Can anyone really argue Gary Johnson is not the best candidate on the ballot?

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Human beings are social creatures. Inevitably, when people gather in numbers, some sort of social structure forms. Government of some sort is probably an unavoidable by-product of enough people living in close distance of each other, without even taking into account things like greed, desire for power over others, or a need to impose order on the world.

Which is as succinct an argument against any form of government that I can think of.

 

[Montrovant]

Lol. Not if you know anything about human nature.

Human nature sucks, therefore we need to give a monopoly on the proactive use of force to....humans.

As opposed to?

What is your argument, human nature sucks, therefore we need to imagine that humans can completely ignore their natures?

 

[ChrisL]

Lol. Not if you know anything about human nature.

Human nature sucks, therefore we need to give a monopoly on the proactive use of force to....humans.

As opposed to?

What is your argument, human nature sucks, therefore we need to imagine that humans can completely ignore their natures?

I've learned that sometimes it's better to just not pay any attention to these types. Some peeps are just nutty. Nothing we can do about it.

 

[Montrovant]

Human beings are social creatures. Inevitably, when people gather in numbers, some sort of social structure forms. Government of some sort is probably an unavoidable by-product of enough people living in close distance of each other, without even taking into account things like greed, desire for power over others, or a need to impose order on the world.

Which is as succinct an argument against any form of government that I can think of.

I'm not arguing that governments are always good. I'm not even going to argue they are ever good. I'm saying they are probably inevitable. The best case scenario is that you get lucky with a relatively good one. When they get bad enough, hopefully they can be replaced.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

As opposed to?

What is your argument, human nature sucks, therefore we need to imagine that humans can completely ignore their natures?

My argument is that if your argument is "human nature sucks", that's as poor an argument in favor of government as you can come up with.

If human nature is as bad as some want to believe, then having no government at all would at least keep the badness of human nature localized, rather than giving it an attractant -a monopoly on the use of force- in order to foist its heinousness upon everyone.

 

[Montrovant]

Lol. Not if you know anything about human nature.

Human nature sucks, therefore we need to give a monopoly on the proactive use of force to....humans.

As opposed to?

What is your argument, human nature sucks, therefore we need to imagine that humans can completely ignore their natures?

I've learned that sometimes it's better to just not pay any attention to these types. Some peeps are just nutty. Nothing we can do about it.

I can see the draw of some ideologies I would describe as difficult or impossible to truly implement. Even with libertarians I often find myself thinking that there is a lot of ideology which ignores reality or practicality, if on a lesser scale.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I've learned that sometimes it's better to just not pay any attention to these types. Some peeps are just nutty. Nothing we can do about it.

All out of intellectual ammo, huh?

 

[Montrovant]

As opposed to?

What is your argument, human nature sucks, therefore we need to imagine that humans can completely ignore their natures?

My argument is that if your argument is "human nature sucks", that's as poor an argument in favor of government as you can come up with.

If human nature is as bad as some want to believe, then having no government at all would at least keep the badness of human nature localized, rather than giving it an attractant -a monopoly on the use of force- in order to foist its heinousness upon everyone.

My argument isn't that human nature sucks. My argument is that human nature is to socialize. If you think having a social nature sucks, that's your opinion, not mine.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

I'm not arguing that governments are always good. I'm not even going to argue they are ever good. I'm saying they are probably inevitable. The best case scenario is that you get lucky with a relatively good one. When they get bad enough, hopefully they can be replaced.

Saying that they are inevitable doesn't make it so.

What if enough people got up tomorrow and decided to simple drop out. Where would government's power base come from?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

My argument isn't that human nature sucks. My argument is that human nature is to socialize. If you think having a social nature sucks, that's your opinion, not mine.

I was using the royal "you", not you personally.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not arguing that governments are always good. I'm not even going to argue they are ever good. I'm saying they are probably inevitable. The best case scenario is that you get lucky with a relatively good one. When they get bad enough, hopefully they can be replaced.

Saying that they are inevitable doesn't make it so.

What if enough people got up tomorrow and decided to simple drop out. Where would government's power base come from?

Another government would form. Perhaps not immediately, but one would. I don't believe that large numbers of people in close proximity can live without some sort of society and rules. Certainly not in the modern world.

Where/when has humanity lived in large numbers without some form of government?

 

[PredFan]

Lord of the Flies anyone?

 

[LaDexter]

How about just cutting back some on government spending. It has been 18 years since the Federal government cut any spending.

 

[Anathema]

...., Johnson's record shows that he used to believe in those things.

I don't care what he USED TO believe. Action speak louder than words. Accepting Weld, compromising his positions. Those are two non-starters for a Conservative like myself.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Another government would form. Perhaps not immediately, but one would. I don't believe that large numbers of people in close proximity can live without some sort of society and rules. Certainly not in the modern world.

Where/when has humanity lived in large numbers without some form of government?

Society and rules don't automatically mean you'll have government.

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

Lord of the Flies anyone?

That's a lovely straw man argument you have there.

 

[LaDexter]

for a Conservative like myself

Define Conservative for us.

 

[PredFan]

Lord of the Flies anyone?

That's a lovely straw man argument you have there.

You need to look that up. You don't know what the term means.

 

[Montrovant]

Another government would form. Perhaps not immediately, but one would. I don't believe that large numbers of people in close proximity can live without some sort of society and rules. Certainly not in the modern world.

Where/when has humanity lived in large numbers without some form of government?

Society and rules don't automatically mean you'll have government.

How are those rules decided upon or enforced?
Based on human history, yes, society and rules do mean you'll have government. Again I'll ask, where/when has humanity lived in large numbers in relatively close proximity without some form of government?

Even if there have been societies with no form of government, do you think that is practical at all in the modern world?

 

[AnCap'n_Murica]

You need to look that up. You don't know what the term means.

I know what the term means.

Invoking a fictional story as though it has any relevance as to what could or could not happen in real life is a textbook straw man argument. It's no different than lefties acting as though the whole world would turn into the world of Oliver Twist if there were no welfare state.