CDZ If you . . .

[Brian Blackwell]

It's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.

Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.

Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me any less smart or self actualized. I have been through hell and back again, so if anyone gives things extra thought and weighs all the pros and cons, it is moi!

Disagreeing with me isn’t the issue, it’s denying the inherent rights of the individual and failing to address the logical arguments in defense of those rights that’s the problem. Two consenting adults making a mutually-agreeable transaction is not subject to your review - they are not violating anyone’s rights and no one has a right to interfere, personally or by proxy.

The destructive nature of heroin is irrelevant because it does not harm anyone other than the user. Subsequent actions that the user may be inspired to by their addiction are a separate issue, because the drug use itself does not invariably lead to those actions by necessity.

 

[ChrisL]

It's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.

Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.

Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me any less smart or self actualized. I have been through hell and back again, so if anyone gives things extra thought and weighs all the pros and cons, it is moi!

Disagreeing with me isn’t the issue, it’s denying the inherent rights of the individual and failing to address the logical arguments in defense of those rights that’s the problem. Two consenting adults making a mutually-agreeable transaction is not subject to your review - they are not violating anyone’s rights and no one has a right to interfere, personally or by proxy.

The destructive nature of heroin is irrelevant because it does not harm anyone other than the user. Subsequent actions that the user may be inspired to by their addiction are a separate issue, because the drug use itself does not invariably lead to those actions by necessity.

It is the drugs though. Those same people would not do those things if they weren't motivated by the thought of getting the drugs. There are also plenty of people who are motivated by other things, lust, greed, just plain laziness, just plain stupidity, etc., etc. You way just is not logical considering the nature of human beings. You are relying on the belief that people are inherently good and will make the good decision and take the correct path.

 

[ChrisL]

It's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.

Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.

Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me any less smart or self actualized. I have been through hell and back again, so if anyone gives things extra thought and weighs all the pros and cons, it is moi!

Disagreeing with me isn’t the issue, it’s denying the inherent rights of the individual and failing to address the logical arguments in defense of those rights that’s the problem. Two consenting adults making a mutually-agreeable transaction is not subject to your review - they are not violating anyone’s rights and no one has a right to interfere, personally or by proxy.

The destructive nature of heroin is irrelevant because it does not harm anyone other than the user. Subsequent actions that the user may be inspired to by their addiction are a separate issue, because the drug use itself does not invariably lead to those actions by necessity.

Another problem is that the strong (like another poster mentioned) would eventually overpower and exploit the weak, and then you would have real forced government, similar to dictatorships where the guy with the most money and power wins.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

It's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.

Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.

Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me any less smart or self actualized. I have been through hell and back again, so if anyone gives things extra thought and weighs all the pros and cons, it is moi!

No, and neither does dismissing an argument based on the fact that you find it silly. It does, however, prevent civil discourse on the subject, which would otherwise allow you to defeat his argument, not only for the lurkers, but also for yourself and your opponent.

He made a legitimate argument, detailing his thoughts point for point, and you more or less said "That's silly!". If his argument is silly, you should be able to detail WHY it's silly. Something like "That's Anarchy!" or "That's a Conspiracy!" or "That's goofy!" does not equate to an argument. What he's asking you to do is to match and counter him point for point in order to defend your position or tear down his, instead of disregarding his argument.

My simple statement that human beings are flawed dismantles his entire idea. Not to mention, he has no ideas of his own, just government is bad in every scenario. I don't agree. I already stated why I think some limited government is necessary. Like I said, to think that people and especially certain kinds of people would self govern is just ridiculous Candy Land type of thinking and shows a poor knowledge of history of humans and how brutal they actually are to one another when they feel desperate.

Some government is necessary to prevent the strong from overpowering or taking advantage of the week.

Erm... government IS the strong overpowering and taking advantage of the weak. The economically strong can leverage government to their own advantage, and government itself is made strong by complicit consensus, and dominates the individual dissenter.

 

[ChrisL]

Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.

Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me any less smart or self actualized. I have been through hell and back again, so if anyone gives things extra thought and weighs all the pros and cons, it is moi!

No, and neither does dismissing an argument based on the fact that you find it silly. It does, however, prevent civil discourse on the subject, which would otherwise allow you to defeat his argument, not only for the lurkers, but also for yourself and your opponent.

He made a legitimate argument, detailing his thoughts point for point, and you more or less said "That's silly!". If his argument is silly, you should be able to detail WHY it's silly. Something like "That's Anarchy!" or "That's a Conspiracy!" or "That's goofy!" does not equate to an argument. What he's asking you to do is to match and counter him point for point in order to defend your position or tear down his, instead of disregarding his argument.

My simple statement that human beings are flawed dismantles his entire idea. Not to mention, he has no ideas of his own, just government is bad in every scenario. I don't agree. I already stated why I think some limited government is necessary. Like I said, to think that people and especially certain kinds of people would self govern is just ridiculous Candy Land type of thinking and shows a poor knowledge of history of humans and how brutal they actually are to one another when they feel desperate.

Some government is necessary to prevent the strong from overpowering or taking advantage of the week.

Erm... government IS the strong overpowering and taking advantage of the weak. The economically strong can leverage government to their own advantage, and government itself is made strong by complicit consensus, and dominates the individual dissenter.

We vote our people into office to represent us. Is it a perfect system? No, but far better than your no system at all.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

It's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.

Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.

Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me any less smart or self actualized. I have been through hell and back again, so if anyone gives things extra thought and weighs all the pros and cons, it is moi!

Disagreeing with me isn’t the issue, it’s denying the inherent rights of the individual and failing to address the logical arguments in defense of those rights that’s the problem. Two consenting adults making a mutually-agreeable transaction is not subject to your review - they are not violating anyone’s rights and no one has a right to interfere, personally or by proxy.

The destructive nature of heroin is irrelevant because it does not harm anyone other than the user. Subsequent actions that the user may be inspired to by their addiction are a separate issue, because the drug use itself does not invariably lead to those actions by necessity.

It is the drugs though. Those same people would not do those things if they weren't motivated by the thought of getting the drugs. There are also plenty of people who are motivated by other things, lust, greed, just plain laziness, just plain stupidity, etc., etc. You way just is not logical considering the nature of human beings. You are relying on the belief that people are inherently good and will make the good decision and take the correct path.

My argument does not rely on people being moral, though my solution does.

If people are immoral, government can only magnify that immorality. If you have 10 gang members robbing you, a viable solution would not be to inject one from amongst that immoral throng with super-soldier serum so he becomes more powerful than everybody else. Nor would it be effective to divide them into 3 branches of “checks and balances” and tell them to keep each other in line.

Government is power in excess of what the individual possesses. It can only unlevel the playing field and magnify whatever immorality exists within the society from which its constituents are chosen. In addition, it represents an inequality of rights, whereby one groups has rights others don’t have - to tax, to make law which others must obey - and so flies in the face of rights equality and common sense morality.

 

[ChrisL]

It's true. In order for your ideas to work, then you have to have smart and self actualized human beings. Take a look around! Lol.

Exactly, which is why I'm trying to get YOU to embrace being a smart, self-actualized human being instead of condoning and supporting the immoral violence of the state. A society cannot become intelligent and moral but by each individual making that choice. I have made that choice because someone said the things to me that I'm saying to you; so we're 1 person closer to the goal. So now it's your turn... will you choose to let the immorality of others justify your own? If so, then they may point to your immorality to justify their theirs, and humanity will travel in a hopeless circle forever. You only have power to choose for you, and if you want a peaceful, prosperous world, you must choose accordingly.

Disagreeing with YOU doesn't make me any less smart or self actualized. I have been through hell and back again, so if anyone gives things extra thought and weighs all the pros and cons, it is moi!

Disagreeing with me isn’t the issue, it’s denying the inherent rights of the individual and failing to address the logical arguments in defense of those rights that’s the problem. Two consenting adults making a mutually-agreeable transaction is not subject to your review - they are not violating anyone’s rights and no one has a right to interfere, personally or by proxy.

The destructive nature of heroin is irrelevant because it does not harm anyone other than the user. Subsequent actions that the user may be inspired to by their addiction are a separate issue, because the drug use itself does not invariably lead to those actions by necessity.

It is the drugs though. Those same people would not do those things if they weren't motivated by the thought of getting the drugs. There are also plenty of people who are motivated by other things, lust, greed, just plain laziness, just plain stupidity, etc., etc. You way just is not logical considering the nature of human beings. You are relying on the belief that people are inherently good and will make the good decision and take the correct path.

My argument does not rely on people being moral, though my solution does.

If people are immoral, government can only magnify that immorality. If you have 10 gang members robbing you, a viable solution would not be to inject one from amongst that immoral throng with super-soldier serum so he becomes more powerful than everybody else. Nor would it be effective to divide them into 3 branches of “checks and balances” and tell them to keep each other in line.

Government is power in excess of what the individual possesses. It can only unlevel the playing field and magnify whatever immorality exists within the society from which its constituents are chosen. In addition, it represents an inequality of rights, whereby one groups has rights others don’t have - to tax, to make law which others must obey - and so flies in the face of rights equality and common sense morality.

I don't know what point you are trying to make with the "super soldier" idea. My idea is simple. Unfortunately, a LOT of people need governance. That doesn't mean that some people would not succeed without it, but there are a whole lot of people who would take advantage. That is how most other governments came to be, conquest. Human beings are tribal animals. It is a survival instinct.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

If people are immoral, government can only magnify that immorality. If you have 10 gang members robbing you, a viable solution would not be to inject one from amongst that immoral throng with super-soldier serum so he becomes more powerful than everybody else. Nor would it be effective to divide them into 3 branches of “checks and balances” and tell them to keep each other in line.

Government is power in excess of what the individual possesses. It can only unlevel the playing field and magnify whatever immorality exists within the society from which its constituents are chosen. In addition, it represents an inequality of rights, whereby one groups has rights others don’t have - to tax, to make law which others must obey - and so flies in the face of rights equality and common sense morality.

I don't know what point you are trying to make with the "super soldier" idea. My idea is simple. Unfortunately, a LOT of people need governance. That doesn't mean that some people would not succeed without it, but there are a whole lot of people who would take advantage. That is how most other governments came to be, conquest. Human beings are tribal animals. It is a survival instinct.

You are claiming that because people are flawed, we need government. But government is merely selecting some from amongst that very same flawed group and clothing them in immense power - how on Earth can this do anything but magnify the flaws of the group in question?

The answer is that it can't, and never has. You cite history, but history shows us a pile of bloodied bodies from here to the moon and back (hundreds of millions in the last 100 years alone) ALL murdered at the hands of government and its supporters. Please explain to me how individuals could ever hope to achieve such immense destruction without the power that authority yields...

Show me a Joseph Stalin without a throne to sit upon, and I'll show a petty criminal with more bullets in his chest than innocent deaths under his belt. It is the power of their fallacious, immoral authority that order-followers foolishly respect. It is the immense wealth garnered by coercive taxation that makes their atrocities possible.

The flaws and history of humanity do not serve your argument well. Nor does logic or morality. I hope you will ponder what's being said earnestly.

 

[ChrisL]

If people are immoral, government can only magnify that immorality. If you have 10 gang members robbing you, a viable solution would not be to inject one from amongst that immoral throng with super-soldier serum so he becomes more powerful than everybody else. Nor would it be effective to divide them into 3 branches of “checks and balances” and tell them to keep each other in line.

Government is power in excess of what the individual possesses. It can only unlevel the playing field and magnify whatever immorality exists within the society from which its constituents are chosen. In addition, it represents an inequality of rights, whereby one groups has rights others don’t have - to tax, to make law which others must obey - and so flies in the face of rights equality and common sense morality.

I don't know what point you are trying to make with the "super soldier" idea. My idea is simple. Unfortunately, a LOT of people need governance. That doesn't mean that some people would not succeed without it, but there are a whole lot of people who would take advantage. That is how most other governments came to be, conquest. Human beings are tribal animals. It is a survival instinct.

You are claiming that because people are flawed, we need government. But government is merely selecting some from amongst that very same flawed group and clothing them in immense power - how on Earth can this do anything but magnify the flaws of the group in question?

The answer is that it can't, and never has. You cite history, but history shows us a pile of bloodied bodies from here to the moon and back (hundreds of millions in the last 100 years alone) ALL murdered at the hands of government and its supporters. Please explain to me how individuals could ever hope to achieve such immense destruction without the power that authority yields...

Show me a Joseph Stalin without a throne to sit upon, and I'll show a petty criminal with more bullets in his chest than innocent deaths under his belt. It is the power of their fallacious, immoral authority that order-followers foolishly respect. It is the immense wealth garnered by coercive taxation that makes their atrocities possible.

The flaws and history of humanity do not serve your argument well. Nor does logic or morality. I hope you will ponder what's being said earnestly.

Yes, because we all can't make up the rules at the same time, we agree upon an elected official to represent our views. That is how OUR government is supposed to work anyways. I can't speak for other governments. I know most of the alternatives are pretty bleak compared with our system. To expect to live in a society and benefit from living in the society without making any contributions to the society is not moral either.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

We vote our people into office to represent us. Is it a perfect system? No, but far better than your no system at all.

Would you agree that in order to "grant" someone something, you must first have it yourself?

The delegation of power to Congress is limited by the power of the individuals who initiate the delegation. In other words, if you don't have the power (the right) to tax your neighbor personally, or make law which he must obey under threat of violence, how can you "grant" that power to Congress?

No person, or group of people, has the rights "delegated" to Congress, or the president, so the delegation is invalid. It's made up out of whole cloth. Considering "representation", it should be rather obvious that your representative cannot have rights and powers exceeding your own and still be said to represent you.

There is a system (or order) in place in a free society - the natural order. And no, mankind is not a brute beast. Our evolved consciousness makes it possible for us to discover and abide by fundamental moral concepts like the non-aggression principle of natural law. Does everyone understand and acknowledge this? No. Which is why I am not calling for government's immediate overthrow, but rather a rising of the cultural consciousness to recognize and commit to basic human rights, one person at a time.

The overwhelming majority already have this moral sense and do not commit violence in their daily lives. However, through malicious cultural indoctrination, they have an imposed blind spot in their thinking as it regards government. They have been made to accept the religious belief that political ritual can launder immorality and make it clean. It only requires that people be helped to recognize the inconsistency of their support of government with their own morality.

I have made this shift. You are being asked to do the same. It's an opportunity to be on the forefront of humanity's transition to the next phase of our social evolution, and to take up your place on the right side of history.

 

[ChrisL]

We vote our people into office to represent us. Is it a perfect system? No, but far better than your no system at all.

Would you agree that in order to "grant" someone something, you must first have it yourself?

The delegation of power to Congress is limited by the power of the individuals who initiate the delegation. In other words, if you don't have the power (the right) to tax your neighbor personally, or make law which he must obey under threat of violence, how can you "grant" that power to Congress?

No person, or group of people, has the rights "delegated" to Congress, or the president, so the delegation is invalid. It's made up out of whole cloth. Considering "representation", it should be rather obvious that your representative cannot have rights and powers exceeding your own and still be said to represent you.

There is a system (or order) in place in a free society - the natural order. And no, mankind is not a brute beast. Our evolved consciousness makes it possible for us to discover and abide by fundamental moral concepts like the non-aggression principle of natural law. Does everyone understand and acknowledge this? No. Which is why I am not calling for government's immediate overthrow, but rather a rising of the cultural consciousness to recognize and commit to basic human rights, one person at a time.

The overwhelming majority already have this moral sense and do not commit violence in their daily lives. However, through malicious cultural indoctrination, they have an imposed blind spot in their thinking as it regards government. They have been made to accept the religious belief that political ritual can launder immorality and make it clean. It only requires that people be helped to recognize the inconsistency of their support of government with their own morality.

I have made this shift. You are being asked to do the same. It's an opportunity to be on the forefront of humanity's transition to the next phase of our social evolution, and to take up your place on the right side of history.

Yes, the natural system is much like that in the animal kingdom, only the strong survive and prosper because they WILL become greedy and take advantage of the more poor to benefit themselves and their own "tribe." That is how human beings are. We are nothing but more intelligent animals but still, there are a lot of qualities that we have that are just instinctual and that we don't give much thought about. Greed is a survival mechanism/instinct. When it is survival of the fittest, you HAVE to be greedy to survive and for your clan to survive and for your clan to have a voice, and lord knows everyone has to have their "voice."

 

[ChrisL]

I disagree with your entire premise, Brian Blackwell. Sorry about that, but to me, based on my experiences and my knowledge of things and people, I don't think your ideas of "every man for himself" are very good for most people. That is how monarchies and dictatorships come into being. The strong are always going to overtake the weak and lord over them. That is what makes OUR system better than most if not all.

 

[ChrisL]

Middle of the spectrum is where it is best to be. Being more moderate in your views is going to be the best option for the MOST people. Of course if you are only ever thinking of yourself and you happen to have a lot of money or power, then I can understand why this system of anarchy would be appealing to you. Lol.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

To expect to live in a society and benefit from living in the society without making any contributions to the society is not moral either.

It's important to remember that organization, crowd-funding, and cooperation are all possible in a free society (in fact, true cooperation is only possible on a wholly consensual basis). There are millions of voluntary organizations in existence now that do not threaten their members with immoral punishments.

Government's only defining characteristic is violent coercion; remove that and it ceases to be government. However, all beneficial organizational aspects may continue, including public defense, the building of roads, and communal education.

 

[ChrisL]

We are just herding animals actually, and there are always going to be the "alphas" and "betas" among us. Some will rise to the top and could easily convince enough to follow them so that they become more powerful. Just think about the Walking Dead, for example. I know it's fiction, but I really think it is a rather accurate assumption that there would be groups of power hungry or criminal types who would have all the fire power or whatever necessary to just take over large areas, including the people who had the misfortune of living there.

 

[ChrisL]

To expect to live in a society and benefit from living in the society without making any contributions to the society is not moral either.

It's important to remember that organization, crowd-funding, and cooperation are all possible in a free society (in fact, true cooperation is only possible on a wholly consensual basis). There are millions of voluntary organizations in existence now that do not threaten their members with immoral punishments.

Government's only defining characteristic is violent coercion; remove that and it ceases to be government. However, all beneficial organizational aspects may continue, including public defense, the building of roads, and communal education.

I don't see taxes as a violent coercion. I see them as paying my fair share to my society that I enjoy and get lots of benefit from. While I wish government was BETTER and MORE moral about how they spend the money, it is not the act of paying taxes that bothers me.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Middle of the spectrum is where it is best to be. Being more moderate in your views is going to be the best option for the MOST people. Of course if you are only ever thinking of yourself and you happen to have a lot of money or power, then I can understand why this system of anarchy would be appealing to you. Lol.

The middle of the spectrum between between what and what? Right-wing and left-wing? Being middle-of-the-road on an entirely immoral spectrum is still an immoral position.

You have failed to understand why government is inherently immoral. I have explained this in my post about where government must draw its extra rights and powers from. Since all individuals have the right to perform any and all moral actions, government may only distinguish itself as authority by drawing its additional ""rights" from the pool of immoral actions - there is no third category from which to choose, as all actions are either moral or immoral.

 

[ChrisL]

I am more than willing to say NO MORE OF MY MONEY TO TAXES while the government continues to waste my money, send it overseas to other countries who may or may not hate us, giving my money as grant funding to stupid and ridiculous university studies about whatever stupid fucking thing they are concerned about THIS week, etc., etc.

I am not against taxes in the manner in which they are MEANT to be spent though.

 

[ChrisL]

Middle of the spectrum is where it is best to be. Being more moderate in your views is going to be the best option for the MOST people. Of course if you are only ever thinking of yourself and you happen to have a lot of money or power, then I can understand why this system of anarchy would be appealing to you. Lol.

The middle of the spectrum between between what and what? Right-wing and left-wing? Being middle-of-the-road on an entirely immoral spectrum is still an immoral position.

You have failed to understand why government is inherently immoral. I have explained this in my post about where government must draw its extra rights and powers from. Since all individuals have the right to perform any and all moral actions, government may only distinguish itself as authority by drawing its additional ""rights" from the pool of immoral actions - there is no third category from which to choose, as all actions are either moral or immoral.

Between being an authoritarian and being an anarchist? I strongly believe that more people than not would be willing to pay their taxes when they realized all they LOST from not doing so and from having no government services.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't want to see what would happen, thanks. I mean, you could easily just go visit a place like Somalia to see anarchy in action?