-
I don’t know it for sure.
-
No. But you’re implying that a state that threatens violence is a totalitarian state. I recommend you read this book I’m reading, there is a world of difference between modern America and Nazi Germany.
-
I think the answer is much more complicated than that.
No. filc is being optimistic because he is not distributing his responsiblity to an external factor. He is not giving up on himself and human nature in general for he notes that there is no need of a fairy tale gov’t regimentating order to structure higher levels of fantasy organization that will somehow imprint it’s reason upon the mind’s of people. To control chaos and fear that the herd itself makes by external brute means is pointless. Fear is not stopped by swinging a hammer after shadows dancing on the waters in the full moon light.
Well, I don’t think I’m being pessimistic either. If he doesn’t want to use an external factor for safety, that’s his choice. I’ve made mine. Do I think it’s right that people like you have to play by the same rules? No. But I don’t make the rules.
You stated that the formation of government is a natural, physiological, biological attribute of man.
What form of government would you support?
And neither do you. I think you confused my comment about appeal from ignorance. I was referring to posts you’ve made in the past where you challenge anarchists to provide them historical evidence where a stateless society existed and lasted.
You have me on this. I beleive it is possible to have a world without a state, I don’t think its possible to have a world without murderers. You’ve got me.
Bloom, you are carrying yourself down the path that so many other threads have gone. It’s a wonder why you post here. [:(]
There it is again. Pleading to ‘the danger out there’. The need for “safety”. Dipping into base-level fear mongering thinking it is an argument. Run for the Herd!!
-
That’s right, but I didn’t say we were ants. Ants have a different set of rules.
-
Limited, constitutional government.
-
Well, make a stateless society. If it works, I’ll be your biggest supporter.
-
I post here because you guys are closer to how I think than revleft is.
Why do you always try to provoke me?
He is operating within the gov’t sphere which doesn’t operate with logic; but rather operates in ad hoc, haphazard methodology that tends to generalize everything, ie. gov’t is consolidation of worldviews, speaks in illogical terms of “always” and “necessary” not in accord with deductive skills but rather consolidational skills achieved via brute power.
Indeed. And that this conversation is happening in a post about people thinking that government works on a different level is deliciously ironic.
I didn’t personalize my post. I was trying to avoid it being about you. I was very conscious of that before I posted. I almost wrote, “You are doing it again”, but realized that that is not the point I am trying to make. It is not you but the kind of argument that I’m focused on so I changed it to, “There it is again.”
This is a vague answer.
- How will your constitution be formed, who will agree to it?
- How will you keep your constitution limited?
- Why not make a limited constitution based on the Labor Theory of Value?
- WHy not make a limited constitution making a certain race of man eligible for slavery?
Give me a bit more to work with here. I find it ironic that you believe it’s more likely for a limited constitutional government to work as opposed to market anarchy. You contend that government must always be, but your ideal ‘government’ is one that is not likely to ever be created again or maintained adequately.
And yet appealing to this fear for “safety” would be the driving motivation for establishing, operating & profiting via PDA’s, some of which will work, some of which will not.
Shall we call catering to the needs of safety in the market dipping into base-level fear mongering, as they would inevitably need to advertise their services?
It’s irrational in both the pro-state & anti-state situation to assume “saftey” would be automatically achieved or easier, methinks.
Voluntarists & Emergentists (“anarcho-capitalists”) can also have their fair share of fear-mongering thinking, as with any crowd, such as automatically rejecting non-capitalist free-market actions out of ideological purity (not everyone does this, but you could probably see a fair bit of this with the RP crowd & forums).
-
We already have a good constitution. People just need to start reading it and sticking to it again. I don’t intend to reinvent the wheel.
-
This is the hard part. Through education, I suppose. The same way you intend to spread the message of an-cap.
-
I’m not a fan of Marx. I don’t think that Marxist theory vibes with our current Constitution. But maybe it does, I’d have to do more research.
-
I’m not a fan of slavery. Nor do I think the constitution protects slavery.
thank you.
Indeed. ‘Run for the gun’ because everybody else is so if we don’t, they will.[:P] There’s always this “they” they won’t to blow up before they blow us up. And it’s a complete conceding that the gov’t only deals on such a brutish level. Thus his appeal to “an organization that would grab the gun and be the first to use it” for that’s what gov’t’s are for, to deal with fear and anger. The psychologist gov’t appealing to what is the best way to deal with fear via propaganda no less appealing to the fragility of human life.
Good way of putting it.
Agreed.
At a base mental level isn’t all human action motivated by a desire to avoid pain (fear) or to seek pleasure? If that is the case then having a gun in the room doesn’t change a persons motivations to act, but can surely change a persons chosen actions.
I know. I think the gov’t is a rogue PDA.
Sure.
That’s a good comment, but who would argue otherwise.
Wait, you guys think that without a government, there would be “no gun in the room?”
It’s just a tool. Like government. Blame the people using the tool, not the tool itself.
Agreed. And I’m not trying to pretend that I have some magic solution for all these problems. I’m saying that I don’t think there are any magic solutions, just very difficult ones with complex consequences. Ideology is a single bullet explanation for everything it encompasses. I’m certainly guilty of holding ideological beliefs. Mine are just different, I suppose.
- I disagree, it looks more like old fashioned oligarchy to me.
A rouge PDA would assume that it emerged from a previously free-market environment, & no matter how much more free the USA used to be, it never was truly a free-market society to begin with, just a either a federation of associated states or a republic with a majority of free-market activity in it’s beginnings, eroded over the next one or two centuries.
-
Does advertising equal coercion, then?
-
Many who get caught up in an arguments. It happens.
Blame both.