Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The issue is always resources and who has or can control the resources that everyone will need to survive.
The question will be: Whose portion of the island has the fresh water? The question will be: Whose portion of the island has the areable land? Governments--and the reason every society has some form of government--always boils down to management of resources in a way the majority of people can accept.
Sure. All that can be dealt with without anyone having special rights that others don't. Property rights are the most important thing to establish. When it's clear who owns what, it's easy to evaluate who the rightful owner of the resources are.
Of course the more powerful or skilled groups can ignore and violate those property rights, but that's the case with or without a government. The "good guys" have to be able to use force more effectively than those who try to attack and steal from them.
Sure. All that can be dealt with without anyone having special rights that others don't. Property rights are the most important thing to establish. When it's clear who owns what, it's easy to evaluate who the rightful owner of the resources are.
Of course the more powerful or skilled groups can ignore and violate those property rights, but that's the case with or without a government. The "good guys" have to be able to use force more effectively than those who try to attack and steal from them.
I can guarantee you that in a real world, the guy who asserts "property rights" over the only fresh water spring is going to have his so-called "rights" violated.
I can guarantee you that in a real world, the guy who asserts "property rights" over the only fresh water spring is going to have his so-called "rights" violated.
Yes, thank you for this analogy. I've used similar ones in the past myself, so this should help clarify things on both sides.
I guess my first question is why there needs to be a vote to decide on one official plan that involves all ten people. I'd expect that we would just discuss things and come to decisions on how to best organize and accomplish what we need to get done, and if somebody doesn't like their idea, they don't have to participate or be subject to it. Everyone chooses for themselves based on what will be best for them. All voluntary, and nobody forced to do anything against their will.
I start reading your reply, and I immediately recall why I wanted to depart from this philosophical exchange, yet here I am getting sucked back into what is obviously a sort of illogical quick sand without end. Just for starters, what you would "expect" is much like expecting world peace! Should be possible, something we ought to expect rather than killing one another. "Why can't we just get along?" Of course...
However, that is not the reality we are forced to face when it comes to human nature and/or the human condition, as many comments other than mine have also tried to point out.
In your example, as in mine, say three don't want to "participate." I suggested they should probably need to leave the group then, because when the other seven get to building shelter that those three don't want to build, what happens when all 10 need shelter from the next storm? Say those three don't want to bother hunting for food. What happens when they go hungry? What happens if someone steals food? Or drinks too much of the clean water that needs to be rationed? What if two or three don't agree the water and food should be rationed?
These sorts of issues and questions remind me of the "free rider" problem related to health care coverage, a subject a bit more practical at least. Similarly, a good majority agrees our pooled resources serve us better to provide general access to health care, but of course we all need to participate or our prospects for optimal shared coverage are undermined. You can't have most of the group contributing toward coverage, for example, while a select few who don't want to participate or cooperate, instead they take advantage as "free riders."
How fair is that when those "free riders" do what they do in the name of their "freedom and independence," then only to be cared for by the same health care system when they are struck with a medical emergency or they become seriously ill?
Or if I were to use your logic, I would "expect" that everyone would do the sensible right thing and pool our resources together for the sake of maximum benefit for all concerned. Unfortunately, what I "expect" everyone to do is just not practical to "expect." No doubt this is where and/or how our thinking differs significantly.
My position is born from pragmatism, not wishful thinking about how humans SHOULD act or think or feel.
Accordingly, I would "expect" we need not go around in this circle of philosophy again...
I start reading your reply, and I immediately recall why I wanted to depart from this philosophical exchange, yet here I am getting sucked back into what is obviously a sort of illogical quick sand without end. Just for starters, what you would "expect" is much like expecting world peace! Should be possible, something we ought to expect rather than killing one another. "Why can't we just get along?" Of course...
If anything it's the opposite. I don't trust people to get along and be peaceful, which is why I don't want any of them making decisions over my life.
Quote:
However, that is not the reality we are forced to face when it comes to human nature and/or the human condition, as many comments other than mine have also tried to point out.
In your example, as in mine, say three don't want to "participate." I suggested they should probably need to leave the group then, because when the other seven get to building shelter that those three don't want to build, what happens when all 10 need shelter from the next storm? Say those three don't want to bother hunting for food. What happens when they go hungry? What happens if someone steals food? Or drinks too much of the clean water that needs to be rationed? What if two or three don't agree the water and food should be rationed?
These sorts of issues and questions remind me of the "free rider" problem related to health care coverage, a subject a bit more practical at least. Similarly, a good majority agrees our pooled resources serve us better to provide general access to health care, but of course we all need to participate or our prospects for optimal shared coverage are undermined. You can't have most of the group contributing toward coverage, for example, while a select few who don't want to participate or cooperate, instead they take advantage as "free riders."
How fair is that when those "free riders" do what they do in the name of their "freedom and independence," then only to be cared for by the same health care system when they are struck with a medical emergency or they become seriously ill?
Or if I were to use your logic, I would "expect" that everyone would do the sensible right thing and pool our resources together for the sake of maximum benefit for all concerned. Unfortunately, what I "expect" everyone to do is just not practical to "expect." No doubt this is where and/or how our thinking differs significantly.
My position is born from pragmatism, not wishful thinking about how humans SHOULD act or think or feel.
Accordingly, I would "expect" we need not go around in this circle of philosophy again...
I'm not sure if you actually read what I posted because I haven't said anything like what you're describing. There wouldn't be any freeloaders. In my examples, you and I have our area sectioned off, and the other 8 have their section.
We build our own shelter(s) and they build theirs. If we don't want to bother hunting for food, we starve. Either that, or we offer to trade with them for their food...and if they don't want to give it to us, we're stuck doing it on our own or starving.
If someone steals food or clean water, what do you think should be done? You can use force to take it back and give to the rightful owner if it hasn't been consumed yet. If that person doesn't actually have their own shelter or property on the island, you can kick them out. If they do, you can't kick them out but you can ostracize them and leave them to fend for themselves until they make things right again. I won't list out every possibility I can think of here, but you generally just prevent things from getting stolen and have a plan in case someone successfully steals something.
I think you're stuck in the mindset of needing to have one plan. Why does everyone have to be included in the one healthcare plan? People should sign up if they want to receive the benefits of the plan, and if you don't sign up you won't get the benefits...but then those people should be allowed to have their own separate healthcare system or plan. Why force everyone under one monopoly service?
Maybe if you want to respond we can move this back to the "anti-government" thread. We're definitely taking this way off topic. If not, that's fine too. I just don't see why the 10 people MUST pick someone from the group to be "government". People don't need a ruler to tell them how to solve problems, they can just organize by their own free will.
If anything it's the opposite. I don't trust people to get along and be peaceful, which is why I don't want any of them making decisions over my life.
Most people I know feel the same way, but what we want is really not the point, much like we didn't want to end up on a deserted island in the first place, or be born American citizens, etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
I'm not sure if you actually read what I posted because I haven't said anything like what you're describing. There wouldn't be any freeloaders. In my examples, you and I have our area sectioned off, and the other 8 have their section.
I did read what you wrote, and of course there will be freeloaders even if you don't think so. There always are, whether you view them as such or not. Others might. "The world does not revolve around you."
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
We build our own shelter(s) and they build theirs. If we don't want to bother hunting for food, we starve. Either that, or we offer to trade with them for their food...and if they don't want to give it to us, we're stuck doing it on our own or starving.
Your assumptions are too simplistic and all according to what you want to believe, but surely you should know that no one can say what others will do or why. Most people can't watch others starve, for example. Others can. People who don't want to bother "hunting" will most certainly steal food from others before they will starve, maybe even kill others for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
If someone steals food or clean water, what do you think should be done? You can use force to take it back and give to the rightful owner if it hasn't been consumed yet. If that person doesn't actually have their own shelter or property on the island, you can kick them out. If they do, you can't kick them out but you can ostracize them and leave them to fend for themselves until they make things right again. I won't list out every possibility I can think of here, but you generally just prevent things from getting stolen and have a plan in case someone successfully steals something.
Again, it isn't about what your or I think should be done. It is what the group decides and/or as individuals will decide to do as they will. Who can kick out whom? Say half the group are men over 6ft and 200 pounds. The other half women and children. How well are the rules YOU want to apply going to hold? Either organized cooperation or not. Hard to know or say. Who gets to decide. Can't really know that either. Back to Earth, our founding fathers laid out a framework to help us organize and cooperate in a manner that might protect and "broker" our interests toward a manner in which to govern ourselves intelligently, democratically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
I think you're stuck in the mindset of needing to have one plan. Why does everyone have to be included in the one healthcare plan? People should sign up if they want to receive the benefits of the plan, and if you don't sign up you won't get the benefits...but then those people should be allowed to have their own separate healthcare system or plan. Why force everyone under one monopoly service?
I think it is you who isn't reading what I am explaining, and this is EXACTLY what brings us back to the "free rider" problem, not just in health care, but just about anything that involves the pooling of group resources. Some young kid thinks they don't need health care because they are young and healthy, but gets hit by a bus, most people recognize the kid needs to be cared for, no matter how young, stupid or selfish he may be. That's the essence of the "free rider" problem that you can't brush aside with your simple personal views as to what should or would happen to a "free rider."
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
Maybe if you want to respond we can move this back to the "anti-government" thread. We're definitely taking this way off topic. If not, that's fine too. I just don't see why the 10 people MUST pick someone from the group to be "government". People don't need a ruler to tell them how to solve problems, they can just organize by their own free will.
Any group of 10 people may not necessarily pick someone as leader, but in whatever manner the group decides to organize, there will be those who may not agree with that order. Instead of 10, consider 350 million Americans, and disagreements along those lines are inevitable, if you catch my drift...
If not, why don't you go back to the "anti-government" thread, and I'll go my way, of my own free will.
Most people I know feel the same way, but what we want is really not the point, much like we didn't want to end up on a deserted island in the first place, or be born American citizens, etc...
I did read what you wrote, and of course there will be freeloaders even if you don't think so. There always are, whether you view them as such or not. Others might. "The world does not revolve around you."
Your assumptions are too simplistic and all according to what you want to believe, but surely you should know that no one can say what others will do or why. Most people can't watch others starve, for example. Others can. People who don't want to bother "hunting" will most certainly steal food from others before they will starve, maybe even kill others for it.
Again, it isn't about what your or I think should be done. It is what the group decides and/or as individuals will decide to do as they will. Who can kick out whom? Say half the group are men over 6ft and 200 pounds. The other half women and children. How well are the rules YOU want to apply going to hold? Either organized cooperation or not. Hard to know or say. Who gets to decide. Can't really know that either. Back to Earth, our founding fathers laid out a framework to help us organize and cooperate in a manner that might protect and "broker" our interests toward a manner in which to govern ourselves intelligently, democratically.
I think it is you who isn't reading what I am explaining, and this is EXACTLY what brings us back to the "free rider" problem, not just in health care, but just about anything that involves the pooling of group resources. Some young kid thinks they don't need health care because they are young and healthy, but gets hit by a bus, most people recognize the kid needs to be cared for, no matter how young, stupid or selfish he may be. That's the essence of the "free rider" problem that you can't brush aside with your simple personal views as to what should or would happen to a "free rider."
Any group of 10 people may not necessarily pick someone as leader, but in whatever manner the group decides to organize, there will be those who may not agree with that order. Instead of 10, consider 350 million Americans, and disagreements along those lines are inevitable, if you catch my drift...
If not, why don't you go back to the "anti-government" thread, and I'll go my way, of my own free will.
Alright, so I'll just touch on the main points since your post was a bit unorganized...
Yes, people CAN do bad things, but that doesn't mean that society should view those things as acceptable because we can't stop it from happening all the time. Even people in the U.S. today CAN steal and kill and get away with it if they're skilled enough, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be against it. - This is in response to your big men example. In order for any society to remain peaceful, state or not, you need the good people to be able to defend against the bad people who want to use force against everyone.
It isn't that I want some utopia where those things won't happen. I would if it were possible, but obviously that isn't realistic. I just want to get rid of the idea that it's okay to steal or initiate force against people if done by way of the "democratic process" and if "the proper authorities" do it. It's wrong no matter who does it. Yes, force will still be initiated by private citizens on occasion and theft will happen as well, but there's no group given permission by society to do it.
People want the government to be this thing that they can use to do things they couldn't do on their own, such as forcing people to pay for things they don't want to pay for, or threatening them for smoking a plant, or whatever....if I tried to force my neighbors to pay for my healthcare or education on my own, people would say that was wrong. If I have the government do it for me, it suddenly becomes okay! Actually, no, it doesn't.
The free rider problem - using the example with the kid who doesn't get insurance, nobody has any obligation to provide him with healthcare, so he wouldn't be a free rider. People likely WOULD help, but they don't have to. He can only be a free rider when people are forced to pay for his medical bills, even if they don't agree to. His risks are subsidized by everyone else, so he can take as many risks as he wants without a care in the world...everyone else foots the bill, so what does he care? I think that's the type of situation you're talking about, but that can't happen if you aren't forcing people to pay, and that's what I'm arguing for.
Most people I know feel the same way, but what we want is really not the point, much like we didn't want to end up on a deserted island in the first place, or be born American citizens, etc.
Grateful for his shackles: the hallmark of a devout statist.
[quote=FurPan;43116485]I don't have an opinion on this, but I'm curious.
There's a lot of talk about vets in the American public square, and a great deal of reverence in some quarters. Should veterans from an era of all-volunteer military be thought of and treated quite as reverently as those who served because they were drafted? Why or why not?
What do you think of the argument that since service is entirely voluntary, veterans don't necessarily deserve as many benefits as their predecessors once they return to civilian life?
I'm not talking about care for harm that came to them during their service. That's clearly owed them. But should their voice mean any more as a socio-political group than any other?[/quote]
Interesting question. Having spent numerous hours at the local VA (fortunately we have one within 30 miles) with my WWII vet father, I don't recall seeing anyone there that I didn't think qualified.
Should their voice mean more? Should their voice mean less? Walk a mile in their shoes, reflect on what they went through and the decision they made to defend your back side and get back to me.
Alright, so I'll just touch on the main points since your post was a bit unorganized...
Yes, people CAN do bad things, but that doesn't mean that society should view those things as acceptable because we can't stop it from happening all the time.
I suspect you are addressing someone else, because I never suggested any such notion as this one you present here. I don't know anyone else who suggested any such thing, but either way, I will leave you to whomever it is you are addressing or perhaps in your own mind, but no way no how am I going to address still more of these ridiculous straw man arguments of yours that come from who-knows-where. Okay?
Please have mercy...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Off topic and a dead end...
