper' school!
"government' schools are very destructive to the child. Kills creativity,
dumbs children down, learn to accept crap from authorities and on it goes.

Health care is, for the most, very bad, and third cause of death in USA.
Force? O yes! Look at compulsory vaccination!

welfare?? This has driven us apart. So more about that one alone!
water supplies? lol, yep with all the fluoride in it?
Also based on extremely wrong 'science', water is completely handled in the
wrong way.
and so on and on it goes....

please stop supporting this idiotic abd extremely dangerous illusion of a 'government'.

vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2020 02:04 am
@Palandre,
And on you continue with the numerous claims with no evidence provided by you, no argument on your part, and no case put forward...
Quote:
We'll see, but to me it still seems you don't understand it, at all.
Don't understand your claims? Nope, I don't. Which is fine as you continue to provide no evidence, example or justification at all for your claims. Ie. There's no argument to understand as you don't make any.

Quote:
Well, all that can be done privately and even way way better.
This again, is a claim with no evidence, no examples, and no backup. But the opposite is shown in the world maps below. You could also do a GDP per capita map, and you'd find they would all be highest in well function states (with a few very resource rich exceptions). You could do similar with higher education maps. Etc. The one thing they all continue to have in common, is well functioning States...which is evidence...unlike the nothing you produce to support your claims.

Quote:
Furthermore, There is no 'education' only indoctrination by 'government'
You are intentionally ignoring that learning to read and write is education, as is learning mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics etc

Quote:
Health care is, for the most, very bad, and third cause of death in USA.
Once again a claim with no evidence provided by you.

However, there are only two unarguable statistics that I can think of when it comes to how well health care is functioning - stillbirths, and life expectancy. The countries with the lowest still births and the highest life expectancy all have fully functioning States, usually ones that provide universal health care:
- compare that to the US where healthcare is mostly private,and you see the advantages (mostly in life expectancy)
- compare that to non State (eg Afghanistan) and failed State countries and you see an even bigger to a vast difference.

STILLBIRTHS:http://cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimages/l_1445_824da3c8f44a2e33a25d1438de25d198
LIFE EXPECTANCYhttp://cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimages/l_1356_393f7bcf0e76f5015d23d4baa5e3871c

Quote:
water supplies? lol, yep with all the fluoride in it?
I grew up in a town called Townsville, Queensland, Australia. It has had its water supply fluoridated since 1965. Most of my family still live there, well past the 40 year mark. No one in the town (including the elderly) shows any signs of any sickness above that of any other place in Australia. Whatever literature you are reading regarding fluoridation fails in the face of absolute fact.

I could link sources for you, but no doubt you would think they had been doctored, but any search of 'Townsville fluoridated water' will return you the same result from multiple sources.
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2020 02:09 am
@Palandre,
You continue to provide no evidence, argument, explanation or examples for your numerous claims, despite having been asked to do so multiple times...

The absence of such means you haven't shown an iota of evidence that you can think for yourself.

Why should anyone take you seriously?
0 Replies
 
Palandre
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2020 04:21 am
@vikorr,
Quote:
And on you continue with the numerous claims with no evidence provided by you, no argument on your part, and no case put forward...


no arguments? really?

Quote:
There's no argument to understand as you don't make any


Well, that is very stange considering you agreed on some points.
I put it here again. "government' can't exist, The idea in 'government' creates enormous influx of immorality in society, and people can't delegate rights they don't have to something that not even exiist. There you have some.

Quote:
This again, is a claim with no evidence, no examples, and no backup. But the opposite is shown in the world maps below. You could also do a GDP per capita map, and you'd find they would all be highest in well function states (with a few very resource rich exceptions). You could do similar with higher education maps. Etc. The one thing they all continue to have in common, is well functioning States...which is evidence...unlike the nothing you produce to support your claims.


Pity no url is included.'government' maps I presume? lol

Quote:
You are intentionally ignoring that learning to read and write is education, as is learning mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics etc


I am not intentionally ignoring anything. Where did you get that idea?
Those subjects can be learned by home schooling.
Even math is at this moment horrible at the public schools!



Quote:
Once again a claim with no evidence provided by you.(healthcare)


Maybe do also some research yourself. It seems you are trying me to give tons and tons and tons of evidence, but there is not enough room and I don't want to digress too much. It is a bit silly what you are trying.

Quote:
I grew up in a town called Townsville, Queensland, Australia. It has had its water supply fluoridated since 1965. Most of my family still live there, well past the 40 year mark. No one in the town (including the elderly) shows any signs of any sickness above that of any other place in Australia. Whatever literature you are reading regarding fluoridation fails in the face of absolute fact.


I can delve into that if I want to. But, your sample is way way too small to
make any good conclusions.And I also assuming yo haven't tested everyone in that town. Do some deep research into this. Any idea where the fluoride came from?


But you want tons and tons and tons of evidence for what is very clearly to see
for everyone with eyes to see, that 'governemt' is an extremely dangerosu superstition.
And I am aware that I am talking with someone with years of indoctrination into the idea that 'government" is any goog. It ain't.
Teufel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Aug, 2020 05:41 am
@Palandre,
That is truly risible ..... there speaks a person who has never lived in an anarchic state .. Be assured in anarchy there is no 'We' ... There are people 'who do' and the 99% 'who do not'. Those who 'do', we have little time or value for those who 'do not'.

Without governance there is no taxation, without taxation there is no services, law or security for the masses ...... Ergo, without services there is no effective society ..... What one has instead is 'might is right' ..... That suits me, but it would not suit you or your ilk one little bit.

In reality the 99%; they look for, want, plus need and desire control/ direction. They need a group, a society, rules and boundaries set for them ... In anarchic situations, those in control control by fear, because they do not need what the 99% need.

In truth, you are just someone on a keyboard who has precisely no clue about life out in the big bad world. It is not White hat/Black hat like in the movies .... The girl really does not get saved and the bad man does not lose; that is the reality.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 11:26:40