by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .239240241242243244245. . .556557»

North pacific economic commonwealth

Stormaen wrote:Tax, if you think about it, is just legalised theft. The idea itself evolved from tithes: paying as a compensation for services rendered. BigStrong defends the hill fort, people give him food as thanks. But when the hill fort didn't need defending, he turned his strengths to extorting said food.

Tinker with the terms and conditions and you have our modern taxation.

Many things in society are punished as criminal, while similar deeds are upheld as necessary for society. For example, are wars not just state(s)-sponsored murder, arson, and general destruction? I'd say that at least some wars may perhaps be necessary.

North pacific economic commonwealth wrote:Many things in society are punished as criminal, while similar deeds are upheld as necessary for society. For example, are wars not just state(s)-sponsored murder, arson, and general destruction? I'd say that at least some wars may perhaps be necessary.

I would completely agree. That's how I regard the death penalty also.

North pacific economic commonwealth

Stormaen wrote:I would completely agree. That's how I regard the death penalty also.

We need certain institutions that some may see as criminal to benefit the many.

"Government" is arbitrary. It exists because it mandates itself to exist. Everything the government offers can be obtained without government at personal cost (or charity) instead of state cost (which is really just indirect personal cost). Free healthcare is never free. Social welfare is never free. National defence is never free. "Government" cannot give what it has not first taken away from someone else.

If I set up a body of individuals and began "defending" my local area – from threats perceived or real – and only I was allowed to know the full nature of that which I was "defending" against, then charged the locals for the cost of that defence, I'd be arrested for racketeering. Anybody who refused to pay the charge or otherwise stood up the system would be hailed a hero. Now if I call my body of individuals a "government", suddenly racketeering becomes tax collection and those who don't pay are criminals and those who oppose are crazed at best, enemies of the state at worst.

It is a woefully unimaginative mind that accepts authority – which elected or not, "government" constitutes – without questioning its validity and its necessity. In nature, if there is no need for something to exist it does not exist. "Governments" do not physically exist. It cannot be touched. It is a figment most accept. "Government" does not exist in nature because there is no need for it.

North pacific economic commonwealth

Stormaen wrote:"Government" is arbitrary. It exists because it mandates itself to exist. Everything the government offers can be obtained without government at personal cost (or charity) instead of state cost (which is really just indirect personal cost). Free healthcare is never free. Social welfare is never free. National defence is never free. "Government" cannot give what it has not first taken away from someone else.

If I set up a body of individuals and began "defending" my local area – from threats perceived or real – and only I was allowed to know the full nature of that which I was "defending" against, then charged the locals for the cost of that defence, I'd be arrested for racketeering. Anybody who refused to pay the charge or otherwise stood up the system would be hailed a hero. Now if I call my body of individuals a "government", suddenly racketeering becomes tax collection and those who don't pay are criminals and those who oppose are crazed at best, enemies of the state at worst.

It is a woefully unimaginative mind that accepts authority – which elected or not, "government" constitutes – without questioning its validity and its necessity. In nature, if there is no need for something to exist it does not exist. "Governments" do not physically exist. It cannot be touched. It is a figment most accept. "Government" does not exist in nature because there is no need for it.

Government is necessary for the progress of humanity. The point of a government is to regulate the actions of beings that can act in ways that can harm one or more other people, the environment and surroundings, or non-human living beings. Human nature dictates that humans will take more than they need and work as little as possible.
Tax collection over racketeering is that tax collection, as it should always be, offers a solution developed by many people to solve, treat, or prevent an issue that affects some or all of a population. A racket, by definition, is fraud, because there is no issue to solve.

Government does exist in nature, any group of animals will have an Alpha, that Alpha is responsible for protection of his group and territory. Nature provided the need for government, man has corrupted it.

Right butt cheek

We are good at that aren't we?
Destroying things.

North pacific economic commonwealth wrote:Government is necessary for the progress of humanity.

Interesting. Which particular function (s) of government do you consider necessary, and why?

North pacific economic commonwealth wrote:Human nature dictates that humans will take more than they need and work as little as possible.

From my reading in the subject the evidence is against you on that. In general people prefer a fair distribution of resources and like to make a meaningful contribution. That's not to say that everyone agrees on what is fair, but by and large people are not naturally moochers.

Post self-deleted by Stormaen.

North pacific economic commonwealth wrote:Government is necessary for the progress of humanity.

I would say the complete opposite is true. "Government" has done nothing to advance humanity thus far, unless you regard butchering each other for a claim or resources progress, in which case we've made lots. The sole thing "government" has ever done is to serve itself: it created regulations and regulators to regulate the regulations and pushed itself as the sole middleman for all human affairs. It created nothing that bettered mankind. Instead of relying on communities for support, the disadvantaged of society must now rely on a faceless cynical bureaucrat bound by regulations. Instead of openly swap goods for services or innocently and honestly earn a living, we must register every move, every sale, every transaction with "government" and those same middlemen so that we "pay what we owe". We owe "government" nothing. It doesn't feed us, clothe us or advance us. It hinders us. It offers nothing but hindrance and in copious amounts. Science, trade, communities: these advance us. Regulations, tax, bureaucracy, war: these do nothing for mankind; they solely serve the beast called "government".

*Corrected autocorrects...

Johnny la rue

@ Stormaen

Without structure in society (i.e. government), you're looking at anarchy and a bartering society. You paint a very rosy picture of a world without the necessary structure and rules and regulations, and laws, that prevent things from falling apart. Do you really think people would live as idealistically as you seem to think? In my view: absolutely not. People are communal only when they too feel safe or they feel they have no choice, otherwise, it's survival of the fittest. Why else do you think ancient societies had chiefs or kings: to provide protection, leadership, guidance. We're not a hunter/gatherer society any longer, and to think government has no role is just wishful thinking.

North pacific economic commonwealth

Stormaen wrote:I would say the complete opposite is true. "Government" has done nothing to advance humanity thus far, unless you regard butchering each other for a claim or resources progress, in which case we've made lots. The sole thing "government" has ever done is to serve itself: it created regulations and regulators to regulate the regulations and pushed itself as the sole middleman for all human affairs. It created nothing that bettered mankind. Instead of relying on communities for support, the disadvantaged of society must now rely on a faceless cynical bureaucrat bound by regulations. Instead of openly swap goods for services or innocently and honestly earn a living, we must register every move, every sale, every transaction with "government" and those same middlemen so that we "pay what we owe". We owe "government" nothing. It doesn't feed us, clothe us or advance us. It hinders us. It offers nothing but hindrance and in copious amounts. Science, trade, communities: these advance us. Regulations, tax, bureaucracy, war: these do nothing for mankind; they solely serve the beast called "government".

*Corrected autocorrects...

Science, trade, communities.. They need regulation because without it it'd be an anything-goes situation. Letting a cabal of scientists and engineers withhold advancement from the people? Without government, there'd be no regulation of human behavior, resulting in the ability to do anything you wish: murder, theft, arson... The government has advanced humanity. How many times has it brought up settlements of people into the metropolises of today? What about foreign aid given to developing or undeveloped countries? Charity doesn't fix it all, you know. How much progress has been made to reduce disease and other consequences of poverty?

North pacific economic commonwealth

At this point, it feels that your opinion is a knee-jerk reaction due to the huge disappointments of modern government, especially the US.

Lone star diplomatic mission

North pacific economic commonwealth wrote:At this point, it feels that your opinion is a knee-jerk reaction due to the huge disappointments of modern government, especially the US.

True. Really though it would be nice to be able to strike a healthy balance of government and living one's life without so much interference from it.

Government doesn't need to be huge or to live our lives for us in order to achieve the role government should play in our every day lives.

I think that is what Storm was going for.

Cromwell protectorate

Hope everyone is doing well!

Love, Lynz

We are having a devil of a time thanks Lynz!

Lone star diplomatic mission wrote:True. Really though it would be nice to be able to strike a healthy balance of government and living one's life without so much interference from it.

Government doesn't need to be huge or to live our lives for us in order to achieve the role government should play in our every day lives.

I think that is what Storm was going for.

That's certainly what I believer and was perhaps the original message I was going for but I do like to play devil's advocate with ideas and push them further, explore their extremities. :P

North pacific economic commonwealth wrote:At this point, it feels that your opinion is a knee-jerk reaction due to the huge disappointments of modern government, especially the US.

No knee jerk reaction. More an evolution of ideas. Neither am I American. Also, I'm not an anarchist. I consider myself more of a 'classic liberal'. "Disappointments of modern government" is an interesting summation. Methinks that is the frustration of many nowadays. There's only one way to change it...

Next debate (if we're ready to move on):

Freedom of speech should be absolute or not at all: everyone should have the right to say what they think, feel and believe. Conversely, nobody has the right to be offended and, by extension, curtail the absolute freedom of speech of someone else because of their own sensitivities.

Right butt cheek

Stormaen wrote:

Freedom of speech should be absolute or not at all: everyone should have the right to say what they think, feel and believe. Conversely, nobody has the right to be offended and, by extension, curtail the absolute freedom of speech of someone else because of their own sensitivities.

I would have to agree with that. It would be nicer if people were more apathic, some people get riled up on things like how crapy our political system is. For me it's number lines I hate number lines, I get how they can be convenet on the off chance but they are an absolute waste of time.

Stormaen wrote:

Freedom of speech should be absolute or not at all: everyone should have the right to say what they think, feel and believe. Conversely, nobody has the right to be offended and, by extension, curtail the absolute freedom of speech of someone else because of their own sensitivities.

Where do your freedoms end and mine begin? With absolute free speech all hate speech would be protected and allowed, including threats, intimidation, slander etc.
No free speech is what North Korea and China have. You believe what we tell you and if anyone says differently they get shot.

Free speech just like government is not black and white there is no either or.

hello everyone

Salut

*Brings in fresh doughnuts and beer* Enjoy!

Deadmonton oilers

Wat! We won a game in a shootout! Must be trying to cover up the tank in process for McDavid.

Deadmonton oilers wrote:Wat! We won a game in a shootout! Must be trying to cover up the tank in process for McDavid.

At least you have a process...... and a win.

Reid is a tank

Yellow People

«12. . .239240241242243244245. . .556557»

Advertisement