• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Government: An Unnecessary Evil

danielpalos said:
Yet, China has entire Cities that are empty, and no Anarcho-Capital market seems to be "worth it", under any form of Capitalism.

Socialism includes government; and is a necessary evil for Persons who cannot obey Ten simple Commandments from a God.

Socialism proves its worth, every day.
Click to expand...

I believe most people, despite their religious affiliation, have very little trouble following the commandments that deal specifically with how we should treat each other. That’s not to say that most people are able to live as perfectly as Yeshua lived, but as far as murder and theft- I don’t think most people refrain from killing another human just because “it’s illegal”.

We have lots of different govenrments, and in every society, there are those who do not follow even the simplest of the commandments. Yet, at the same time, it’s clear that every government fails at following any of the commandments. Theft and murder seem to be on every govenrment’s agenda, regardless of how important they make their theft and murder out to be.
 
AnonymousWho said:
Thanks for the referral to the “noble savage”. I believe in all sorts of things that are unorthodox, and this noble savage thing seems to be something I’ve always believed- but I didn’t know it had a name. I stopped believing man is “inherently evil” a long time ago. That’s not to say mankind doesn’t commit evil acts or that all men have an equal amount of goodness to them, but I do believe that the goodness of mankind far outweighs our evil. Actually, my theological and philosophical views are very similar to what Joseph Priestley and Thomas Jefferson believed. I don’t know how you feel about the Scriptures, but I don’t believe in the so-called “fall of man“, “original sin”, or a “sin-nature”.

What do you believe is so wrong about the “noble savage” idea, so that just bringing up the term should destroy my entire argument?
Click to expand...


Lord Acton writes to Bishop Creighton that the same moral standards should be applied to all men, political and religious leaders included
I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position, like Ravaillac; but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greater names coupled with the greater crimes. You would spare these criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them, higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice; still more, still higher, for the sake of historical science.
Click to expand...

Now, before you start thinking that this backs your idea. Ask the question, who is applying the moral standard. Or even better who can apply the same moral standard. The answer is those who are in power.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
 
soylentgreen said:
Lord Acton writes to Bishop Creighton that the same moral standards should be applied to all men, political and religious leaders included


Now, before you start thinking that this backs your idea. Ask the question, who is applying the moral standard. Or even better who can apply the same moral standard. The answer is those who are in power.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Click to expand...

I’m having trouble understanding how this does not support my idea. Who will have power over those in power? It seems that this question could be asked ad infinitum. The only acceptable answer has to be an entity that is incorruptible and perfect- though people disagree about who or what this enitiy is, or whether it even exists. However, very, very, VERY few people believe this entity has given them exclusive rights to have authority over other men so that they should obey their every command. Only an egotistical, sociopathic, politian-type person could believe something like that.
 
AnonymousWho said:
I’m having trouble understanding how this does not support my idea. Who will have power over those in power? It seems that this question could be asked ad infinitum. The only acceptable answer has to be an entity that is incorruptible and perfect- though people disagree about who or what this enitiy is, or whether it even exists. However, very, very, VERY few people believe this entity has given them exclusive rights to have authority over other men so that they should obey their every command. Only an egotistical, sociopathic, politian-type person could believe something like that.
Click to expand...

You are a theist then. Because only a believer would think this way. Always looking for a higher authority.

In your laissez faire system no one guards the guard. Any power obtained is complete and therefor is completely corruptible.

In anarchism power is shared. We are all the guards who guard the guards.

For example as i pointed out with the spanish anarchists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
Throughout Catalonia many sectors of the economy fell under the control of the anarchist CNT and the socialist UGT trade unions, where workers' self-management was implemented.
Click to expand...
 
soylentgreen said:
You are a theist then. Because only a believer would think this way. Always looking for a higher authority.

In your laissez faire system no one guards the guard. Any power obtained is complete and therefor is completely corruptible.

In anarchism power is shared. We are all the guards who guard the guards.

For example as i pointed out with the spanish anarchists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Catalonia
Click to expand...

Yes, I do believe in God.

In my laissez faire system, why is it impossible for us to be the guards who guard the guards? We could even hire trained guards to guard us against other guards, or start our own guard company to guard entire communities. Some may even volunteer to guard. And if anyone gets out of hand, there won’t be any biased court systems to acquit them of unethical behavior. We already have the resources and trained men who can continue to teach future generations (unfortunately most of them are spread all over the globe). Government forced us into learning and accepting certain things, but now they’re just bored- constantly making unnecessary laws and enforcing old laws that are no longer a huge deal in modern society.
 
AnonymousWho said:
I believe most people, despite their religious affiliation, have very little trouble following the commandments that deal specifically with how we should treat each other. That’s not to say that most people are able to live as perfectly as Yeshua lived, but as far as murder and theft- I don’t think most people refrain from killing another human just because “it’s illegal”.

We have lots of different govenrments, and in every society, there are those who do not follow even the simplest of the commandments. Yet, at the same time, it’s clear that every government fails at following any of the commandments. Theft and murder seem to be on every govenrment’s agenda, regardless of how important they make their theft and murder out to be.
Click to expand...

Order versus Chaos?

How much civilization would have been built by AnCaps.

Socialism took us to the Moon and back, last millennium. Capitalism has yet to find a profit motive.
 
danielpalos said:
Socialism took us to the Moon and back, last millennium. Capitalism has yet to find a profit motive.
Click to expand...

There is no profit motive, thus it's not worth doing. Wasn't then, either. What's the word I'm looking for? Boondoggle.
 
OP's nonsense will never come into being
 
danielpalos said:
All of the technology spinoffs, were worth it.
Click to expand...

No they weren't. We don't need to fund boondoggles so that we might accidentally happen upon a new invention. We can just invest in tech R&D directly.
 
AnonymousWho said:
Anarcho-communism says natural resources cannot become anyone’s “private property” because in order to claim a chunk of land, that land must be stolen from others. For example, suppose I come across some land, cut down some trees, and build a house. Communism says that neither the land my house sits on, nor the trees I cut, nor the home I built can be considered my private property because I have stolen the plot of land and trees from the community; therefore I have no right to my labor.

According to anarcho-capitalism the land and natural resources can become my property through “homesteading”. So if I come across land, cut some trees and build a house, I have mixed my labor with the land. Therefore the house, the trees I cut, and (somehow) all the trees/grass/dirt occupying the land that I mix my labor with becomes my private property to either trade, sell, or deny to others.

The problem I have with anarcho-capitalism is the fact that all currently owned land is indeed stolen and protected by government force, so nobody rightfully deserves what they currently have. This means we would need to abolish all current land ownership. However, once we begin seeking our own land, there is no way to set real parameters of how far my “private property” extends. Some have suggested a fence around the parameter is enough, while others say I can only own as far as my labor extends.

However, if I find a forest and plan to cut down all the trees for my log company, then how much of the forest can I deny to others so that they do not cut down “my” trees? Usually the answer (for almost everything in anarcho-capitalism) is a private insurance company who seems to act exactly like a government.

So I propose what I believe to be a new idea. Since it’s true that without the threat of force, land and natural resources cannot possibly become private property, it is also true that the moment government is abolished, it is up to every person to decide what is rightfully theirs, as there will be no system to govern property lines.

Murray Rothbard has proposed a system where man owns parcels of land by mixing his labor with it, and it’s expected that the rest of society will respect whatever a man claims. This may be possible to achieve in a small community, but when violent gangs band together to claim large parcels of land as their private property- that satisfies the very definition of government.

I believe Rothbard is correct about mixing our labor with natural resources, but I propose to take this a bit farther.

If a man owns whatever he labors for, then it would be his own responsibility to mix his labor with as much of the earth as possible. If you cut a tree, you are now the rightful owner of that tree. You may use it to:

• provide a home or other goods for himself

• trade for another commodity

• build valuable goods to sell or deny to others

If you build a house, you are the rightful owner of that house and the land which lays the foundation of your home. You may build a shack or occupy your time building a 10 acre mansion, but only your labor is your rightful possession. If you dig into the ground to make a garden, the ground which your labor has touched (so long as your labor remains) is your property. If you desire privacy, you are free to install a fence around the parameter of land you deem appropriate for your comfort (I believe most people will respect reasonable boundaries).

So if I come along to pick an apple from a tree 10 feet in front of your house, you cannot rightfully say “He stole an apple from my tree”. However, your mouth has the capability of saying such things, and if you selfishly wish to keep the entire tree for yourself, your body is certainly capable of trying- so you are free to do so.

Therefore, you can kill me for touching the tree and hope nobody retaliates on my behalf. You can also fight me and hope I don’t return. The moment you see me coming, you can quickly pick all the apples before I have a chance. Or, you could ask me to find another tree, and to respectfully allow you to enjoy the fruits of this tree. I’m sure there are other ways, but the point is, violence is not necessary, nor is it likely to happen among a majority of reasonable people.
Click to expand...


Ever heard of geoism/Georgism? Henry George made a similar argument but said the house does become your property because we are entitled to the fruits of our labor. The land and resources, though, belong to the community and any private control of those things must be reimbursed to the community through a land value tax.

Introduction to Georgist Philosophy and Activity
 
HowardBThiname said:
That's a formula for disaster and, if ever implemented, would soon devolve into a government, via a dictatorship or monarchy. Land ownership is vital to an advanced society, so your society would one day implement (again) a system of ownership that would be very similar to today's system.

The reality is that there is nothing at all special about the earth or natural resources. They can all be owned and that ownership can be passed on as the citizens of the governments allow.

Private ownership IS the enlightened choice.
Click to expand...

The earth and its resources are special in that they have a generally fixed supply and are not created by anyone. As a result, they should be treated differently compared to property that is produced through labor.
 
HowardBThiname said:
The disaster would come, as you say, in the "small and local" systems that would appear. Without a large centralized government to offer and protect ownership rights, it would be a case of "to the victor go the spoils." We've evolved past that way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Thought conservatives are about smaller government?
 
soylentgreen said:
This takes us back to primitive living standards. Education, electricity, road systems even a standard monetary system would all disappear under this kind of regime.

Your wrong about anarcho-capitalism means no government.
Click to expand...

I may have missed it, but where did the op advocate anarchocapitalism? Seems to me they are advocating something closer to anarchosyndicalism/communism.
 
lefty louie said:
Someone/entity to enforce law and order is a needed evil. Human kind is not capable of working on the honor system yet.
Click to expand...

Anarchist theory isn’t about an ‘honor system.’ At least not the serious kind. There is still some form of ‘government’, rules, and order under most anarchist theories, it is just a non/less hierarchical kind.
 
AnonymousWho said:
Why would the Sinaloa Cartel want to know the government has been lying about drugs? So these criminals can finally legitimize their business and open up a mom and pop fentanyl store? The reason drugs are big business for cartels is because the industry is extremely risky and in high demand. The American Mafia used to commit petty robberies and extortion until the opportunity arose to own the market of a very powerful drug- alcohol. This made them very rich, so that even after alcohol prohibition ended, they still had the funds to expand their power. Then they got into the heroin trade in the 1970’s because of the Controlled Substance Act. What’s the difference between El Chapo and Al Capone?



If by “force”, you mean the community is in dire need of something so the people provide funding for it- as opposed to threatening the community with cages and guns- then yes.



Again, they crack down on the drug trade that they created. But they do more than that. Suppose I grow 20 acres of high-quality herb and sell it cheap because I didn’t have to risk crossing the border or squish it into moldy brick weed. That cuts into the cartels profits, but the cartel doesn’t even have to worry about me. Instead, there are police flying over everyone’s property begging for the opportunity to find my farm, destroy my product, sell my land and all my possessions, and throw me in a cage.



I’m aware that Detroit is not like Iran or NK, but large parcels of Detroit are plagued with poverty and violence. These things happen regardless of whether government is very oppressive, a little oppressive, or there is no government at all.



No it’s not very relevant. Somalia had a government, and though they had a rough start after it’s collapse,, they’re better off without it. So if Somalia is relevant, then imagine what the U.S. could do without government.



What did the American people want? To be spied on by the NSA and the DEA? Yes, surely nothing like MLULTRA is going on now since bureaucrats are much more ethical. Plus, all those involved with MKULTRA were severely embarrassed, making the punishment too harsh for them to attempt anything like that again. Do you think all should all be forgiven and forgotten?
Click to expand...

Because the Sinaloa Cartel and its "colleagues" are the one being subsided by people--- people who fantasize that the government is "lying about drugs"--- who buy its product. Your argument is a joke, by the way. The end of Prohibition didn't make the Mafia go away--- not only that, but the Controlled Substance Act was a direct result of the crime levels caused by drugged up idiots in the first place.

No, by "force" I mean that you are advocating for a society where anyone with enough guns can operate with absolute impunity and use force to make members of the community do whatever they want......unlike the government, which has actual oversight, procedures, and constituonal requirements.

Lol no, the drug trade was created because drugs are addictive and vicious criminals will make money any way they can. And yes, if you choose to violate the law, you will go to jail. You are not above the law, no matter how much you wish you were--- oh, and jail is far better than the sort of punishments the cartels would lavish on someone like this hypothetical you.

Detroit does not have gangs firing into crowds of people trying to get food. That sort of crap only exists in places like Somalia, where anarchy had taken over.

Oh really? How about you actually go live in Somalia and let us know how much you would have enjoyed the roving gangs, the piracy, the terrorism, the famines, the lack of basic supplies......funny how it's always westerners who would never dream of actually living in the society who always think other people are "better off" in absolutely horrific conditions.

Yes, look at how badly anarchy hurt the Somalis. Let's hurt Americans even more! Brilliant! :roll:

Yes, that's exactly what they said they wanted. No program like that gets off the ground without a demand from the American people, even one as vague as "do something". And considering the fact that you are advocating for a system which would cause the deaths of millions of Americans.....you don't have a leg to stand on.
 
Neomalthusian said:
No they weren't. We don't need to fund boondoggles so that we might accidentally happen upon a new invention. We can just invest in tech R&D directly.
Click to expand...

I agree to disagree. Promoting the general welfare includes pioneering, better government. I believe the right wing is disingenuous when they complain about general welfare spending, but not general warfare spending.
 
Geoist said:
The earth and its resources are special in that they have a generally fixed supply and are not created by anyone. As a result, they should be treated differently compared to property that is produced through labor.
Click to expand...

They may be "different" but there's no reason for them to be treated any differently from any other possession.
 
HowardBThiname said:
They may be "different" but there's no reason for them to be treated any differently from any other possession.
Click to expand...

They absolutely should. Our privatization of land has exacerbated, if not caused, the boom/bust cycle due to its fixed supply. Now, I’m not saying we need to make government the ‘owner’ of the land, only that we change our property tax system to discourage the speculative behavior of the banks and the wealthy that drives up costs for everyone.
 
AnonymousWho said:
Yes, I do believe in God.

In my laissez faire system, why is it impossible for us to be the guards who guard the guards? We could even hire trained guards to guard us against other guards, or start our own guard company to guard entire communities. Some may even volunteer to guard. And if anyone gets out of hand, there won’t be any biased court systems to acquit them of unethical behavior. We already have the resources and trained men who can continue to teach future generations (unfortunately most of them are spread all over the globe). Government forced us into learning and accepting certain things, but now they’re just bored- constantly making unnecessary laws and enforcing old laws that are no longer a huge deal in modern society.
Click to expand...

What you describe as "my laissez faire system", is in fact a copy of the very government you despise. It is their tactic to hire guards to guard , called police and army. You simply replace one centralised dictatorship with individual dictators.

Government is not the problem. It is when we centralise it or put power into the hands of one person. Then the quote of power corrupts become true. Your laissez faire system puts that means to corruption into the hand of the individual.
 
Geoist said:
I may have missed it, but where did the op advocate anarchocapitalism? Seems to me they are advocating something closer to anarchosyndicalism/communism.
Click to expand...

Your kidding!! His second sentence in the op itself is his advocating for anarchocapitalism.

He is advocating the complete abolishment of any government and all power be in the hands of the individual. In other words a classic laissez faire ideal.

anarchosyndicalism/communism still requires government in the form of unions or coop style arrangements. And i do not see this one advocating for unions.
 
danielpalos said:
I agree to disagree. Promoting the general welfare includes pioneering, better government. I believe the right wing is disingenuous when they complain about general welfare spending, but not general warfare spending.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking specifically about welfare or warfare or opposing government spending, I'm just talking about what makes a project a boondoggle vs. not a boondoggle.
 
Neomalthusian said:
I'm not talking specifically about welfare or warfare or opposing government spending, I'm just talking about what makes a project a boondoggle vs. not a boondoggle.
Click to expand...

Why not complain more about our extra-Constitutional, warfare-State spending instead of welfare-State spending on the poor, or advancement in Government.
 
Government: An Unnecessary Evil
Click to expand...

seems to me that i'd rather live in a governed country than deal with warlords. your mileage may vary.
 
danielpalos said:
Why not complain more about our extra-Constitutional, warfare-State spending instead of welfare-State spending on the poor, or advancement in Government.
Click to expand...

I wasn't complaining about welfare spending on the poor, I was pointing out that lunar missions were a boondoggle that served no real purpose except bragging rights. Mars fantasies are like that, but on steroids.

Point of all that being, the fact that the private sector has never thought it worthwhile to go the moon is not an effective ideological attack against the private sector. It's rather the opposite.

But I realize that when far left ideologues have a boondoggle or other embarrassing government expenditure on their hands, it's convenient to pivot to military spending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom