Oh goodness… This is back to square one. Why can’t you reason and answer these questions yourself or are you depending on a representative to answer them for you? Serious question.
I like the philosophy behind having a representative government.
But, all representative governments seem to have fallen for aristocracies. We haven’t had any real Presidents since JFK.
If every President was like JFK wouldn’t that be a good thingg?
I think that there SHOULD be some sort of government… but we should be allowed to share our voicees more… I just don’t like the idea of doing away with government completely.
Alright. I have my ideas to this question I’m going to ask you, but it helps to know what you are thinking about, what underlying thoughts you are having in order to dig into this better. So I’m asking you this question, not cause I don’t have an opinion on it, but because I want to know your opinion. Answer this as honestly as you can it will help me:
1 - What’s the difference between the State (aka the government you advocate) and the following: a business, a farmer, a militia, and labor?
I ask since you find the State to be necessary, then explain to me what it offers differently? What is it about a State that you find to be attractive?
The idea behind our government would be that it would protect our rights and it wouldn’t infringe on people. Unfortunately in real life-- the state does the exact opposite. We need to be the nation which shows strong support for civil rights and makes a lot of positive change around the world. I don’t think that just because we’ve had a lot of setbacks in recent history and in our beginning history of our nation means we do away with it entirely. Don’t you think-- aside from the negatives that our country could be used for a good thing? I’m all for limited government… I just don’t want to do away with government entirely.
I don’t find a state attractive. I think it’s a necessary evil… it’s just that I’m not ready to do away with it entirely. when it’s proven to be completley inefficient then I’m all for getting rid of it. But we have to have some kind of organization for people who are in need of structure and the way of life as wee know it. That is my main problem. What about the other people who are dependent on the state?
No.
Because government is predicated on theft and violence. It’s sole purpose to is re-distribute property.
There would be voluntary associations for people like you describe, but it would be contractual. You could have your welfare, your security, your flags and rallies. You just wouldn’t be able to coerce others into associating with you. Does that sound fine?
Perhaps. that could work.. But I guess I’m a bit conservative in that regards. I just would like to see every model of a government first proven wrong before we go to a stateless society. And in a stateless society there should be organizations to privatize the functions of governmment that have been monopolized by the government previously.
If you could only see my face now… sad.[:(]
You admit you like evil.
What is inefficient to you?
Who partakes in the structure of the government?
This fits in with “inefficiency” that you brought up in your earlier post. What is this proof of wrong you want to “see” (as you put it)?
First of all, I’m a believer that representative Democracy has been hijacked. All of this secrecy needs to go away. The army needs to do away with operations northwood. I think if the government starts actually caring about its people more then we would probably be better off. What I’m saying is that our government needs to care about us again… and if that doesn’t work then we need to a stateless society. I see government as a nessecary evil. I don’t think we have to be all evil and stuff… but I am not ready to do awaay with it entirely.
Yeah, I mean it was a good thing they tested communism by murdering 100 million of their own citizens in the 20th century. You know, just to be sure it wasn’t the “correct solution”.
The state is by its very nature coercive and no amount of “caring for its people” can provide a moral justification for it. Representative Democracy, Monarchy, Fascism, just different forms cut from the same cloth.
How do you define “caring about its people”? If by this you mean “not using force against them,” then you are already in favor of a stateless society, where the “government” is no more than a voluntary group of individuals. If not, then please do elaborate on what you mean.
I’m all for a government that doesn’ use force on its people. If that’s what you mean by stateless society-- a voluntary group of individuals-- working for the common good… then I would be all for it. But as an American the idea of my country has been ingrained on me pretty much since birth. But we could change how society is ran and the like.
Please define common good.
Voluntary ones.
Peaceful ones.
Nothing but the provision of law and order. Even that is too much, IMO, to be left to a legal monopoly.
Or rather, it is systematic, logical thinking that leads to an extreme, once contradictions are purged.
Which is a personal failing. But rather than admit to having trouble understanding others, you have decided to pretend that their arguments don’t exist.
This may surpise you, but ideologies arrise from individuals using their “own individual critical thinking.” Of course, the quality of the ideology is determined by the mental tools used. Someone with your attitude is going to end up with a very poor ideology, indeed.
I was thinking about this today. What would people protest in a market economy? When you vote with your dollars, and free choices, why would you waste time lobbying anyone or anything to change?
I think that protesting is a consequence of having limited choices, in which case reform is the only possible method for change. But with limitless choices and competition, any firm or institution that got to the point of being protested or lobbied would already be hearing the footsteps of their competitors.
My 2 cents. Be interested to read what others think of this…
How do you legislate care? How do you force care? either one…
How ironic, you challenge people to be critical thinkers and yet are unwilling to do it yourself. Answer your own questions. Think for yourself.
How would unions work in a society where people were free to associate with whom they wanted?
What kind of protests would be acceptable in a free society?
There is no such thing as a minarchist state.