Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-27-2016, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,856 posts, read 17,304,172 times
Reputation: 14459

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
[/b]
Again, there has never been an example of any group of humans who do not have some sort of governing body or authority figure in charge. The existence of that governing body/authority figure means that a government is at play.

There will always be a ruler in social situations with humans.

I'm not confused on this. I know for a fact that this is the case. We can disagree but I know that all humans have a governing body or authority figure in charge unless they live by themselves. And if that occurred, humans would die out. There is always an authority figure at play if you have more than one human.

And on the bold, I did bring that up - that people disagree on what a "right" is and especially so in regards to property rights. Some people think there is no such thing as a right to any property at all, that people cannot own the land. You will always have an issue with those sorts of people because they will never respect your rights as a property owner.

Also, the "non-aggression principle" IMO is not something that humans can adhere to. Humans are very aggressive beings. There will always be some sort of aggression at play or perceived aggression at play. We have evolved as a species based on our aggressiveness and fighting over both property and "rights."
According to you government existed before humans???

This is getting kind of creepy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-27-2016, 09:39 AM
 
16,212 posts, read 10,786,749 times
Reputation: 8442
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
According to you government existed before humans???

This is getting kind of creepy.
Nowhere did I say that....

I said that humans create governing bodies just like they create markets. What is there not to understand?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2016, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,856 posts, read 17,304,172 times
Reputation: 14459
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
Nowhere did I say that....

I said that humans create governing bodies just like they create markets. What is there not to understand?
I'm confused. So once a social construct is formed (meaning interaction between 2 humans) it is universal social law for the rest of earth's existence?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2016, 09:51 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,901,503 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
On the bold, I say "yes."

There has never been a group or community of humans who have not had some sort of governing body or "authority" whether it be an individual or group of individuals.

Again, that is why you and others state that there is no "free society" on earth of which you can use as a case study. This is because that can never exist unless everyone leads solitary lives without the influence of anyone else (including spouses, children, parents, etc.). As stated, even in families there is a level of authority and a governing body (parents usually). This is a natural thing for humans to do and it will always be done. Humans are communal and will always form communities or families based on our biological nature. This is even evident in the animal world.
Agreed. Whatever exists in the way of groups, communities, corporations, governments, markets, etc. didn't spring out of nothingness into existence, they all have evolved into their present state of being. Libertarians recognize this concept (somewhat & unevenly) & sometimes call it 'spontaneous order'. Present day groupings have all formed & evolved in the free market place of ideas.

They're still waiting for 'beingness' to conform more to their liking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2016, 10:59 AM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,299 posts, read 2,345,580 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
[/b]
Again, there has never been an example of any group of humans who do not have some sort of governing body or authority figure in charge. The existence of that governing body/authority figure means that a government is at play.

There will always be a ruler in social situations with humans.

I'm not confused on this. I know for a fact that this is the case. We can disagree but I know that all humans have a governing body or authority figure in charge unless they live by themselves. And if that occurred, humans would die out. There is always an authority figure at play if you have more than one human.

And on the bold, I did bring that up - that people disagree on what a "right" is and especially so in regards to property rights. Some people think there is no such thing as a right to any property at all, that people cannot own the land. You will always have an issue with those sorts of people because they will never respect your rights as a property owner.

Also, the "non-aggression principle" IMO is not something that humans can adhere to. Humans are very aggressive beings. There will always be some sort of aggression at play or perceived aggression at play. We have evolved as a species based on our aggressiveness and fighting over both property and "rights."
You're using a very different definition of authority than I am. Having a boss at work, or having some kind of leader that people follow isn't the same thing as giving someone permission to rule over anyone. To use the boss example, your boss doesn't have permission to initiate force or steal from you. You can come to an agreement that you'll work for them and follow the company rules, but they can't come to your house and force you to work for them or give them money...nothing like that. There has to be a consensual agreement. Someone with political authority who you've never interacted with can just force you to give them what belongs to you and impose things on you that you never agreed to.

No one else is allowed to do that. Just the select group called "government" or "the state" or "the King" or some other political authority. There's this designated group in every country that's allowed to do what would be wrong for anyone else to do.

As for the rest, that's exactly why you need enough people to defend against those who don't respect your property rights. You don't need every person to follow it at all times (would be naive to expect that) but you need enough people to subscribe to that view. It's that way even WITH government. People believe that rape is wrong, but someone can just ignore that and rape another person, but there are consequences. That's always the case, whether you have a ruler or not.

The non-aggression principle is just the statement that its wrong to initiate force. You can use force if someone else uses or threatens force against you first, but it isn't acceptable to bring violence into a non-violent situation. The NAP isn't the MEANS to stop people from committing aggression...it's simply an idea that we want society to adopt. It's like me saying "slavery is wrong" and someone says "well not everyone will agree. People could just decide they want slaves."

Last edited by T0103E; 10-27-2016 at 11:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2016, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Madison, WI
5,299 posts, read 2,345,580 times
Reputation: 1227
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Agreed. Whatever exists in the way of groups, communities, corporations, governments, markets, etc. didn't spring out of nothingness into existence, they all have evolved into their present state of being. Libertarians recognize this concept (somewhat & unevenly) & sometimes call it 'spontaneous order'. Present day groupings have all formed & evolved in the free market place of ideas.

They're still waiting for 'beingness' to conform more to their liking.
Except present day groupings have evolved beginning with the idea that it's okay for the King/some select group to initiate force. If you begin with the idea that nobody should be allowed to initiate force, things organize differently from there.

That's why philosophy and societal beliefs are so important. If you change the ideas people have, everything else follows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2016, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,856 posts, read 17,304,172 times
Reputation: 14459
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E View Post
Except present day groupings have evolved beginning with the idea that it's okay for the King/some select group to initiate force. If you begin with the idea that nobody should be allowed to initiate force, things organize differently from there.

That's why philosophy and societal beliefs are so important. If you change the ideas people have, everything else follows.
Here we go with consistency in morality and logic again. Not to mention respect for individuals. SMH.

Why don't you just vote like the rest of them? You Just need to get your own government official to steal, murder, and cage your neighbor on your behalf and call it justified cuz you aren't personally doing it.

Pop an Ativan and call it a day!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2016, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Santa Monica
36,856 posts, read 17,304,172 times
Reputation: 14459
The more I read this stuff the more I think about that movie The Truman Show.

The statist is like Truman: content in his world even though he knows deep down something is amiss. The wife, the picket fence, etc...it's all fake though.

As the movie progresses Truman gets more uncomfortable with his cognitive dissonance until he finally breaks free from the TV show (The State) because he knows freedom with the chance of pain and suffering is better than living a safe immoral/illogical life.

residinghere, Chi...other statists...break thru the fourth wall!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2016, 11:27 AM
 
16,212 posts, read 10,786,749 times
Reputation: 8442
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
I'm confused. So once a social construct is formed (meaning interaction between 2 humans) it is universal social law for the rest of earth's existence?
I didn't say anything about "earth's existence" lol.

Humans create social constructs and as a result they form governing body's that give authority to an individual or group of individuals. This is a natural thing for humans to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2016, 11:37 AM
 
16,212 posts, read 10,786,749 times
Reputation: 8442
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E View Post
You're using a very different definition of authority than I am. Having a boss at work, or having some kind of leader that people follow isn't the same thing as giving someone permission to rule over anyone. To use the boss example, your boss doesn't have permission to initiate force or steal from you. You can come to an agreement that you'll work for them and follow the company rules, but they can't come to your house and force you to work for them or give them money...nothing like that. There has to be a consensual agreement. Someone with political authority who you've never interacted with can just force you to give them what belongs to you and impose things on you that you never agreed to.

No one else is allowed to do that. Just the select group called "government" or "the state" or "the King" or some other political authority. There's this designated group in every country that's allowed to do what would be wrong for anyone else to do.

As for the rest, that's exactly why you need enough people to defend against those who don't respect your property rights. You don't need every person to follow it at all times (would be naive to expect that) but you need enough people to subscribe to that view. It's that way even WITH government. People believe that rape is wrong, but someone can just ignore that and rape another person, but there are consequences. That's always the case, whether you have a ruler or not.

The non-aggression principle is just the statement that its wrong to initiate force. You can use force if someone else uses or threatens force against you first, but it isn't acceptable to bring violence into a non-violent situation. The NAP isn't the MEANS to stop people from committing aggression...it's simply an idea that we want society to adopt. It's like me saying "slavery is wrong" and someone says "well not everyone will agree. People could just decide they want slaves."
Again, I am not using a different version. You are just complicating the simplicity of what I am stating.

The bold actually has happened before. In your example of the bold, a boss is voluntarily given authority over an individual. A boss can indeed come to your house and force you to work if they want to.

You are again proving my point with the above and human nature. You cannot stop the boss without some sort of agreed upon rule/law from forcing you to do something. Even if you have an agreed upon rule/law you cannot "defend" yourself against the boss if he/she comes barging in and forces you to do something with weapons/threat of harm. You depend on an outside body/organization (i.e. government) to do this for you. Human nature is aggressive and no human will 100% agree to adopt a concept of non-aggression because that is not in our DNA. I am a peaceful person, but I would never comply to some "non-aggressive" principle because I may need to be aggressive at some point in time with someone. So unless you create a governing body (i.e. government) that "forces" me to agree to a non-aggressive principle, then that is not going to happen. I doubt many people would agree to that. It is against human nature.

Someone will always take advantage of an agreement and force you to do something you don't want to do. And especially if you do not have any agreed upon rights and an outside body/organization that will defend your rights (i.e. government) then you will just be taken advantage of. It is nice IMO to think that people will agree not to be aggressive with each other. However, it is naive to believe that people actually won't be aggressive to each other. Libertarianism IMO is like communism in this way. Sounds good on paper but would never be successful in reality. At least though with communism (which I think is the exact opposite of Libertarianism) we have case studies to prove that it is not a good system of government or society. With Libertarianism, because it is so extreme and against human nature, it can never even be tested/observed.

Will also note that many people who are salaried employees (including myself many times) are "forced" to work outside of our agreed upon work schedule.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:08 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top