XPost: alt.politics.radical-left, alt.politics.socialism, alt.po
itics.libertarian
XPost: talk.politics.libertarian
From: fred@fredwilliams.ca
On Friday 06 June 2008 19:42, PeterBP wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
>> Sombody wrote:
>> > Maybe for some. But consider this - if government is voluntary, why
>> > does it need to use coercion to achieve its aims?
>>
>> Ah, a question right out of the CIA rhetorical manual. OK.
>
> Sillyness. I know of no such manual and have not read it even if it
> exists.
>
Not silliness at all. You can go on many newsgroups and find
discussions like this where one or sometimes two people support the
right wing agenda and they all use the same phrases and the same
tactics. Their objective is to cloud the waters, get people upset and
screaming at each other and basically destroy the atmosphere where
others can share ideas and news because some become engrossed in the
argument and others become intimidated and shut up. Either way the
usefulness of the group is damaged, which serves their purpose.
>> The government's job it to legislate and pass laws that keep
>> people
>> from hurting each other. Laws are not much good without being
>> enforced.
>
> People will hurt each other even if there are laws. The existence of
> laws have not stopped murder and rape, has it?
>
But the answer is not to do away with the laws. That just makes
matters worse.
When laws are just, they are supported by the people and it is this
public agreement, this social contract, that makes laws work. Without
laws there would be a hundred or maybe a thousand times as many murders
and rapes.
>> Next, you'll say that this force is a loss of freedom and
>> unacceptable
> .
>
> Obviously.
>
It's in the manual.
>> The people will still be there
>> and interaction problems will still exist and require a response. If
>> there is a government, then at least a mechanism will exist for
>> dealing with the problems.
>
> Yes. Much the same way that using a sawn-off shotgun applied to a
> crowd of people can solve the problem of a bank robber who is running
> through that crowd.
>
Not in that way at all. But the alternative, doing away with
government, brings on the mindset of the wild west where the most
violent and ruthless people got to do whatever they wanted.
>> If you throw away the government, then people will
>> deal with their problems in, shall we say, "unstructured" ways.
>
> Be more specific. What is "unstructured" and why is it bad?
>
I explained that in my very next sentence, which you split of just
below here.
>> That
>> results in all manner of violence and even deaths.
>
> Violence and dath is what you have today, and you have not only lots
> of state (what you refer to as government, but state in abundance. Are
> the troubles you object to gone because if this? No?
>
No we do not have violence and death, not in the scope that I'm talking
about. People can still do some work and walk the streets without
getting shot. It's pretty calm out there. We have a government run by
the worst criminals in the world, but things are orderly. What we have
to do is get a government run by the people and things will improve
tremendously.
>> Not what I would
>> call "freedom."
>
> Freedom is absence of coercion for the individual. Do you disagree? If
> so, why?
>
This is really complicated. Yes, I disagree. The reasons are plain in
my previous postings. As long as you have more than one person in a
society, you will have disagreements about what they should do. You
will call any compromise, "coercion," but it isn't. It's just part of
what we have to do to get along with others. With larger numbers, we
call that "government."
>> Government is there for a purpose.
>
> Existence itself does not imply purpose. That is the creationist
> fallacy.
>
>> If it is not working it needs to be
>> fixed, no question!
>
> But your fix seems to want to make the problem worse, not lessened.
>
Have I said what "my fix" would be? Doing away with government would
make the problem worse. That's your fix.
>> If a certain form is not working, then another
>> form needs to be tried.
>
> Indeed. But does it need to be ried everywhere at once, under force?
>
Under agreement, obviously.
>> But to throw it out completely leaves us with
>> no way to do deal with the problems that will continue to exist
>> anyway,
>
> You still have those problems, and to some degree, you will have these
> problems no matter what, because they are inherent to human existence,
> and no amount of good intentions or alternative meathods will change
> that.
>
Not true. Getting everybody, or most people, to understand the
problems and talk about dealing with them and working on agreements on
how to deal with them will help solve the problems. That process is
called "government."
>> whether we keep it or not. We will still have to deal with other
>> people and they will have to deal with us.
>
> Correct.
>
Exactly so. Dealing with others and finding solutions to their
problems is the work of government, (as I said above). To throw out
government is to not deal with the problems. The problems get worse.
>> Now I believe in anarchistic process as much as anyone. This
>> means
>> that I don't like the idea of anyone being in charge of anybody else
>> and telling them what to do.
>
> This is where you are wrong. There are things in life where you cannot
> avoid person X telling person Y what to do. There will be hierarchies
> between humans, if you want it or not.
>
That's one of the problems that people hope to solve with government.
They make laws regarding what person X and parson Y can do to one
another.
> State, however, is about *involuntary* hierarchy. How about merely
> trying on its opposite, namely voluntary, and natural hierarchy?
>
That was the problem in the first palce. Government was invented to
stop this horror.
--
Peace,
Fred
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
