This post was last modified: 08-10-2011 01:40 AM by piePIEpie.

Just watched that teletubbies video...

Kapkao Wrote:

Just watched that teletubbies video...

I call godwin on the video........

Kapkao Wrote:

Just watched that teletubbies video...

You're probably too young to get the Duckhunt Dog reference...

piePIEpie Wrote:

Kapkao Wrote:

Just watched that teletubbies video...

You're probably too young to get the Duckhunt Dog reference...

I am enough of a nerd to get it.

In a democratic system everyone that votes can be interpreted as "government".
You voting for a man to take me to jail for having a piece of vegetation in my pocket is the same as you doing it yourself. Here's a question, why dont the people who desire specific laws in a society be the only ones to pay for the enforcement? Why do they force people that disagree with them to help pay for the enforcement with defusing the costs?

Why don't they have to defend it? It is the status quo after all and its been pretty ineffective for the most part.

Just like religion, for thousands of years people have considered questioning religion due to the countless wars and genocides but have been always stopped for not having an alternative to religion.
("I cant give you all of the answers but i can give you theories":http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGdG9y1xEVQ)

The alternative has come in the form of the state acting as a quasi god figure that has the job of solving all of societies problems but even this has proved ineffective in the long run and only makes the problems harder to see.
The idea that maybe we shouldn't have a state/religious ideology at all is now starting to emerge and is inevitable.

In the end anti statists are just like scientists with theories and statists are religious gurus who just provide an impractical answer, the guru is taken more seriously because of his direct answer instead of theory.

And so...........

Semi/fully Tested and untested theories like Austrian Economics > Direct incorrect answers that sometimes give short term gains and are accepted because of the short term gain like Keynesian economics.

Go on......

That's a very well thought-out, eloquently expressed opinion. Here's another well expressed opinion: "You're a big fat doodiehead!". You want to equate several positions on the matter and pull comparisons and analogies out of your ass, be my guest, but do it with someone else. Because I find it an even bigger and more obnoxious intellectual cop-out than the strawmen you used so abundantly in the last post (and still use to some extent.) But as I said, you seem to want others to do the grunt work of lending support arguments and logic to their ideologies in place of yourself, and that you have gone out of your way to post the aforementioned crap analogies and comparisons, along with a fuckton of logical fallacies changes this very little. I'll be abandoning this infinitely pointless discussion now, you may have the last word.

Here's the real test, answer these questions and we know where you stand and whether you are prepared for logic in social philosophy:

Should something be a crime because of an innate effect of the action or should something be a crime if the majority of the population find it gross or don't like it regardless of the effects?

Should something be a crime that you do to yourself and that effects nobody else directly (suicide, drug use in my home, sex acts etc)?

This post was last modified: 08-10-2011 07:43 AM by mdr.

I don't think for an instant that there is any chance of me convincing you of anything.

I am not going to try to convince you that the state has any inherent right to tell you what you can or cannot do. Because the reality is that it does not have any such inherent right.

The reason, I assume, why most thoughtful people do not support a stateless society is that they lack faith in much of humanity to behave in a reasonable and civilized manner under such a (lack of) regime.

What happens when the state is abolished and society descends into a battle for control between rival warlords whose followers have no reason to fear the consequences of their actions? Somalia anyone?

What happens when the state is abolished and an external force moves in and imposes an ideology on you that is far more abhorrent than anything you currently have?

You want me to change my views and support anti-statism. I don't have any agenda to convince anyone of my ideology. Sure, you can say that the burden of proof is on me, but even if that is perfectly valid it gets you nowhere because I don't care if you support my ideology or not.

Let us exaggerate the number of anti-statists out there and say that they represent 0.1% of the population. Now that 0.1% would need to convince the majority of the 99.9% who are not anti-statists that their ideology is sound before they can even start to get somewhere. Good luck with that considering your current attitude.

The riots in london recently intensified a hell of a lot more when they thought the police would be slow to turn up.

Government is abusive sometimes, but assuming everything would be fine without it is just downright naive.

Government, for it's infinite flaws regarding policy-making at times, is certainly better at keeping law and order than any other option our species can conceive, presently. Of course, that doesn't stop people from suggesting we "throw the baby out with the bathwater" (abolish a part of government and leave it's function, however vital, to market forces) anytime some aspect or agency of national government displays shortcomings or flaws.

I already brought up Somalia. Another example could be pre-Taliban Afghanistan in the early to mid 90s, although Afghans were even worse off during the Taliban's regime. However, for a real example of zero governance and authority is a society that quickly slides into an "every man for himself" type arms race, Survival of the Fittest makes a sudden return and inside what remains of civilization even, a few intelligent persons realize there best chances survive and thrive lies in forming teams, militaries, kingdoms, and once again, nations. Many of these new nations will be despotic and authoritarian in a backlash against the lawlessness that existed previously.