Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 47
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Borneo
    Posts
    2,089
    Post Thanks / Like

    Scrap Government

    Hopefully this will develop into a worthwhile thread..

    When I spout my anti-gummermint views many peeps seem to think I mean reduce gummermint a little, squeeze it a smidge.

    How about scrapping it all together?

    Obviously not all at once but hows about a a general destruction and banishment of all things gummermint?

    (I use the term 'gummermint' partly as it expresses my utter contempt for government, partly because it has 'mint' on the end) Hopefully, if this thread gets some engaging replies, I'd like to nibble my way through to the end conclusion. Government should be scrapped.

    First of all, let's establish what gummermint is.

    Lethal force.

    That's it. That is the essence of what government is, it is absolutely nothing else, offers nothing else and can never BE anything else.

    So first of all, I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on that point?


    P.
    "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
    head of MI6

    "The Emory University study proves beyond a doubt that politicians and their acolytes - are lying morons."

    "We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it."
    Justice Jackson Nov. 21, 1945, Nuremberg

  2. #2
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    Pibs, what you're going to come up against is that when most folks say, "get rid of government", the first thing that most folks equate that to is "anarchy".

    If it is the case that you are anti-government, but ALSO anti-anarchy, you are going to have to make an argument explaining this viewpoint. Do that first, please.

    If it is the case that you are pro-anarchy, then you have the same problems that anarchists face.

    1) Anarchy works much like communism "works". It works great on paper so long as everyone is nice to one another.

    2) The government also encompasses the legal system. While I agree that the American legal system is lacking, I still assert that a legal system is necessary. In a true Anarchy, there are no police, no courts, no juries and no prisons. If I think that you looked funny at my daughter I can get a few of my friends with shotguns to find you and hang you. If I'm a god-fearing man, maybe I'll just lock you in my basement until my daughter is married off.
    Also, there is no consistency to punishment for crimes committed. A shop keeper may shoot a shoplifter to make an example for others... or cut off a theif's hands... or do both... or neither... it's all up to him.
    There is no justice to be found. Only revenge.

    3) While I agree with you that governments do dish out lethal force in the form of wars and capitol punishment, they also perform many beneficial programs. Yes, many of them could be performed by private businesses... but if we had a society with ONLY private businesses and NO COURT / LEGAL system then those private businesses would be accountable to no one... or accountable to who ever can point a gun to the head of one of their CEO's.

    We shouldn't need police officers. Everyone should just obey the laws and be nice to everyone else. That's not the case. Until then, governments are necessary.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    2,974
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    Government- Set of consequences for disobeying the set of impossible social ideals and the social contract.

    The problem with disbanding government, is that all citizens must learn to gradually need it less and less, until they have taken the social contract into their own hands.

    Also, who is to say that mass populations can be trusted to manage the social contract?
    Fortunately, the darkest of darkness is not as terrible as we fear.
    Unfortunately, the lightest of light, all things good, are not so wonderful as we hope for them to be.
    What, then, is left, but various shades of grey neutrality? Where are the heroes and villains? All I see are people.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    Government is a necessary evil. Necessary to enforce the law and defending individual rights, when it steps beyond this role, however, rights are lost. I disagree that we should scrap government, just reduce it to the role its meant to be.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  5. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Borneo
    Posts
    2,089
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    OK, lemme re-phrase the challenge - scrap national government.

    That way each gummermint is effectively in the 'market' of gummermints - if you are not happy with the town mayor or the state governor, you can move sticks with relative ease.

    Ultimately I believe peeps would move to the state with almost no government - not because it would be a lawless free-for-all but because it would be the most advanced.

    Thing is, rather than leap straight to the end game, I wanna build a case and debate each point in turn, so try an bear with me here

    Capital punishment or war are red herrings, though doubtless unintentional on Z's part, my point is that ANYTHING the gummermint does is done at gun point.

    Throughout history the general mass of people have always been under some form of dictatorship. Monarchies, governments, lords, barons, whatever. America, in shrugging off UK rule did something unique in history - created a large nation with no effective government.

    Yep, the founding peeps figured some level of government was required but made it real seriously restricted and small. The result was people referred to the nation as 'The Free World" and "The Land of the Free" and came flocking from across the whole globe.

    Good times, leading to the wealthiest, most free nation on Earth. Nice.

    Gummermint was restricted with one simple aim in mind - to prevent it becoming the same as the oppressive, murderous dictatorships that the rest of the world did, and had always, suffered under.

    The reason is because gummermint is force. Period. That is what it is. Any single thing the gummermint does it can only do via force.

    What's the difference between a gummermint action and any other? The fact that behind the scenes or overt, someone, somewhere, is being subjected to the threat or use of force.

    Without the threat of a gun, it is not definable as a government action.

    What makes the gummermint suitable for any action? Is it because its non-profit? (yeah, right!)

    Nope, charities are non-profit.

    Is it cos government is big? Nope, some companies have a GDP larger than some countries, we don't call it 'government action' when Microsoft launches a new version of Windows.

    Is it because gummermint is "Free"?

    Nope, no such thing as a free lunch, in fact lunches pretending to be free are often the most expensive. The government is wholly unproductive, it has no wealth other than what it can take (by force) from other people.

    The biggest crime you could commit in the days of serfdom was to upset the King - to insult him or offer resistance to his will. Gummermint is no better. Initially you are advised of your 'failure', perhaps failing to fill in some form on time, then it becomes 'wilful', then 'non-compliance' and eventually leads up to 'resisting' (arrest) and they'll use physical, perhaps lethal, force.

    I don't accept that even a nation with no death penalty is avoiding the threat of lethal force, it's still there. It is not necessary to actually USE that force, the power is in the threat to do so, the willingness to do so and the belief of the serf that it would happen.

    To say that lethal force has to be used is an error - it is not necessary to shot someone dead on the spot in order to give them foodstamps, nor is it necessary to kill someone to collect taxes from them to pay for the foodstamps. As such the word 'lethal' is not needed any more than killing is needed, we can, if you feel more comfy, just say 'force', or coercion.

    Coercion backed up by the threat of total, including lethal, force.

    In other words, power.

    No charity has the power to force you to contribute - UNLESS it gets the gummermint to do it, such as getting the gummermint to supply the service for "Free" and paid for by tax money taken, if need be, at gunpoint.

    Take Microsoft. They can force you to use their software only by being hyper-succesful in the marketplace to the point that every new PC comes with Windows - if you pirate their software they don't come round your house with guns, they inform the gummermint, so the gummermint comes knocking with guns.

    So, can we agree that gummermint is the monopoly on the use of lethal force? This is why you have a police 'force' but a fire 'service'. Without the ability to enFORCE their petty rules they're just peeps blowing bubbles, backed by force it becomes 'law'.


    P.
    "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
    head of MI6

    "The Emory University study proves beyond a doubt that politicians and their acolytes - are lying morons."

    "We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it."
    Justice Jackson Nov. 21, 1945, Nuremberg

  6. #6
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    If you want to see government as "lethal force" in that way, then so be it. However, the alternative get's ugly really fast.

    Government as we know it now: "Do this or else."
    Citizen: "Or else what?"
    Government: "Or else we enforce our laws at 'gunpoint'. However, our law are (in theory) the same for everyone everywhere. Also, you have a minor, but significant role in how we came up with those laws."

    Lack of government model looks something like this:

    Citizen One: "I'm going to do XYZ because I feel that I should be able to do XYZ."
    Citizen Two: "XYZ directly affects me in a negative manner. Knock it off."
    C1: "No."
    C2: *bang* "Problem solved."

    While America still has the "or else" clause woven into its structure there are many issues that need to be examined.

    1) Unlike the feudal system, the average person has a small say in what goes on. He/she has the ability to vote for candidates who hold public offices.

    2) In spite of the many "or else" clauses, the government has an incredible number of hoops it needs to jump through before it deprives any citizen of life, liberty, or property. A medeval Serf had no recourse or defense against his lord barging into his home and searching the place on a whim. In America (before the patriot act) the authorities needed to have a warrant from a judge. They had to prove probably cause (unless they witness a crime in progress). Furthermore, the court system allows private citizens to sue the government for damages. So even if you barge into someone's house with a warrant there is still a good reason for you to be professional as an unecessary cavity search of the Misses will lead to a civil suit where you'll end up paying for life.

    3) I agree that in practice the American government has been corrupted into near dictatorship, but in theory the government is supposed to have power by a mandate from the masses.

    The way I look at it is that as long as people are people, you're going to run into "might makes right" / do it my way because I have the most guns and soldiers OR you're going to run into a system of government that is a more civilized and consistant form of might makes right.

    Without laws, might makes right.
    With laws, there comes the need for law enforcers.

    What you are proposing is a change in human nature.

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    In spite of the many "or else" clauses, the government has an incredible number of hoops it needs to jump through before it deprives any citizen of life, liberty, or property.

    The government must have found a shortcut through thoses hoops in depriving people of their property. Not a day goes by when the government hasnt in someway weasled its way into my pocket book. As I drove back to school last night on a new four lane this state didnt need, I wondered how all those farmer's who had their land confiscated felt. Personal property that was once productive farmland, forced into government hands and then desicrated with concrete. The government certainly has no problem depriving us of our right to property.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  8. #8
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    Give us this day our daily off-topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737
    The government must have found a shortcut through thoses hoops in depriving people of their property.
    Please.

    You let us all know when a U.S. Senator shows up with a swat team and takes away your girlfriend for his sex toy. That's how the Fuedal system was, hoss.

    Not a day goes by when the government hasnt in someway weasled its way into my pocket book. As I drove back to school last night on a new four lane this state didnt need,
    AHAHHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA AHA

    Dude, that's rich.

    *wipes tear*

    "The state didn't need this 4 lane highway... that I'm driving on... that thousands of people use every day. THEY DIDN'T NEED this!"

    Keep shaking your fist, Chad. Keep shaking.

    I wondered how all those farmer's who had their land confiscated felt. Personal property that was once productive farmland, forced into government hands and then desicrated with concrete.
    Oh, you mean those farmers who are paid by the government to NOT grow food? You mean those Ohio farmers who bring in BILLIONS OF DOLLARS of revenue? Those farmers? The ones who are MAKING A KILLING?

    Please.

    The government certainly has no problem depriving us of our right to property.
    You completely misunderstand what I stated. I was speaking in contrast to feudal times.

    Have a pretty daughter? In feudal times, the lord of the domain could abduct her, rape her, and then give her back to you... or not. There's nothing you can do about it because you're a peasant.

    Have a particularly nice stretch of land that you live on? In feudal times, the lord of the domain owns all the land. So, it's not really yours and never will be. There's nothing you can do about it because you're a peasant.

    Have a nice crop or particularly good set of livestock? In feudal times, the lord of the domain can help himself to anything you have and doesn't have to give you anything back in return. He can starve you off his land that you happen to be squatting on. There's nothing you can do about it because you're a peasant.

    Have a beef with any of that? In feudal times, the lord of the domain can abduct you from your hovel at night and torture you for days before murdering you and mutilating your body as an example of what happens to disidents. There's nothing you can do about it because you're a peasant.

    Feudal goverments and the American government are night and day from one another. Sure, we get taxed. Sure, we get sent to jail when we commit crimes, but when was the last time the mayor of your city decided that he wanted your car and just took it from you? Never? oh...

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737
    Government is a necessary evil. Necessary to enforce the law and defending individual rights, when it steps beyond this role, however, rights are lost. I disagree that we should scrap government, just reduce it to the role its meant to be.
    As I was going down the thread I was forming a similar argument, starting with you opening stance - who's been reading my script, or is it 'great minds think alike?

    ps. Pibs, if we did away with national government, who controls the army? Or are we assuming that everyone does away with national government simultaneously. If that is the case then we go back to robber barons - only with nukes.

    pps. Droit de signeur and premier/prima nocte must have been a cool concept for those feudal lords.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    McMaster University, Hamilton, ON
    Posts
    962
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    I definitely agree that the power of government should be severely reduced. However, I do not see how we can exist without any government to manage some sort of centralised justice system, police, and small military. Yes, I believe that many current government functions are unnecessary, but I don't see how we could do without government entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric
    You completely misunderstand what I stated. I was speaking in contrast to feudal times.
    Yes, things definitely are better now than they were in feudal times. However, that does not mean that they are perfect. There is still definitely room for improvement.

    -------

    Also, with regard to anarchism, everyone should be aware that there are two (if not more) major types of anarchism: anarcho-capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) and anarcho-communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism). These two anarchist theories are vastly different from each other, and those addressing the anarchist ideology in their responses should be aware of this.

    ...and just for the record, I do agree that government holds a monopoly on the legal use of coercive force, and that its a bad thing. However, I'm not sure how we can do entirely without it.
    -=]emtee10[=-
    ODN Super Moderator



    I'll give you a hint. Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
    - Francisco d'Anconia, Atlas Shrugged

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    9,471
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    Quote Originally Posted by Pibs
    Hopefully this will develop into a worthwhile thread..

    When I spout my anti-gummermint views many peeps seem to think I mean reduce gummermint a little, squeeze it a smidge.

    How about scrapping it all together?
    No. I can't really tell if you're serious or not, but the obvious answer is that nobody would be safe, nor their possessions. Besides, government happens on it own, usually in the form of a dictatorship. When people live together, they try to control each other. That's why democracy is so great, because it gives everybody some input. If we somehow just abolished the government, some branch of the military would just take over, and we'd be worse off. I honestly don't understand what you're getting at.

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Borneo
    Posts
    2,089
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    OK, that's cool, we all seem to accept that gummermint is nothing but potentially lethal physical force, it's the very definition of what distinguishes government from anything else.

    If I haven't already explained too well, what I want to do is present different stages to my argument, rather than tackle the whole issue at once.

    So presuming no-one is going to backtrack and claim the government does NOT attempt to enFORCE its rules, in fact has to, to function, that bit is established. So my next segment is:

    You cannot force people to think, desire, or want what you want. Force is very inefficent at creating co-operation, it only works while the force is present and threatening and the actual USE of force is even less efficient. It only works via threat and it only works while the threat is threatening.

    It can often be easier to do the job yourself than force someone else to do it. The classic example is the notion of a policeman for every single citizen, following them 24hrs a day - and who would police the policeman? Suppose you force someone to dig a ditch at gun-point - it only works while you are there, pointing the gun. Go home for awhile, go to sleep or whatever, when you return, no ditch, no worker, no spade.

    Put it this way, if you disagree with my notion we should scrap gummermint, could I force you to agree?

    No, at best I could only silence your dissent via force or get you to pretend you agree, with the threat of force.

    Frankly that aspect, that you cannot force other people to be how you want them to be, is so blindingly obvious it's not worthy of debate. Yes, you can use lethal force and prevent that person or group of people from ever arguing again but you cannot win 'hearts and minds' via force.

    Examples could include the failure of the 'child' support 'collection' service, the patchy collection of other taxes, the abolition of black slavery or indeed the current war in Iraq. Sooner or later the system fails, the high levels of energy required cannot be substained or the put-upon find ever more inventive means of escaping the threat, find a friend to come to their rescue or whatever.

    It is hugely inefficent and cannot be substained for ever, without destroying that which you are trying to control.

    Try using force to stop a baby from crying for example. The more force you use, the more it's gonna cry and even if you scare it so badly it goes silent, it is still crying inside and sooner or later will grow up and escape you.

    Take the ditch digger - if you are there with a gun, if the digger knows the gun is real and is loaded, if he suspects you would use it, if no-one else comes to his aid, if you think you can get away with it... if, if, if... And sooner or later you'll drop your guard and he'll bean you with the spade.

    Contrast that to a man digging the foundations for his own home as he is marrying his sweetheart. The woman doesn't have to be there, needs no gun. She could go shopping, get her hair done, return and he's still there digging with enthusiasm. They could sleep, if he wakes before her, he gets digging.

    Dig dig dig, not if if if.

    So can we agree forcing people to do your will is

    Immoral
    Hugely inefficent
    Unsubstainable long term

    I'm not arguing 'Is there ever a case for using force?" as the answer is 'Yes, sometimes' but for example one such use would be "To spank with the spade the guy with the gun".

    My point is that force, as a form of government over a large mass of people, ultimately does not work.

    You can make it appear to work, such as forcing the media to say "All is well and working" or crushing dissent but it can only continue through the continued application and threat of force.

    Force force force.

    So the next stage is:

    What is the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between a forceful, brutal dictatorship and gummermint?


    P.
    "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
    head of MI6

    "The Emory University study proves beyond a doubt that politicians and their acolytes - are lying morons."

    "We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it."
    Justice Jackson Nov. 21, 1945, Nuremberg

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    A national government does much more than act as the parking lot, MT hangers and billets for armies. It acts as a way of bringing some sort of organisation, order and unity to smaller groupings. Imagine all the villages, towns, cities, counties, parishes etc. etc. (of the world) sending their individual reps to the U(N) and each expecting to have their voice and individual opinion heard!!!!! If you drove across America how many different speed restrictions would there be? How many different standards for the road worthiness of the vehicle or the driver? How many immigration, customs and excise posts? (See the old Ealing studios film 'Passport to Pimlico' and you will see just some of the problems). How much extra time and money would it take? How many different monies with different values, and money exchangers with different service charges? 'International' banking would become a nightmare. As each State has more internal governance than, say, a British county; it is a lottery and complication enough as it is.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Borneo
    Posts
    2,089
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    So your response to the question "What is the ACTUAL DIFFERENCE between a forceful, brutal dictatorship and gummermint?" is that gummermint, unlike a single dictator, imposes a single way of doing things?

    On that basis we should be voting for Microsoft or Google instead of Bush or Kerry.

    Nope, I don't see how a single government differs from a single dictator. Also, take your argument to it's conclusion and you are advocating for a single world government yet part of your OWN argument, was "Imagine all the villages, towns, cities, counties, parishes etc. etc. (of the world) sending their individual reps to the U(N) and each expecting to have their voice and individual opinion heard!!!!! "

    Well obviously you are correct in that they would not have their voices heard, they would be totally at the mercy of that which I believe has been dubbed The New World Order or summat like that.

    World government.

    Seeing as how you worded it, shall I presume you are basically saying that a national government represents the nation abroad?

    If you wanted to talk to the people of Hitler's Germany or Saddam's Iraq or Castro's Cuba or Mao's China - who's representative would you be talking to?

    So nope, the international face of a nation can be either a 'dictator' or a 'government' so I repeat the question - what's the difference?

    None of this is intended as trick questions nor am I saying no-one has any valid points, I simply wish to present a series of segments covering each aspect until we can finally answer the question "Should we scrap government?"

    If you are saying 'Standards are good' then international standards are even better but if standards come from government then we need a single world government.

    We don't have (yet) a single world government but we DO have international standards, the ISO speed of your camera film means the speed standard of the International Standards Organisation and of course there are others.

    So no, we do not need gummermint, national nor international, to create standards. They may HELP but the only help they can provide is to use money taken at gunpoint (tax) to finance things (wastefully) and then to enFORCE any such standards at gunpoint.

    In other words, the only utility or presence of gummermint in such negotiations is to add the threat of force for non-compliance.

    So should we say to, for example, an Italian film making company A or B?

    A. Produce films to this specific standard or we'll use physical force against you.

    B. Produce films to this specific standard or we wont have a clue how our pictures will come out and thus wont buy your film.

    Did countries within Europe say to some other countries "Use the new euro currency or we'll bomb and invade you" or did they say "Use this funky new currency as it will greatly ease and improve inter-country transactions, reduce costs and make us more competitive in the world"?

    Clearly, we do NOT require gummermint in order to negotiate and agree upon national or international standards.

    If the standards are of benefit to everyone then we have no need to impose those standards by force.

    Hopefully that resolves that question but I'm still awaiting the difference between a single government and a single dictatorship?


    P.

    PS jus' a quick point to the thing about stealing property, the gummermint already does that with 'asset forfeitures', initally just 'drug criminals' then other crimes - including the crime of being divorced and unable to pay 'inputted income' levels of 'child' support.

    In terms of general crime, according to "Government Seizures Victimize Innocent” by Andrew Schneider and Mary Pat Flaherty, The Pittsburgh Press, August 16, 1991, less than 20% of the people in the US who have their property or cash taken are ever charged with a crime.

    In 1994 such seizures netted federal, state, and local governments over $2
    billion in property (same source). Government agencies sell the 'confiscated' goodies and spend the proceeds as additional tax money.

    Thought I'd mention it

    Back to the question...
    Last edited by Pibs; October 19th, 2004 at 04:28 AM.
    "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
    head of MI6

    "The Emory University study proves beyond a doubt that politicians and their acolytes - are lying morons."

    "We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it."
    Justice Jackson Nov. 21, 1945, Nuremberg

  15. #15
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    I'm an American corporation. By American, I mean my company is composed of people who were formerly American (before we got rid of "gummermint").

    My corporation sells candy bars. Everyone in America likes our candy bars. They HAVE to have their candy bars.

    I need sugar cane fields in South America to produce my candy bars. My competitors know this. So, they send armed mercenaries to the South American sugar cane fields to occupy it. I send my own armed mercenaries to aquire it back from them. The locals get shot up and then at the end, when my mercenaries win, I order them to put the locals to work as slave labor... or near slave labor (take your pick).

    The people living in North America hear about this, but don't really care. I give them spin stories and discredit reporters.

    Since there's no governments the mercenaries I've sent there to enslave locals aren't an act of war.

    Since there's no government the illegal business practices I've come up with have no one to put them in check... not in any consistant way

    You don't need government to come up with standards. You DO need government to ENFORCE standards.

    Once again, Pibs, your argument comes down to "everyone has to be nice to everyone else and just agree on everything". That's not how human nature works. Think about it: we shouldn't need laws, courts, or police because everyone SHOULD just be nice to one another. We don't need government because people everywhere should just decide on standards and get along, right? Sure... but that's not how it works.

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Borneo
    Posts
    2,089
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    What you've just described is exactly the kind of thing the CIA is famous for, though preventing communism, gaining oil or regional political power are more common suspects than sugar cane.

    What's the difference between a soldier paid by tax (theft) and a mercenary?

    I'm still trying to establish the difference between a gummermint and a dictator. Do you think no dictator has ever sent mercenaries to plunder and pillage a foreign land and enslave its people?

    Do you think no government has ever sent soldiers in uniform to plunder and pillage a foreign land and enslave its people?

    What's the difference between Zhavric Candy Bars (ZCB) and US Gummermint?

    I'll answer some of my own questions:

    Q. What's the difference between a soldier paid by tax (theft) and a mercenary?
    A. Mercenaries aren't subject to the draft at age 18

    Q. What's the difference between Zhavric Candy Bars (ZCB) and US Gummermint?
    A. Gummermint has around 300 billion of tax (theft) financing a massive military force, including nuclear weapons, whilst ZCBs has a handful of paid mercenaries.

    If you DO get wind of ZCBs engaging in such practises, know what you can do? Stop voting for ZCBs with candy-buying dollars.

    If you DO get wind of your gummermint planning to invade a country and swipe it's oil, whilst pretending it's spreading democracy and freedom and fighting for peace and it will be the war to end all wars and all that baloney, know what you can do?

    Not a lot. I happen to feel that way about Blair invading Iraq, I, along with over a million other people, marched through the steets of London in the biggest mass demonstration in history to protest that action.

    Blair invaded anyway.

    Contrast that to the line of clothing produced by a company that featured T shirts saying 'Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them'. The men's movement, which most people haven't even heard of, organised a boycott and campaign against that company - the result was that over 90% of the retailers dropped the lines and some ceased all trading with that company.

    More recently still, some dimwit politician in the US, in order to show how he was being 'tough on deadbeat dads' organised a competition for schoolkids to design a billboard that would be displayed to shame 'deadbeat dads' into paying their child support tax, with Domino's Pizza tokens as prizes.

    Again, boycott and campaign. Domino's stated publicly that they did not know beforehand what the competion was and demanded their name be removed from the competition. For a short while the politician ran it as "pizza tokens" but then dropped the competion altogether.

    Was the politician scared of a bunch of 'deadbeat dads' pointing out a few awkward truths about 'child' support tax or the sheer immorality of encouraging parental alienation? Nope, but Domino's is entirely dependent upon public goodwill for its day to day profits and listened carefully as we made our case.

    The politican didn't return our calls but was smart enough to see that his bright idea was looking stupider by the minute.

    Every single time you make a purchase, you vote for that product, that storekeeper and that company. You can 'vote' dozens of times a day.

    Or you can vote for the lesser of two evil gummermints.

    So can we return to the question please - what's the difference between a single dictator and a single gummermint?


    P.
    "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
    head of MI6

    "The Emory University study proves beyond a doubt that politicians and their acolytes - are lying morons."

    "We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it."
    Justice Jackson Nov. 21, 1945, Nuremberg

  17. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Borneo
    Posts
    2,089
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    PS

    "Everyone in America likes our candy bars. They HAVE to have their candy bars."

    Not as much as they HAVE to have gummermint and if I don't like your company I can pick from dozens of different candy bars.

    "Slave-labor free!" candy bars will get my voting dollar every time.

    You don't like your gummermint? Wait a few years an you can vote for someone else.

    Another gummermint.

    Whoever wins the election, the gummermint always gets in.

    P.

    Edited to add a PPS

    PPS: The more I think about it, the funnier that sounds. Lemme get this straight - if we did away with gummermint and its threat of nuclear armaggedon, the senseless slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians in war and all the rest of it - we could *tremble* face the horrific prospect of candy bar company turf wars?

    Stop it, you're scaring me
    "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
    head of MI6

    "The Emory University study proves beyond a doubt that politicians and their acolytes - are lying morons."

    "We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it."
    Justice Jackson Nov. 21, 1945, Nuremberg

  18. #18
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    The problem with what you've stated is that it happens anyway. Either way, wether it's Zhavric's Imperial Candy Corp or the U.S.'s CIA, you're going to have armed mercenaries in South America.

    Your answer? Don't buy Zhav's Imperial Candy bars. Great. Good luck organizing a boycott. We've seen how well those work in America even when we KNOW that folks are doing shady stuff. I have plenty of friends who know EXACTLY what Nike does to make shoes, but wear them anyway.

    However, you've missed a very important point, however: litigation. In a government with a court system, the average guy can bring a lawsuit against Zhavric's Imperial Candy Corp. While such litigations are sometimes even less effective than boycotts, they still force (there's that word again) corporations to do the right thing.

    For example, if I find out that Zhav's Imperial Candy bars will cause horrible excruciating death syndrome (HED syndrome) in .01% of the folks who eat them because of some cost-cutting I've done on the quality of my bar, it's not really a concern for me if there is no court system to sue me. All I have to do is make sure that I discredit all the people who try to speak out about HED syndrome... or break up their boycotts with my covert people that I hire (think union busters). It's simple and easy.

    Now, if I know that the .01% of the people who eat my candy bars have families that can orginize class action lawsuits, it suddenly become apparent that I'm not going to be able to make money selling HED syndrome inducing candy bars. Boycotts in a few regions are one thing. Handing out millions of dollars in settelements is quite another.

    And believe me when I tell you that I know a thing or two about corporate settlements.

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Borneo
    Posts
    2,089
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    Z, you are rasing interesting points that like your yummy but lethal candy i may munch on later but would you care to answer the question please?

    What is the difference between a dictatorship and a gummermint?


    P.
    "The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
    head of MI6

    "The Emory University study proves beyond a doubt that politicians and their acolytes - are lying morons."

    "We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it."
    Justice Jackson Nov. 21, 1945, Nuremberg

  20. #20
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    9,345
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Scrap Government

    Quote Originally Posted by Pibs
    Z, you are rasing interesting points that like your yummy but lethal candy i may munch on later but would you care to answer the question please?

    What is the difference between a dictatorship and a gummermint?


    P.
    Dictatorship.

    Citizens: "We have no control / checks / balances against the ruthless bastard(s) in power."

    Government (presumably a democracy, republic, etc)

    Citizens: "We have a few controls / checks / balances against the ruthless bastard(s) in power."

    Sure, they're both using "force" as you put it, but the Government* has more checks and balances. Sure the president would have an easier job of searching for "bad guys" if he could send the army into civilian cities and do house to house searches with no fear of anyone crying foul. However, with a congress in place (or other check to executive authority) the president has a lot less inscentive to do such a thing for a few reasons.

    1) If he does something unlawful, there are other parts of the government that can enforce laws on him. Yes, this goes back to force, but again: ANY system of government / dictatorshop OR NON-GOVERNMENT goes back to force.

    2) He at least has to CLAIM that he's not going to do anything unlawful otherwise he doesn't get elected or re-elected. Yes, it's that last term in office you have to watch out for. Luckily, we have a way to impeach elected officials... not so in a dictatorship.

    Checks and balances. That is what seperates a Dictatorship from a government*. Is it perfect? Certainly not. Do checks and balances always work? Nope. But it's far better to have them in an inperfect system than to not have them at all.

    Again, I agree with you that both use "force" as you put it, but there is no legitimate alternative unless you are able to radically change the nature of human beings.


    *again, presumably democracy, republic, etc.

 

 
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Christian Libertarians?
    By Spartacus in forum General Debate
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: November 26th, 2006, 07:40 AM
  2. Demonic, Crazed, Vampiric, Satanist Homosexuals
    By Dionysus in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 132
    Last Post: October 28th, 2004, 01:30 PM
  3. Heads Rolling in Iraq
    By Zenstone in forum Current Events
    Replies: 144
    Last Post: July 26th, 2004, 01:55 PM
  4. What's wrong with our government?
    By CC in forum Politics
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: May 25th, 2004, 09:55 AM
  5. Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 12th, 2004, 10:10 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •