weebag Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 if there was no government, people would be better able to defend themselves against thieves. So an escalation of violence would occur. Great. Well thought through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UK Debt Slave Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 We have to have threats because if we didn't there would be threats. You seem to have the wild idea that a world with no government will be some utopian existence where nobody will try to take your stuff. You have a very peculiar view about human nature if you believe that. Some level of governmentseems to be a necessary evil. I concede that having the checks and balances in place to stop it becoming more interested in itself is pretty much impossible in the longer term. There will never be such a thing as incorruptible government. There will never be such a thing as incorruptible individuals either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickywackywoo Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 So an escalation of violence would occur.Great. Well thought through. Don't be so pessimistic - it wouldn't be all bad you know. I'd get to give the taxman both barrels and laugh my socks off when somebody took out Brown and his cronies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flatdog Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Until the thieves realise it's not in their interests to do that. Everything is negotiable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 You seem to have the wild idea that a world with no government will be some utopian existence where nobody will try to take your stuff.You have a very peculiar view about human nature if you believe that. I know that people will do what's in their self interest. I know that self interest is best served by not stealing. All that awaits is anough realising these two facts. Some level of governmentseems to be a necessary evil. I concede that having the checks and balances in place to stop it becoming more interested in itself is pretty much impossible in the longer term. There will never be such a thing as incorruptible government. There will never be such a thing as incorruptible individuals either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Until the thieves realise it's not in their interests to do that. I cant envisage a scenario where it would not be in their interests Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickywackywoo Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 I know that people will do what's in their self interest. I know that self interest is best served by not stealing. All that awaits is anough realising these two facts. You seem a little naive about human nature Injin. The world is full of dumb unscrupulous people who would never realise it was not in their best interests to steal something. In fact, they'd look at you like you were mad for even suggesting it to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InternationalRockSuperstar Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 So an escalation of violence would occur.Great. Well thought through. and you say that because... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Until the thieves realise it's not in their interests to do that. Yeah, coz people that steal other peoples stuff are entirely rational! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UK Debt Slave Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 The Bill of Rights is reasonably easy to understand. It's a document I think everybody should read because it's such an eye opener. You're reading it and a dozen every day breeches spring to mind immediately - the way the Inland Revenue operate, speeding tickets/fines, torture (US and UK Governments), divorce/custody (on about ten million different fronts) and on and on...Trouble is, what can you do if nobody seems capable of holding Governments to the law. I think you are mistaking constitutional law with civil law. Civil law is all contractual. Act and statutes are given the force of law by the consent of the governed. Of course, they don't tell you that you don't have to consent. They just trick you into agreeing to stuff and befuddle you with a language that masquerades as English, legalese. The moment you even give a policeman or a court official your name, you have consented to be governed without your knowledge because they have associated you with the fictional legal entity that they use to rob you, 'the person' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Yeah, coz people that steal other peoples stuff are entirely rational! Yes, all people are always rational, self interested and moral. They also have imperfect knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 and you say that because... Because history says thats what happens. The strongest (or those with the biggest guns) survive. Our best bet is to have some say over who has the biggest guns and have them accountable. Oooh, that would be a government. Still, you think your system works - care to give me a modern day example where it does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickywackywoo Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 I think you are mistaking constitutional law with civil law.Civil law is all contractual. Act and statutes are given the force of law by the consent of the governed. Of course, they don't tell you that you don't have to consent. They just trick you into agreeing to stuff and befuddle you with a language that masquerades as English, legalese. The moment you even give a policeman or a court official your name, you have consented to be governed without your knowledge because they have associated you with the fictional legal entity that they use to rob you, 'the person' In what way am I confusing the two? The Bill of Rights specifically forbids certain activities that are carried out on a day to day basis by the Government. As far as I'm aware the Bill of Rights hasn't been abolished and I believe it cannot be legally overridden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Because history says thats what happens. The strongest (or those with the biggest guns) survive. Our best bet is to have some say over who has the biggest guns and have them accountable. Oooh, that would be a government. Still, you think your system works - care to give me a modern day example where it does? You've attacked how many people this week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InternationalRockSuperstar Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Our best bet is to have some say over who has the biggest guns and have them accountable. Oooh, that would be a government. you think the gov't is accountable! Still, you think your system works - care to give me a modern day example where it does? there was a hpc thread on Somalia last week. I suggest you read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Yes, all people are always rational, self interested and moral.They also have imperfect knowledge. So how do you know your suggested solution would work - its only a theory. No empircal evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 you think the gov't is accountable!No, not nearly enough. But the solution is not anarchy. there was a hpc thread on Somalia last week. I suggest you read it. I did. And compare Somalia to here (UK) and tell me where you would rather live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InternationalRockSuperstar Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 I did.And compare Somalia to here (UK) and tell me where you would rather live. wrong comparison. you need to compare how Somalia is now to how it was with government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill still Posted August 9, 2009 Author Share Posted August 9, 2009 Ok, what is the alternative then so we can have a society that is something other than gun-toting anarchy? a law is when a group of control freaks write down on a piece of paper how they want everyone else to behave and then hire armed thugs to enforce across a particular territory.why would you want to do this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 So how do you know your suggested solution would work - its only a theory. No empircal evidence. No, my theory is derived from my own day to day ecperience of the world. Whereas your is flat out excuse making propaganda nonsense. How many people have you threatened or attacked this week? I am betting none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest UK Debt Slave Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 In what way am I confusing the two? The Bill of Rights specifically forbids certain activities that are carried out on a day to day basis by the Government. As far as I'm aware the Bill of Rights hasn't been abolished and I believe it cannot be legally overridden. Lawfully overridden I think The Bill of Rights has basically been flushed down the toilet. It's gone. We all live under Admiralty Law now. We're already ruled from Brussels in most respects. Our own government will soon be redundent anyway. Bye bye habeas corpus! It's gone mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Yes, all people are always rational, self interested and moral. Including all members of the Government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill still Posted August 9, 2009 Author Share Posted August 9, 2009 Right. I did.And compare Somalia to here (UK) and tell me where you would rather live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 Including all members of the Government? Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebag Posted August 9, 2009 Share Posted August 9, 2009 wrong comparison.you need to compare how Somalia is now to how it was with government. Why? Why cant I compare this country with how it would be without government? Why do I have to use YOUR example? How about if Somalia had a govement that worked EXACTLY as ours does? Where would you rather live? The UK with a government, or Somalia without a government? See, your simplistic idealism falls apart at that question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.