- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- Political Views
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| Political Views | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 18 2011, 03:25 AM (3,185 Views) | |
| SirParagon | Nov 18 2011, 05:44 AM Post #46 |
Sparking!
|
When concerning government there may not always be direct violence, but the threat is always there. Try resisting an arrest. You can't deny the importance of why questions, everything is meaningless without them. 'Why' question our way of doing things, they encourage thought, they initiate social change. It's just like suggesting that hardware/software are the most important aspects of an information system when it was built to serve the needs of people. Edited by SirParagon, Nov 18 2011, 05:48 AM.
|
|
New Account: Spirit Metaphor Voluntarism? | |
 |
 
|
| Mihawk | Nov 18 2011, 05:47 AM Post #47 |
 
|
I already answered. It's because handing it over to a government has proven to work better than allowing people to enact their own justice. There are places in Africa with no government, and the chain of hatred and self justice are never ending. Everyone is obbsesed with enacting their own form of justice. While people around the globe become more peacful with democratic or republic based governments, the certain places in Africa remain exactly the same or in some cases worse as more dangerous weapons are introduced. |
 | |
|
|
|
| SirParagon | Nov 18 2011, 05:49 AM Post #48 |
|
Sparking!
|
You're ignoring the issue here, I'm stating government is immoral and you're throwing examples concerning how things operate currently. How does that answer anything? Edited by SirParagon, Nov 18 2011, 05:50 AM.
|
|
New Account: Spirit Metaphor Voluntarism? | |
|
|
|
| + Pelador | Nov 18 2011, 05:51 AM Post #49 |
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
Why would I try to resist an arrest? If I did so then it would suggest guilt and I would deservedly be dragged to the ground and handcuffed. Police have to be careful not to be too forceful these days because of how easy it is to file a lawsuit against them, even if I was found guilty I could still sue. You're correct. We should always be asking why. But until somebody solves the question asked by figuring out how, we don't progress anywhere. |
 http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
|
|
|
| Mihawk | Nov 18 2011, 05:52 AM Post #50 |
|
I already answered that too. It's the better of two. While government can be immoral, it promotes more peace than without government. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| SirParagon | Nov 18 2011, 06:02 AM Post #51 |
|
Sparking!
|
Why does it promote more peace? Wars could not be funded to the sheer destructive scale we see today without taxation, there wouldn't even be much motivation for conquering other countries if there was no tax base to take over and exploit (is it profitable to take over a farm or a swamp?). A proper free-market stateless system has never even been attempted in the history of humanity, how could you accurately assuming anything about it with any legitimacy (regarding why we shouldn't try it). @Peldator Why does not concern how, how is a response to why. Also, what I mean is, if people in uniform were literally dragging you to prison (say for some silly victimless crime like the possession of a few bits of labelled leaves in your pocket), you can't exactly defend yourself without the situation escalating, they're obligated to kill you if things get bad enough. Edited by SirParagon, Nov 18 2011, 06:07 AM.
|
|
New Account: Spirit Metaphor Voluntarism? | |
|
|
|
| Mihawk | Nov 18 2011, 06:09 AM Post #52 |
|
Wars would be between tribes, families, etc. That's why I gave the example of places in Africa already. There are places with literally no government. Families just live on their own. And guess what? You live every second there like you may not make it to the next. While the democratic republics move to understanding and peace very slowly, the lawless places in Africa inch run towards an increasingly tiny survival rate. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| + Pelador | Nov 18 2011, 06:09 AM Post #53 |
|
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
You seem to think taxes are a bad thing. They're not. They pay for pretty much everything. Without them, we'd have no way of keeping anything running. We'd go back to the dark ages. We don't invade countries to exploit their tax systems. We do it to explout their mineral deposits but in exchange we sell them weapons and technology and set up commercial outlets such as McDonalds. A proper free market system has been attempted and it failed and I think the leader became a tyrant, as happens with most non democratic systems, even when they start off as decent people with good intentions. Someone smarter than me may be able to explain to you why 100% free market doesn't work. No one in uniform is going to drag me to prison and have me killed for carring leaves in my pocket. That's just silly. |
|
http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
|
|
|
| SirParagon | Nov 18 2011, 06:14 AM Post #54 |
|
Sparking!
|
It doesn't matter if you use the money you steal to build a shiny new children's hospital, fact remains you still stole it, you violated someone else's properly, it was immoral. Dark ages? Seriously? Government ****ery is what caused our historical dark-ages. We made massive leaps and bounds while government was small coming out of the dark ages. Government leeches off a booming economy, becomes bloated again -> over-regulates -> economic downfall -> more dark age. Raw materials are petty compared to the sheer revenue gained through the taxation of an entire population. Free market anarchy has never been attempted, by definition there is no leader, there can be no tyrant. There are only people, needs and transactions. If someone doesn't want to play nice then they're ostracised until they feel the need to redeem themselves. That is the essence of anarchy. Granted it also relies on peaceful upbringings and teaching critical thinking which is just as possible as widespread patriotic indoctrination today. @ illstand1 Why is it relevant to compare us to extremely primitive societies who literally don't know any better. Also don't forget that Africa was screwed up big-time by jerk-ass colonization. Edited by SirParagon, Nov 18 2011, 06:27 AM.
|
|
New Account: Spirit Metaphor Voluntarism? | |
|
|
|
| + Pelador | Nov 18 2011, 06:26 AM Post #55 |
|
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
The government doesn't steal our money. We give it to them. So we can have an education. It works. I like knowing that I'm paying for somebody to teach my children lots of things which I could never do myself. I don't understand your second sentance. The dark ages were called that because everything fell apart after the Roman Empire collapsed and we reverted to a more basic way of life, where we discovered very few things for hundreds of years. Culturally and technologically. All that happened were changes in territories between kings. It was a horrible time to live. Thing is we don't tax foreign countries. So all we can do is take some of their mineral deposits. Ostracised? You mean like being sent to prison? Like we do at the moment for people who won't comply with the law? Which won't exist because you have anarchy, which means no one would have the right to punish anyone. Because there is no law, because it is anarchy. If you have rules then it isn't anarchy. |
|
http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
|
|
|
| SirParagon | Nov 18 2011, 06:39 AM Post #56 |
|
Sparking!
|
Taxation would not require laws if everyone wanted it. Taxation is theft, we just like to think of it as voluntary to satisfy our perception of freedom. You like knowing what you're paying for? How the hell do you know your tax money isn't going toward putting a bullet into someone else's skull? Or lining the pockets of corrupt officials? In reality, the vast majority of tax revenue goes toward paying off ludicrous government debt. Look at the state of public education, it's atrocious, literacy rates among the poor are actually falling since implementation. Dark age. The Roman Empire collapsed due to over-expansion (not just geographically, in power), the parallels with today are uncanny. I never suggested the dark ages weren't bad, I'm saying government power/regulation was extremely low coming into the renaissance - look at all the progress made during that time. Governments don't tax independent foreign countries (?), why wouldn't governments tax countries that it fully conquers? What I mean concerning ostracism... not being able to partake in everyday transactions, there is no public property in a stateless society, thus there is nothing to facilitate underhanded behaviour. Once you're reputation is marked, you will have a troubling time trying to integrate back into society without first going through a process of redemption. The only reason someone should be physically isolated is if they're (dangerously) mentally unstable and such a person could be easily identified before they cause trouble. Edited by SirParagon, Nov 18 2011, 06:50 AM.
|
|
New Account: Spirit Metaphor Voluntarism? | |
|
|
|
| Meowth | Nov 18 2011, 12:37 PM Post #57 |
=._.=
|
Can you try, you know, posting some sources to back up your claims? According to the world factbook, the US has a 99% literacy rate[1] as compared to 97.9% in 1993[2], while it doesn't make a seperation of rich and poor, if there was a significant amount of poor kids not being able to read, it would bring the average down. This is an aside anyway. But yeah, a lack of government makes no sense, literacy rates would most likely plummet and violance would increase, there would be nothing to stop tribes forming in the absense of any real leadership and each tribe would therefor have its own set of rules and would attack another tribe for not agreeing with their rules. Even then, a tribe has a leader which is a form of government. You can never have no government, it's not possible, someone will take charge because that's what people and all animals do, they all have a leader of some form or other, people are animals, while we might be able to do more but when it comes down to it, we aren't much diffrent.
But who's going to define a dangerous person? If the state doesn't because of it's absense, who will? Stable/unstable is as subjective as good/evil, what's to stop child labour with state regulation? Or discrimination? Or the weak and vulnerable being executed? Without laws and regulation, we would be much closer to our animal friends than we are. [1] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html - expand People and Society [2] http://www.umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact93/wf940236.txt |
 
| |
|
|
|
| SirParagon | Nov 18 2011, 02:52 PM Post #58 |
|
Sparking!
|
When I say literacy rate I mean overall skill/fluency in English amongst those who directly receive an education, but yeah I'm not 100% sure about the accuracy of wherever I picked that up, I still wouldn't call it unreasonable to suggest the standard of education for the poor is abysmal as things stand, the statistics are not really the point.
Indoctrinated assumptions. Let's go through this: "Literacy rates would most likely plummet" If you're concerned about the poor receiving an education that means charities are as well. Regardless, it is a delusion to be under the impression the poor are receiving anything close to an adequate education and equal opportunity under the current system. "Violence would increase" Anarchy =/= zero rules. Do not forgot the power of ostracism - you can already see it on sites like eBay (reputation system). Why are people violent in the first place? People cannot possibly be violent if they've never been directly exposed to the language of violence during their upbringing. The state itself expresses inherently violent ideals and violence is already increasing worldwide due to state activity. Such an argument against anarchy is not very sound. "there would be nothing to stop tribes forming in the absence of any real leadership and each tribe would therefor have its own set of rules and would attack another tribe for not agreeing with their rules" It's a bit humorous, you seem to be envisioning some sort of Mad Max dystopia with this statement. This is not how a civilized free-market based system works. Yet tribes forming and attacking other tribes for not agreeing with their viewpoint is an accurate metaphor for government activity on the global stage. The non-aggression principle as a moral guideline is dead-simple, we practically learn it as toddlers (do not initiate force, do not violate the property of others). There is no need for a massive convoluted book of laws let alone a dominating institution which doesn't even follow the countless rules it imposes.
Once society as a whole recognises an immorality it can never grow back. I refer to slavery a lot because it's an excellent example. again... Human nature is not a constant, it is adaptive. You can't seriously compare the complex operations of humanity to primitive beasts. That's setting a pitifully low standard. Show me a dog that is capable of existential contemplation, moral philosophy, science, language and creative expression then you can tell me we aren't much different from animals.
Violent mental instability is not a good/evil debate, mentally unstable would refer to harbouring a frequent and or easily triggered intent to harm others (or perhaps themselves). It is a troubling lack of faith in humanity to believe the only thing preventing society from a nightmarish collapse is the corrupt foundations of government 'virtue'. Can't you see we're already collapsing? government cannot prevent this disaster because it is the root cause. People rallying for anarchy is the last thing governments want, so of course they're going to sow the seeds of anxiety when it comes to the issue. Why would a government system even consider teaching free-market anarchy as a legitimate way for society to operate? It would be utter madness, like a teacher teaching their class how to kill the teacher. No, instead they belittle the concept and bolster the perception of their own necessity. Edited by SirParagon, Nov 18 2011, 03:02 PM.
|
|
New Account: Spirit Metaphor Voluntarism? | |
|
|
|
| Meowth | Nov 18 2011, 03:25 PM Post #59 |
|
=._.=
|
This is pretty funny, anarchy is essentially the absense of the state and absolute freedom to the individual, if laws are defined by someone, it is not pure anarchy, someone or group of people would have had to put the rules forward and someone will have to enforce them. As for citing eBay, that's a good joke, I applaud you. You seem to forget that eBay reputation can be rigged by multiple accounts and the only people who can detect and punish the user for it are the sites staff.
Uh, a lot of animal behaviour is not constant, most animals adapt to their surroundings. Why do we have pets? Because that animal was tamed because there was something in it for them, shelter/food/etc meaning they didn't have to hunt for food or risk death from living in the wild. Humans aren't the only ones who adapt to their surroundings and things that happen, while other animals might not be able to comprehend the same things we can, we do share many of the same basic functions, such as the need to gather food, the need to work as a community to get something done and so forth.
What I mean is some people would set the bar of violance higher or lower than others, where is the line drawn? Who decides that?
No, I just have a lack of faith in humanity full stop. Unless you can get rid of the racists, the wife/husband beaters, religion, homophobia and all the other discriminations people harbour, you can never have a peaceful and free society. In a perfect world where there was no discrimination, yes, anarchy would work but we don't live in such a world do we? I don't disagree that anarchy could work but it would only work if there was no/minority discrimination. There are large areas of places that harbour anti-something views and will take actions against that group when/if they can, if you make laws and enforce them, that is a government. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| SirParagon | Nov 18 2011, 03:37 PM Post #60 |
|
Sparking!
|
Rogue... you're perpetually dodging my point that government is immoral. It does not matter how society could run if the state was abolished because we cannot possibly know what opportunities the future holds. Either way, the key to thriving stateless society is a collective peaceful upbringing. I'll keep my idealistic views, you keep your closed-minded views, I've come to the conclusion our viewpoints are fundamentally incompatible.  One last question. Would you advocate the use of force against me as an individual if I did not agree with your ideology?
Edited by SirParagon, Nov 18 2011, 03:48 PM.
|
|
New Account: Spirit Metaphor Voluntarism? | |
|
|
|
| 0 users reading this topic | |
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:50 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy