Shameless college-level propaganda

[angryrabbit]

I’m enrolled in an “Introduction to Political Science” class at my local college. We’re reading from a book entitled “American at Odds, 6th edition”.

I’m on the second page and just had to share this bit:

Regardless of how Americans feel about government, one thing is certain: they can’t live without it. James Madison once said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Today, his statement still holds true. People are not perfect. People need an organized form of government and a set of rules by which to live by.

Note, though, that even if people were perfect, they would still need to establish rules to guide their behavior. … No society has existed without some form of government. The need for authority and organization will never disappear.

The second paragraph blew me away. I hope I can survive this class…

[Jon_Irenicus]

Well… Hoppe makes similar points in ATSOC regarding a society of angels. It depends on how you wish to interpret “government”. It’s possible the book is conflating it with a state, but self-government is too a way of organizing a society.

[majevska]

Unfortunately, with the constant accretion of state power, some of us will find ourselves in the situation where we literally can’t live with it.

[eliotn]

@Daniel Waite

Regardless of how Americans feel about government, one thing is certain: they can’t live without it. James Madison once said, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” Today, his statement still holds true. People are not perfect. People need an organized form of government and a set of rules by which to live by.

Note, though, that even if people were perfect, they would still need to establish rules to guide their behavior. … No society has existed without some form of government. The need for authority and organization will never disappear.

What if this true, but could be applied to an-cap, where this “government” is simply a service you can get from a company?

[1billion]

What “angels” are supposed to set up the rules, did Madison fancy himself an angel, worthy of commanding others?

[angryrabbit]

@eliotn

What if this true, but could be applied to an-cap, where this “government” is simply a service you can get from a company?

That is clearly not the book’s stance. Here’s another excerpt about public services:

Another important purpose of government is to provide public services – essential services that many individuals cannot provide for themselves. Governments undertake projects that individuals usually would not or could not do on their own, such as building and maintaining roads, providing welfare programs, operating public schools…

There is no mention of free market alternatives. There is no mention, except, perhaps ironically, in large quotes displayed randomly, that the government is a group of individuals who are ultimately doing these things anyway. In other words, the book is treating “the government” as some amorphous blob capable of doing things “ordinary people” can’t.

[angryrabbit]

@Eric

What “angels” are supposed to set up the rules, did Madison fancy himself an angel, worthy of commanding others?

Yeah, I laughed when I read that part. I forgot who wrote it, but the argument that people are inherently evil (or some such nonsense) and therefore need to be told what to do is laughable. If people are inherently evil, why the hell would you give an evil person power over others? The situation then becomes, which slaver master is least harsh?

[ama_gi]

If I were you, I would have fun with my poli-sci teacher by asking all kinds of tricky questions. Like this one:

If it is true that we need the government to stop us from hurting each other, than why should we have freedom of speech, or the Fourth Amendment, or the right to choose our leaders at the ballot box? If people will raise Cain when there is no State, do you really think they will be civilized under democratic institutions?

[angryrabbit]

@ama gi

If I were you, I would have fun with my poli-sci teacher by asking all kinds of tricky questions. Like this one:

If it is true that we need the government to stop us from hurting each other, than why should we have freedom of speech, or the Fourth Amendment, or the right to choose our leaders at the ballot box? If people will raise Cain when there is no State, do you really think they will be civilized under democratic institutions?

That was my original thought – to have a LOT of fun in this class. My concern is that I tend to forget details and remember principles and overarching arguments (e.g. the state is the social embodiment of violence, the NAP, taxes are theft, etc.). I suppose though, that I need experience in debating with others if I intend to get stronger.

[ama_gi]

Railing against the government will get you no where in polite society. I’d take the opposite route:

…but, if we need government, then don’t we need fascism?

Think about it.

[angryrabbit]

Question: does anyone have any suggestions on how I can word questions? I dunno if it’s me or my friends, but it appears that every time I’ve discussed libertarian ideas with someone, I end up asking something like, “So, do you advocate the use of violence to maintain an opinion or status quo?” and they answer “Yes.”, at which point, for me at least, the conversation stops.

[angryrabbit]

@ama gi

Railing against the government will get you no where in polite society. I’d take the opposite route:

…but, if we need government, then don’t we need fascism?

Think about it.

I like that. “Agree” with the I, Robot perspective, that the logic of ultimate protection is undeniable – we NEED to be caged and spoon fed because we’re beasts. Right? It puts the onus of proof on the statist. If laws against marijuana are good, why not laws against alcohol and greasy foods?

[ama_gi]

@Daniel Waite

Question: does anyone have any suggestions on how I can word questions? I dunno if it’s me or my friends, but it appears that every time I’ve discussed libertarian ideas with someone, I end up asking something like, “So, do you advocate the use of violence to maintain an opinion or status quo?” and they answer “Yes.”, at which point, for me at least, the conversation stops.

Sounds like you need some new friends.

[hayekianxyz]

We can’t live without governments, states on the other hand…

[Solomon]

@Daniel Waite

Question: does anyone have any suggestions on how I can word questions? I dunno if it’s me or my friends, but it appears that every time I’ve discussed libertarian ideas with someone, I end up asking something like, “So, do you advocate the use of violence to maintain an opinion or status quo?” and they answer “Yes.”, at which point, for me at least, the conversation stops.

I can think of a few approaches.

First ask if they can think of a situation in which state aggression is immoral; unless they are truly convinced statists they believe there are limits to what the state can do; then ask why they set the limit there instead of where you put it. (The thinking behind democracy is that these limits are just a matter of taste, which naturally is a horrendous idea).

Alternatively ask why it is permissible for state members to commit violence, but not for you or any other mere mortals of ordinary society, and show why there is no rational justification for this discrepancy.

Figuring out how to work these into conversation may be a difficulty in itself, of course.

[ama_gi]

In your polemics, try not to use controversial examples. Dissect the example I used above:

If it is true that we need the government to stop us from hurting each other, than why should we have freedom of speech, or the Fourth Amendment, or the right to choose our leaders at the ballot box? If people will raise Cain when there is no State, do you really think they will be civilized under democratic institutions?

The rights I used in my polemic were mom-and-apple-pie rights that are celebrated by Americans universally. I could have used, say, the Second Amendment, but that is more controversial.

That’s Persuasion 101.

[angryrabbit]

@ama gi

In your polemics, try not to use controversial examples. Dissect the example I used above:

The rights I used in my polemic were mom-and-apple-pie rights that are celebrated by Americans universally. I could have used, say, the Second Amendment, but that is more controversial.

That’s Persuasion 101.

Duly noted.

[jeremiahjosephshinei]

Interesting. I was thinking of this today:

What does a part of a corporation do when it wants to break free of its parent(secession)? Call it a Sub S corporation (since the analogy is transferable to other structures under umbrellas, so to speak). Is it necessary to BUY the sub out from under the parent within the parameters of modern law? And what if the parent has become abusive, or was out of alignment from the start? Can the offspring just “fly the coop” or conquer?

NATURALLY speaking, the answer is yes. The young rooster or wolf MUST defeat the leader of the flock/pack to reproduce/rule the flock/pack OR it is necessary to leave the family shelter in search of a place to reproduce/rule. If this is the case, the rooster is flying solo.

When is the RISK worth it? The “revolutionary” rooster/wolf is risking it all for his rights. Win and rule/breed, or lose and lose the shelter and protection of the flock/pack…(or slink off and find another place). Thomas Jefferson said “Those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither.”

and what of the hens and “bitches” (it’s a shame the word for the female/neutral of a species was perverted! Suppose the word “Hens” was used instead of “bitches” in modern English!)? (I’ll stop with the wolf metaphor, consequently).

The hens are still protected, either way. The “head” of the flock will DIE trying to protect the flock. The “flock” is the leaders “charge” (to use a British term), no matter if it were a day or a year from his ascension. Thus is the way of honor and duty. Two words dead in this society, for both words connote an elevation, a rising up from suffering, if you will; to lead one must be willing to die.

Any how, how to separate peacefully from the flock? Can a young rooster wander off and start from “scratch”?

[jeremiahjosephshinei]

As I understand it, the ballot box of today is compromised!

My home county:

Boone County,Indiana.,USA.

63,983 registered voters

144,000 tallied votes.

[Jon_Irenicus]

That was my original thought – to have a LOT of fun in this class. My concern is that I tend to forget details and remember principles and overarching arguments (e.g. the state is the social embodiment of violence, the NAP, taxes are theft, etc.). I suppose though, that I need experience in debating with others if I intend to get stronger.

Ditto.