I refuse to submit to coercion by faulty logic that one doesn’t need to prove a negative when one is proposing social change. In order to reasonably expect anyone to adopt a change, it’s reasonable to expect the person proposing a change to present a case. Not
I don’t have to prove a negative
and not
Our current system sucks (ours is better by default).
What you propose should be questioned, just like whether we actually need a government need to be questioned. It’s not a binary value, what you propose will have benefits and drawbacks, as with all systems. What improvements would there be without a government.
I’m more then willing to accept I could be wrong. But I’m not getting anything resembling reason, I’m getting circular logic and hyperbole. I freely accept that I was born into a state with an established form of government, and as such have a hard time even picturing what no government would even look like. I can even accept you could be wrong, but to date no one has provided any basic INFORMATION on the subject, save a couple of books I plan to check out of library.
FYI, society is made up by people. Ultimately for freedom to exist there needs to be a choice. Without choice, is slavery. As such people are relevant to the discussion of people.
If people “want” monopolistic entities, not that they would, isn’t it wrong to force free markets on them?
Don’t get me wrong, competition generally is good for the market, and you might have an idea that would actually be an improvement on our existing system. But do date, no one has answered some basic questions on how it would operate, and how it would improve things. If you have an idea, and you want others to adopt it, you need to present a case. That’s a simple, basic expectation.
Isn’t labeling me a troll a form of coercion? I think I came here with legit questions regarding the assertion atheism is the default belief. I found it to be an interesting question, not because of what we are born with having any value, but because it lead me to think what the actual default conclusion was.
Respectfully Knight, you have not ben able to back up the assertion
no child is ever born with belief in god(s)
and further you have hidden behind convention when I asked some basic questions regarding why we don’t need government. I’m perfectly willing to admit, I don’t know if we need one, I’ve not seen a society operate without one. When I asked you more about it, you claim you don’t have to prove anything because you hold a negative position?
Yet you accuse me of being a child?
Aren’t your actions childish? Are you not proposing that you keep a monopoly on information and only dispense it to those you feel are deserving of it? It’s true, I might be incapable of understanding, but if you are proposing essentially freedom, should I have the freedom to look at what you propose, and perhaps say
Wow I’ve been wrong my entire life
No, that’s nuts
I’m still waiting to here how you reached your conclusion that no child is born with belief(s) in gods. If that’s true, where do these beliefs come from? Do they stem from early man’s first need to organize, a crafty self appointed autocrat who created it for the purpose of asserting authority over others? Or does this come from man’s innate need to organize, not just him self and tribe into hunts, but to organize his surroundings into terms her can understand. It may very well be connected with the feeling of a need of a government.
I think it tends to be used as a weak argument for atheism, and I question it’s validity, and it’s relevance. It only matters what the default conclusion is, once one has reasoning skills. Respectfully the assertion is a strawman because beliefs, or lack of beliefs only have meaning when we have the capacity to have beliefs. What matters is how do these beliefs come to exist?
You can label me as a troll if you so desire, but you made the assertion, I think it’s reasonable for me to ask how you came to assertion.
If people want to force me to pay for their services, is it wrong of me to force them not to rob from me?
You’re dodging the question whether you realize it or not. The burden of proof is on the statist to prove a positive claim on the life and labor of their “citizenry”. If it’s wrong to force free markets on people who desire monopolies, it is equally wrong to force monopolies on people who dont desire them.
Competition sounds good. I felt that way when they broke up ma’bell back in the 1980s. I was stuck paying 10c/min using ma bell to access Compuserve, or $6.00/hr using their to access Compuserve. This is evening rates, after 5pm. On top of this was another $6.00/hour, but that’s beside the point. The point is going through a dedicated network was the same as the telco long distance.
Then the breakup, I had a choice. Ranted that didn’t affect local long distance, baby bells still had their monopoly. ATnT, Sprint, or MCI. I now had a choice, 12c/min ATnT, 11c/min Sprint, or you guessed it 10c/min MCI. The only difference was quality of service, and quality of the lines. ATnT and Sprint were good enough for 14.4k cross the country, Sprint was slightly better to Estonia. MCI was well, crap.
Then came 10xxx codes, followed by 1010xxx codes. You could pick a carrier. Great! Given I used modem, I could evaluate the other guys, and pick and choose based on rates. But then the government stopped in and started slapping on the telephone exesize tax on each carrier, which by this point I was already online with internet access at a flat rate of $20/month. But I had some huge phone bills as I made my classed based on the prices offered by each carrier, or phone call quality.
But needless to say, it took over a decade for prices to actually drop. And now it’s all said and done, about 25 years or so after the break up, what happens? AT&T and Verizon merge back together, effectively a monopoly.
Knowing then what I know know, Under the AT&T Monopoly
there was free information
Collect calls cost the coin price
Operator assistance was free
Calling card calls were reasonable
Payphones were connected to the same telco, or at least could connect you with it, not three states away
We had payphones (Ok, I can blame the cells here)
I’m not a fan of monopolies but objectively speaking, life was better under ma’bell. Now we have ma’bells bastard son Verison.
I’m asking questions. I freely admit I don’t have enough information to determine whether goverments are necessary. What am I getting
I don’t have to prove a negative
You think the current system works
If you propose a social change, you need to present a case for doing so.
And (2) is just nuts, because the current system well, sucks. I’m open to alternatives. What are they?
How exactly can you boycott government when you are forced to pay for it?
You could not pay taxes etc, but you’ve already said I have no right to force others to accept my will to individual action.
So I have to prove to a mugger that they shouldn’t mug me? Great.
I do not propose a social change. I’m say it’s illigitimate to assert ownership over people who do not consentually give it. Government, which nessesarily does this by nature of it’s existance is therefore illigitimate and must be ended. If you propose the opposite, then it is fully within my right to force anarchy upon you, as you see no problem with forcing people into non-consensual relationships.
Wait, are you arguing for our cause here? You say you’re for choice, but when did I ever choose to be taxed 40% of my productivity? If indeed I had a choice, it would be that I wouldn’t be taxed one iota. If people want monopolistic entities, I’m not going to force them to have it any other way. So why is it ok for them to force me to patronize those monopolistic entities when I want a completely free and voluntary market? How the hell is that fair? Isn’t that called slavery? “The People” can have their monopolistic entities but they can’t force me to have them too if I don’t want them, since that would be called slavery. Either you’re for universal freedom and choice or you’re for slavery and coercion. You can’t have it both ways.
But you do have a choice, they are not good choices but you have a choice.
You can move to a state or region with lower taxes
Find a means of cheating on taxes
Form a commune, label your self as religious or non-profit educational (I’m not kidding)
Become a hermit, have no income and as such no taxes
Effect change
I never claimed the world was fair, and I never claimed universal freedom even exists. It’s a nice ideal, sounds really good. I have no idea how it could even exist. I also don’t live in a polarized world were there are only two choice to everything, universal freedom or slavery and coercion. I would love to effect some changes that actually would serve the public good and improve the human condition.
I rather like organization, and being part of a community one gives up what I think could be described as universal freedom, presuming I’m understanding the concept correctly.
But if you just don’t want to pay taxes? (2) (3) (4) (5)
I like the internet because it’s a flat rate for the service. I rather like the roads that taxes presently pay for. Both Washington and Oregon did attempt voluntary tax systems, and it worked until about 1870-1910 when the system broke down. With a population boom. But again, you don’t like to pay taxes, propose a better system. Seriously!
Case in point. In Washington State citizens can get anything on the ballet and change the law. In the past there was a car tax based on the appraised value of the car, which was always slightly inflated. Someone got it into their head that this was unfair, and everyone should pay a flat fee. I wasn’t a big fan of the appraised value so I drove an older car. But the law was passed, big win for self government, woo hoo. But guess what, a nice public transportation project failed as a result of a loss of funding. Tough break, and this is coming from a state with no income tax.
Point is, I’m among those who would gladdy pay for public transport. I don’t even mind if it’s city, state, or federally funded. If there was workable public transport, then I wouldn’t need a car. At least in theory, if enough people use public transport pollution goes down.
But seriously if you just don’t want to pay taxes, I welcome you to form a commune , one which is dedicated to public education of the idea that we don’t need a government. Hell, you might be able to get a government grant, and you’d certainly qualify for 501(3)c status. Oregon is pretty friendly toward communes, and you do propose an interesting ideology, one worthy of experimentation. You’d be doing something useful for the planet, effecting change, avoiding those pesky monopolistic entities, well, mostly.
But seriously if you want me to even consider your way, if you want the world to change to adopt your ideology, present a case. Personally I think what is being proposed, no government, is a little extreme, unproven, and a little quixotic. But hey, I can accept I’ve never seen it work, and as such don’t know it doesn’t.
But if you can’t present a case for your New utopia? Horrifying sham (anagram for information superhighway for humor), all you are doing respectfully is tilting at windmills.
More realistic, or slightly less quixotic, flat tax? Tax forms with voting for what services you want to pay for, what ones you don’t. More control over government spending. You could call it the tyranny of the majority if you like. The majority is rather dense the majority of time.
I rather like living in the states. There are many things I would change if I could, but I understand if I want change, it’s up to me to presume a case. I’ve never been able to make a big change, only a contribution on smaller ones. But again, seriously, if you want to promote change, make a case.
Religion, organization for educational purposes (501(3)c), move, become a hermit.
I think I have a winner with organization for educational purposes, and you might even be able to get government funding to prove you don’t need a government.
But you can propose a better system. Keep in mind I don’t live in your idealistic world. I don’t know how universal freedom can exist. If you want me to live in your world, you want to make it happen, present a case. Show me it can work, show others.
Actually, yes you do. If someone wants to mug you, and you don’t want to be mugged. Absolutely. It won’t work, well not without force. Mace I’m told works really well. Running is also. Only one person tried to mug me. I told him I’m broke, followed by, “I have new socks”. It’s amazing how people respond to nonsequitors, they think you are nuts. Perhaps there is a social stigma against mugging the mentally ill.
I don’t suggest you try it. I seem to have a unique relationship with the universe. I also can’t run very fast.
I have new socks
You don’t want me in your anarchy, I question authroity
But hey, non-consensual universal freedom, sounds great. Sounds JUST LIKE Christianity. Accept universal love or I’ll hit you. I’m certain you can get a government grant for that.
I may be trying to be comical, but I’m actually VERY serious about the idea of a commune, claiming 501(3)c status to educate people on the lack of need of government. It has a certain symmetry to it.
that’s not boycotting. boycotting is when you refuse to use something in order to lessen it’s market demand, that’s using the government as a tax evasion service. And hermits still have to pay taxes.
As for moving, you want government, you move.
This is absurd.
Anyways, since the use of force requires no justification, the burden of proof is no longer valid and I am fully justified in whatever action I take as it is my victims who must prove to me why I should not force them to do as I please. Any means of achieving anarchy are fully permissible.
Nice twofer. Straw man a political philosophy AND a religion in one go.
Again, you’re the one who proposes forceful initiation into your system, and I propose no system but one people voluntarily commit to.
Either you voluntarily commit to something or you don’t. If you don’t, any means of action you use against your aggressors is self defensive.
It’s not tax evasion if you’re being honest, and an non profit experimental society for educational purposes, to prove we don’t need a government, well, I’d happily use my tax dollars to pay for that, well, not that I have any real choice in spending.
But it’s a valid alternative.
Hermits who don’t make enough income don’t need to pay taxes. There are a ton of solutions, most involve national parks and no permanent structures. If you use rope, that’s ok, but nails are not OK. Most practical are mining rights. I have to admit I don’t know the rules on this, but you can check with Desertphile on youtube. From my limited understanding you don’t have to own property to setup a mining camp. There are a ton of places in cali, Oregon, and Arizona where you can still pan for gold. From my limited understanding you need to extract a certain dollar amount per year to justify you squatting.
Odds are you won’t be using sewer, water, or any “real” roads.
Anyways, I was using boycott as a form of protest where by you stop buying things.
To further the feat, I’ll add that your response is sexist. It’s a strawwoman. My strawwoman wants to date your strawman, but she doesn’t like Mango chutney. Don’t ask me why.
Polarizing issues is the ultimate form of coercion, and is a tool of those with political , religious, environmental agendas. It’s the mark of the demagogue. I.e. “do it for the children, you like children, don’t you”. Any attempt to polarize an issue is a dishonest to make it appear as though there are no other alternatives. I refuse to be oppressed by your extremist all for nothing ultimatum. My world is not polar.
Anyhow, it’s not MY system. My system will be a utopian one, and as such perfect at least in my own minds eye. It will also have unicorns, just so long as no goats are mutalated. Universal freedom is not a concept that I can really wrap my head around as far as the reality is concerned. My utopia will have taxes, but you’ll get a vote as to which services you are paying for, and which go into the general fund. The government would be a very minimal one mainly concerned with collecting information, making it available, and maintaining the infrastructure (roads, power/water, rail, sewage). As with most systems of governments, anyone who doesn’t want to pay taxes can do some form of community service. This may include soup kitchens, educational organizations, street cleanup. There would be a military, but in times of peace they will be charged with improving the state, disaster relief. Anyone who doesn’t like it, as with just about every modern society, CAN LEAVE. I expect my utopian vision wouldn’t last 5 seconds in reality, but if you’re talking about “MY” system.
If your talking about OUR system, as in the one that you were forced into being a part of without freedom of choice, that’s another matter. I distrust people, and authority. I yell at my governor often enough. I’m not kidding when I said you wouldn’t want me in your anarchy, I do question authority. I question a lack of authority. Actually I question damn near everything. But at least I try to present a case, even if it is a crappy one, and I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong.
You may not be happy with the choices presented to you, but there is always a choice. You can always leave, or as I suggest, form a freaking commune, get 501(3)c status and even, out of protest, get a government grant. There is rumored to be communes operating in Oregon, and certainly more than a few cults in northern California’s. Or you can stay and actually effect change, but remember it’s up to you to present a case for change.
Talk to the muggers guild. Lodge a grievingly in triplicate on NCR paper. Or boycott muggers, learn to run.
Sorry, if someone wants to mug you, they are not going to care about rational argumentation. They mug people. That’s why we call the muggers and not the easter bunny.
I certainly don’t want to be mugged. I’m sure few if any do. I’m not an expert in muggers or mugging, but near as I’m aware they offer few choices.
Give me your wallet and valuables
or
I will get midevil on your buttocks.
Would would rational argumentation work on a mugger anyway. “Mugging is a form of coercion, and is a tool of the monopolistic entity. By mugging me, you are supporting brainwashing of children in state funded schools who otherwise would not accept that we need a government and there by oppressing market anarchism.”
Mugger says, “Oh, I hadn’t thought of that. I humbly apologize for oppressing you. I was only interested in stealing, not asserting my political philosophy over yours. Go with God, oh sorry, that’s oppressing you as well.”
This message is brought to you by the muggers guild. What’s in your wallet?
And if you’re for slavery and coercion, coercing me into your preferred form of government is no better than coercing you into mine - either way, you lose!
That wasn’t the assertion (as atheism is being without a specific belief), and you didn’t have legit questions. All you have are fallacies and your refusal to think beyond them.
When you can get over your “most people believe that there is a god, therefore atheists have to prove them wrong” nonsense, I might be more receptive. Until then, you can just go sulk in a corner for all I care.
Yea, the consistent theist position is something like “I believe there is a god but I can’t prove it.” Sort of like “I really like the color blue, its the greatest color!”
Translation: I refuse to be logical. Fair enough. But, as the proponent of using coercive force against anyone who disagrees with government and seeks to leave it, the burden of proof is on you, or any statist. It’s really that simple.
If things are not voluntary, they are forced; involuntary. It’s not a polarization, it’s the fact of the matter. Something cannot be true and not true. There is a strict dichotomy in the relationship of organization. Either you force it on people, or they consent. There is nothing more.
I don’t argue for universal freedom, just individual freedom. Either way, concepts of freedom tend to be quite subjective, and so the level of “freedom” you permit yourself should be left to you.
Okay, but that’s your utopia. Do you intend to force me into it, or simply act towards it on your own?
I’ll do neither, thank you.
I question questioning things.
That doesn’t make the state right. With a mugger, you may have the choice of losing your wallet or your life, but that doesn’t mean it is legitimate to steal.