brokenhead wrote: If anarchy prevailed and those fat, arrogant, pompous, self-important petty-tyrant thug cops were not riding around in their gaudy, state-provided pimp mobiles, even white guys like me would not be able to maintain the illusion in our minds.
You think those guys are going to protect you? Not too likely. They have no legal obligation to protect you or to stop an attack on you, even if they are watching it from up the block. (This is well established in case law.) They carry guns to protect themselves.
Much like the Army.
We carried guns to protect each others backs.
The only people shot in the back are the traitors and, of course, the innocent civilians who (probably) had it coming anyway.
Loki, how likely is it that you have captured the essence of all political thought that is not anarchy -- by and large, the majority of political philosophers -- by reducing each and every one to one identical sentence and calling them stupid for believing that one sentence?
I'm reminded of Paley's watchmaker argument, where he spends pages creating an analogy between a watch that builds identical watches and biological reproduction, says it would be ridiculous to believe that such a watch could not have a maker, and then concludes by saying, "yet this stupidity is what atheists believe." Except you had only one sentence, not a many-page analogy.
DHodges wrote:You think those guys are going to protect you? Not too likely. They have no legal obligation to protect you or to stop an attack on you, even if they are watching it from up the block. (This is well established in case law.) They carry guns to protect themselves.
Of course I don't think that. My whole point is that it's an illusion, one which I'm hoping most people buy. Probably, though, most people are just like me. They know that the police would not or could not prevent any violent attacks upon their persons, but if the police weren't there, such attacks would be the rule instead of the exception.
BTW, I hate the way these fat cops walk around with all their stuff bulging off their belts like they think they are batman or someting. I am a white guy and I feel threatened when I pass a cop on the street. It's not so much that they are armed, it's that you know every last one of them has abused his power at least once, you can tell it by the way they carry themselves, the swagger that makes me want to take a fucking baseball bat and practice T-ball with their swollen heads.
Loki wrote:Here's a summary of the mentality of anti-anarchists:
"People are too stupid or evil to do that which is in their best interests, therefore people have to look out for their best interests."
lol - idiots.
Yes, it is funny, since the essence of anarchism, and the foundation of its law and order therefore, is shared ownership and voluntary agreement rather than a taxed, class society held together by a lard-nourished bureaucratic legal system.
maestro wrote:Money would be the least of worries in anarchy though. The absence of a binding law would mean that it would be a very dangerous world. Essentially it would become like the jungle, where there are no rules and no limits. Most of the current humans having become soft from civilization will perish in no time.
You know, I've often thought this very thing. Right now you have no way of knowing when you walk down a public street that you will not be attacked. Especially if you ever have been, which I have. I realize it is an illusion I place before me that I will be coming home. That I do come home in no way diminishes the fact that it was an illusion the whole while, and that one will be required the next time I go out. The difference between me and most other people is that they believe mindlessly in that illusion. They think it is real. If anarchy prevailed and those fat, arrogant, pompous, self-important petty-tyrant thug cops were not riding around in their gaudy, state-provided pimp mobiles, even white guys like me would not be able to maintain the illusion in our minds.
Did you mean to prove the point in Loki's opening post?
brokenhead wrote:Of course I don't think that. My whole point is that it's an illusion, one which I'm hoping most people buy. Probably, though, most people are just like me. They know that the police would not or could not prevent any violent attacks upon their persons, but if the police weren't there, such attacks would be the rule instead of the exception.
Actually, no, I think that most people think the police are there to protect them (not just to clean up after) - that they can dial 911 and the cops will show up and save them.
I do agree that the presence of the police should have some deterrent effect, but I have no idea how great it is.
Anyway, it is the responsibility of the individual to protect themselves if a violent attack does occur.
BTW, I hate the way these fat cops walk around with all their stuff bulging off their belts like they think they are batman or someting.
They are required to carry all that shit (gun, flashlight, handcuffs, radio, etc.) to do their job. And from what we said above, it is the job of the cop to be intimidating (to deter violent crime).
I am a white guy and I feel threatened when I pass a cop on the street.
I'm forty-six. I have never been in a situation in my life where I thought, "Boy, I sure am glad that cop was there!"
It's not so much that they are armed,
Most cops don't actually know (or care) much about guns and don't practice.
Leyla Shen wrote:Yes, it is funny, since the essence of anarchism, and the foundation of its law and order therefore, is shared ownership and voluntary agreement rather than a taxed, class society held together by a lard-nourished bureaucratic legal system.
Good summary. While it may be theoretically possible to have a government created by consent of the governed, in practice government is enforced by one group to control another. Generally the group in control is wealthy. In the modern world, government controls education, and thus manufactures consent.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb"...B. Franklin
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - G. Washington
DHodges wrote:Most cops don't actually know (or care) much about guns and don't practice.
You're just trying to push my buttons. That would explain why it can take a couple of cops 23 shots to kill an unarmed black guy. The reason I feel threatened is not the guns. It's the attitude. It's that they know they can empty their weapons into a human being and face at the worst a reprimand or dismissal. Not like it's murder or anything. I once asked a cop friend of mine (one of the most drop dead gorgeous female animals I have ever seen) why cops do not shoot a perp in the legs, why do they shoot to kill. She said because you miss legs, and bullets that miss the target wind up somewhere else, possibly in another human being. They are trained to aim at the fattest part of the body, the trunk. When they shoot, they shoot to kill. This is what we pay them to do. Think about it. I might not agree with you on gun control, Hodges, but at least if you are walking around with a gun you are not thinking you are part of the system which will cover your ass if you blow somebody away. That makes you safer than a cop. People like you do not make me feel threatened. People wearing uniforms make me feel threatened.
-brokenhead-
Of course I don't think that. My whole point is that it's an illusion, one which I'm hoping most people buy. Probably, though, most people are just like me. They know that the police would not or could not prevent any violent attacks upon their persons, but if the police weren't there, such attacks would be the rule instead of the exception.
-Dave-
Actually, no, I think that most people think the police are there to protect them (not just to clean up after) - that they can dial 911 and the cops will show up and save them.
I do agree that the presence of the police should have some deterrent effect, but I have no idea how great it is.
Anyway, it is the responsibility of the individual to protect themselves if a violent attack does occur.
-tomas-
In a roundabout way, the Police have their virtuous side; to protect the underage kids, the elderly, physically handicapped etc.
The cops in North Dakota are (for the most part) 'sent from heaven' as compared to California, where (for the most part) 'sent from the dregs of hell'. I dunno where some of these human beings are from but in NoDak-speak, a great many of the police are recruited from the military, mainly Air Force as nobody will be invading this place because there is nothing to defend. The homegrowns, tend to gravitate towards the Sheriff dept. duties, and to be a city-cop requires a different "attitude" - the willingness to have a mindset to kick-ass with the local hoods, Air Force personnel (the future thieves and killers) - who have a different sort've 'evil intent' on their mind...
-Brokie-
BTW, I hate the way these fat cops walk around with all their stuff bulging off their belts like they think they are batman or something.
-Dave-
They are required to carry all that shit (gun, flashlight, handcuffs, radio, etc.) to do their job. And from what we said above, it is the job of the cop to be intimidating (to deter violent crime).
-tomas-
No fat cops any more in North Dakota, the Labor Union-Rep ain't as strong as it is in the Big-City-Life.
North Dakota cities need big cops as the Interstate highway system brings in more riff-raff from other cultures, the social mores are different. Lotsa scary people from different upbringings than the homegrown variety. A couple sentences out of ones mouth (clothing aside) tells volumes about whether they are outsiders or not.
-Brokie-
I am a white guy and I feel threatened when I pass a cop on the street.
-Dave-
I'm forty-six. I have never been in a situation in my life where I thought, "Boy, I sure am glad that cop was there!"
-tomas-
Up here, in NoDak, they ride in cars (the vast expanse) no foot patrols, and if they do, they wear civilian attire (undercover work).
As long as you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon (from the Sheriff's Dept), less the long guns you see in the guns racks of the pickup trucks, you are on equal footing with the coppers.
An aside- Yeah, I wouldn't guess too many yahoos' (country boys) would drive arond NYC or Philly with a slew of rifles, shotguns in their gun racks.
It's gonna suck going back to California in about a week, back to the bullshit where ya gotta be careful how you telegraph your every move - it's Crooksville on every street corner.
-Brokie-
It's not so much that they are armed,
-Dave-
Most cops don't actually know (or care) much about guns and don't practice.
-tomas-
Au contraire! The cops in NoDak have their outdoor AND indoor ranges everywhere. An old high school buddy, who retired from the local force a year ago, we were at the range just the other day...
And when I'm back in Cali - I do the same with the in-shape cops. The US will always be a dangerous place to live as the political leaders (with consent of the governed) encourage strife, turmoil, with more post-911 laws disguised as war-on-terror measures.
In reality, it's to tighten the nooses 'round the necks, an extra click of tightness on the 'cuffs, an extra boot mark on our necks...
God Bless America .. 'an God Bless .. Barack Obama!
brokenhead wrote:The reason I feel threatened is not the guns. It's the attitude. It's that they know they can empty their weapons into a human being and face at the worst a reprimand or dismissal. Not like it's murder or anything.
I agree, that attitude sucks. And they get away with it far too often.
You’re paranoid man, lay off the heavy pot smoking and watching reruns of COPS in the evenings. Perhaps its worse in the USA, but most cops are glorified traffic enforcers here in Canada, as they spend most of their time at Tim Horton’s drinking coffee and eating donuts.
They're not exactly a threatening force here, - And actually, sometimes they even make big drug busts, catch child molesters, thieves and other bandits. Imagine that, doing whats in their job description instead of following Brokenhead around like a boogie man. And our government isn’t overly threatening here either, not a huge amount of corruption, they usually just try to work towards making the society better based on their political affiliations.
The USA is an extreme example. That is the major cause for most of the anti-government sentiment in America.
I don't have time right now to address all of your very shallow points, but I will comment on this one:
So instead of taxes, you’re just paying toll highway charges every 100 miles, what is the difference? Who cares…..
First of all, is that what you want, to pay toll charges every 100 miles? I doubt most would agree with you.
Secondly, although tolls aren't necessarily the way to go, they are significantly different from general taxation in that one is only paying a fee for what one actually uses. Duh.
So Ryan, do you like having your money taken from you by force, and have it used to support the lavish lifestyles of our politicians?
So Ryan, do you like having your money taken from you by force, and have it used to support the lavish lifestyles of our politicians?
In my opinion, the force argument is lame because the majority of taxation is used to pay for services that people need anyway, as only a minority of politicians abuse their power. Although the numbers may be higher in the USA. Overall, I don't regard government as an absolute evil force in most developed countries, as I view their existence as one of the fundamental causes as to why the all the G8 countries enjoy such a high standard of living.
The advance of democracy and free market capitalism in the G8 countries has been one of the major causes for the acceleration of civilization as we know it.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:So instead of taxes, you’re just paying toll highway charges every 100 miles, what is the difference? Who cares…..
We do pay these toll charges and at much lesser distances than 100 miles. However with Loki's idea we might have to pay them every mile, and there will be price gouging, on popular routes.
Money would be the least of worries in anarchy though. The absence of a binding law would mean that it would be a very dangerous world. Essentially it would become like the jungle, where there are no rules and no limits. Most of the current humans having become soft from civilization will perish in no time.
No rules and 'no rulers' are separate and distinct ideas.
When you play a game of, say, chess with someone, is there a policeman standing guard to make sure that neither of you break the rules?
Loki wrote:No rules and 'no rulers' are separate and distinct ideas.
When you play a game of, say, chess with someone, is there a policeman standing guard to make sure that neither of you break the rules?
An action will be performed by a person if the (perceived) rewards outweigh the (percieved) costs.
Laws and enforcement agencies make the costs of many actions such as stealing, rape murder prohibitive.
The argument is simply boils down to this. The enforcement agency, makes the cost of breaking the rule very high so that they are broken in rare circumstances. This is also done (less effectively) through religion and indoctrination in childhood, where the cost for breaking the rule is affective and social (condemnation). If this negative cost were eliminated many forbidden actions would become rather common. Theft rape and murder would be the order of the day.
Without enforcement of the rules there can be no rules.
Theft rape and murder are common in the animal realm, our horror of these things only arises from our cultural and religious indoctrination. The animal would not have the same feelings towards any of these, such are simply facts of nature.
Theft rape and murder are common in the animal realm, our horror of these things only arises from our cultural and religious indoctrination. The animal would not have the same feelings towards any of these, such are simply facts of nature.
Yes I agree with you totally here, I’m actually in favor of certain types of capital punishment, if the person is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. For instance: in some countries, they execute child molesters, leaders of hard drug cartels, serial killers, serial rapists, and so on. And it is only a governing body with a universal legal code that can accomplish this feat within a nation. As Maestro said, imagine how the animal brain would react if there was no penalty for rape, murder, thief and so on.
You would have the suppressed sexual drive of males released with awesome fury on the female population. It would become common place for Women to be raped in back alleys, parks, and isolated roads, as this tends to happen in countries with very little order, or corrupt governments, where individuals know they can simply pay off police officials if they are caught.
Government is created to protect people from themselves and each other, and even though there is always corruption in government, the alternative of no government would be much more evil than the present system. For instance: In Russia where there isn't a democratic government, and you basically have an organized mob running the show, and women journalists have spoken out against the corruption, but were taken hostage by the Kremlin, and usually gang raped and then murdered. Moreover, having a mob running the show is very close to having anarchy because without a governing body and legal system, different mobs would emerge in different territories, and start fighting with each other. (tribalism)
So if you take away all these government institutions, and revert to anarchy, the animal brain will rein supreme in the world, and humanity will digress even further back into the animal realms. To honestly want to implement anarchy is pure insanity for all these reasons and many more.
Last edited by Ryan Rudolph on Sun Aug 31, 2008 2:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:So if you take away all these government institutions, and revert to anarchy, the animal brain will rein supreme in the world, and humanity will digress even further back into the animal realms. To honestly want to implement anarchy is pure insanity for all these reasons and many more.
This has nothing to do with "reverting" to anarchy, as I've already explained to you many times over Ryan. Anarchy, by definition, means complete lack of coercion by one's fellow man, i.e. liberty must be respected. The situation you are describing above is essentially a bunch of people operating as miniature governments.
Anarchy, by definition, means complete lack of coercion by one's fellow man, i.e. liberty must be respected. The situation you are describing above is essentially a bunch of people operating as miniature governments.
It all sounds quite unrealistic to me, as there will probably always be some degree of unconsciousness in the world, and as long as this is the case, you will always need some sort of governing body acting as a deterrent against animal behavior. And yes, the deterring agent will also be responsible for animal behavior as well, but their presence seems more beneficial than having no deterrent at all.
I'm not talking about whether it is realistic or not, I've even said myself that it is unlikely anarchy will ever be allowed to exist due to humanities irrationality. What I am talking about is how you keep arguing against anarchy based on your unconscious and preconditioned tendency to view it as chaotic, dangerous, and violent.
If one values liberty and non-coercion, then anarchy is a useful ideal to be strived for, and it just so happens that ALL forms of government and other coercive entitites can not exist under anarchy.
What I am talking about is how you keep arguing against anarchy based on your unconscious and preconditioned tendency to view it as chaotic, dangerous, and violent. If one values liberty and non-coercion, then anarchy is a useful ideal to be strived for, and it just so happens that ALL forms of government and other coercive entitites can not exist under anarchy.
Actually, I agree that as a Utopian ideal, anarchy works as long as most of humanity is conscious. However, from my understanding, I was under the impression that we were debating whether or not anarchy was practical as far as its present implementation is concerned. Because to my mind, anarchy is a political ideology, and if its not practical, it has no use..
But as a philosophical definition that stems off the idea of personal freedom and responsibility, I have no problem with it as a philosophical ideal, my problem is how dangerous it would be to implement in an unconscious world.
although, I question whether the privatization of all services is actually practical or not, especially really expensive ones such as health care. Or services that there should only be one of such as driver's licenses, and that is what I like about government, it seems to work well for many different things.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:Actually, I agree that as a Utopian ideal, anarchy works as long as most of humanity is conscious.
Your horror of anarchy stems from a moralistic viewpoint. I think what you mean to say is that anarchy will lead to a society with morality kept voluntarily if people were more conscious.
I do not actually believe that might be the case, more consciousness would mean less morality. A perfectly conscious being should be rather amoral.
A perfectly conscious being should be rather amoral.
I disagree, a conscious individual is a moralist in the highest sense. All enlightened individuals have preferences of what they know to be fair, balanced and absolutely true in contrast to what they know isn't.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:All enlightened individuals have preferences of what they know to be fair, balanced and absolutely true in contrast to what they know isn't.
Fair and balanced arises from a dualistic moralistic framework. The non-dualistic enlightened mind that it is all the work of nature and there is no condemnation for unfairness and imbalance, for actually there is no unfairness and imbalance and all is as it is.
