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.
But I want to know if there is an example to prove out what I quoted from your reply. I'm fairly certain you have heard people use Somalia as an example of a contradiction to what I quoted. Also, we have examples of totalitarian systems of governments killing millions of people, but do we know that a society without any form of government is more polite than one with government.
Well, Somalia is not a stateless society. Somalia has been in a state of Civil War, between multiple factions who want to become the state. To say Somalia is in a state of anarchy, would be like saying the areas under ISIS control are in a state of anarchy. Civil War is not anarchy.
As to the rest of your statement. Well, that is complicated. The state has been around for quite some time, so examples of stateless societies tend to be unreliable, and unrepresentative.
For instance, a lot of people talk about the Spanish anarchists. But those movements were part of the Spanish Civil War. Where they fighting against, and were ultimately defeated by Francisco Franco's "Nationalists".
Nothing can really be known about whether or not they were polite. The only thing that can be known, is that anarchism doesn't have a good track-record of being able to defend itself.
So yes, I am primarily speaking hypothetically. But, from anecdotal evidence, we can see that the people of the past tended to be more polite than people are today(when government was smaller). And the places and times where government has had the least impact(IE rural areas), tends to produce the most polite people. Places with the biggest governments(usually urban areas, especially the largest cities), tend to have the least polite/friendly people.
For another reference, we might think about "religion" and its effects on politeness, and government's effect on religion. In short, would people become more religious or less religious if government was smaller or didn't exist? There is plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis, that the less government there is, the most people go to church, the more people volunteer their time, and the more people donate to charity. All of these things tend to have a positive effect on politeness.
Then of course the old saying "An armed society is a polite society".
But no, outside of actually convincing the government to dissolve itself(never going to happen). All we can do is make educated guesses on what would actually happen without government.
Though I remember one of the first things I thought about in regards to anarchism. Was right after that tornado that went through Moore, Oklahoma and killed all those kids at the elementary school(I lived in Moore for nearly 20 years). And the Westboro baptist church came down to basically say that god killed those kids because we are all sinners, or whatnot. I remember it was a pretty big deal here. But, they have a right to "freedom of speech".
Anyway, I am a fan of freedom of speech. But I can't lie, I'm not a fan of people being jerks just for the sake of being jerks. And without the police there to protect them, they wouldn't have made it back to Kansas. And honestly, rightfully so.
One way is that people honestly wont care. We see this with many emotionally disturbed people who commit murders or mass-murders. You look at the Boston Bomber, the Aurora shooter, the Sandy Hook shooter and murderers in domestic violence murder-suicides, they don't show much remorse of this. The thing is with no courts, I can imagine a murderer feeling they have a better chance to get away with it because there's no payback for it.
In all honesty, its much better to be a murderer under a government than in its absence. In every case you mentioned, if there hadn't been a government, they would already be dead. There wouldn't have been a trial for the Aurora shooter, or the Sandy Hook shooter. At best, they might have gotten a swift execution by hanging. And at worst, they would have been drawn and quartered.
As a general rule, if there wasn't a government, there really wouldn't be prisons to put people in. If they committed any crime which made people feel unsafe, they would be killed on the spot.
Only under our system can a convicted murderer or rapist be out after only a few years, and go kill and rape again.
With that said, at least in the case of the Boston bomber, it never would have happened had there not been a government. They were Islamic radicals who were doing something to punish America for its involvement in Muslim countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
See either of The Purge movies for this idea as for one night they allow any crimes including murder in order to keep peace the rest of the year. Another way is that people will be "offended" but there's nothing offensive. Just look on here how people get offended over nothing and now they would be allowed to shoot me for no reason and get away with that? Say a convenience store clerk can't sell an item because they are out of it, is that a good reason to shoot someone? But we all know someone who would do that.
First, it is incredibly unlikely that anyone could shoot you and simply get away with it(at least not anymore than they already do). Secondly, lets understand that, without government, all of our behaviors, and the entire structure of society would change. Regardless of what many anarchists believe. The modern world is held together by the state. A place like New York City would "empty out" without a strong government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
The third way is the old "eye for an eye." It will be so easy to start a Hattfield and McCoys, Blood and Crips or Capulet and Montegue blood feud over offending someone. Say the convenience store clerk had a family, his brother finds the person who shot the clerk and shoots them for offending the family. Who's to say the person who shot the clerk wont have family trying to get revenge. It's not a slippery slope, we have seen these wars with gangs for years.
This is actually true. Without a state, you end up with a lot more "vigilante justice". Which can create a cycle of violence if people aren't careful. But, lets understand that the prior knowledge of the fact that any violence could create a cycle of violence, tends to dissuade people from using any violence at all.
Which is exactly why these types of feuds are usually incredibly rare. And in regards to the bloods and crips, that is primarily the result of turf wars associated with organized crime(especially drugs, IE drug prohibition).
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
I think many of us would agree that statism is the lesser of two evils with these possibilities.
Well, as much as I hate the state. I would still concede that "something like a state", is probably necessary. Not because of violence from within. But rather, I think we would crumble apart into tribalism without a state. And there are "outside threats" to worry about(anarchy really couldn't have a "nuclear weapon held in private hands").
With that said, my goal is primarily about how to create a government which is "by the actual consent of the governed". As well as make sure government is kept limited.
I believe the only way to do that, is not merely to have a government with a Constitution. A Constitution can be reinterpreted or ignored. The only way to do it in my opinion, is to make it reset(IE dissolve) periodically, if not renewed. Thus creating a breakwater against the growth of government(and even the tyranny of the majority).
Well, Somalia is not a stateless society. Somalia has been in a state of Civil War, between multiple factions who want to become the state. To say Somalia is in a state of anarchy, would be like saying the areas under ISIS control are in a state of anarchy. Civil War is not anarchy.
As to the rest of your statement. Well, that is complicated. The state has been around for quite some time, so examples of stateless societies tend to be unreliable, and unrepresentative.
For instance, a lot of people talk about the Spanish anarchists. But those movements were part of the Spanish Civil War. Where they fighting against, and were ultimately defeated by Francisco Franco's "Nationalists".
Nothing can really be known about whether or not they were polite. The only thing that can be known, is that anarchism doesn't have a good track-record of being able to defend itself.
So yes, I am primarily speaking hypothetically. But, from anecdotal evidence, we can see that the people of the past tended to be more polite than people are today(when government was smaller). And the places and times where government has had the least impact(IE rural areas), tends to produce the most polite people. Places with the biggest governments(usually urban areas, especially the largest cities), tend to have the least polite/friendly people.
For another reference, we might think about "religion" and its effects on politeness, and government's effect on religion. In short, would people become more religious or less religious if government was smaller or didn't exist? There is plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis, that the less government there is, the most people go to church, the more people volunteer their time, and the more people donate to charity. All of these things tend to have a positive effect on politeness.
Then of course the old saying "An armed society is a polite society".
But no, outside of actually convincing the government to dissolve itself(never going to happen). All we can do is make educated guesses on what would actually happen without government.
Though I remember one of the first things I thought about in regards to anarchism. Was right after that tornado that went through Moore, Oklahoma and killed all those kids at the elementary school(I lived in Moore for nearly 20 years). And the Westboro baptist church came down to basically say that god killed those kids because we are all sinners, or whatnot. I remember it was a pretty big deal here. But, they have a right to "freedom of speech".
Anyway, I am a fan of freedom of speech. But I can't lie, I'm not a fan of people being jerks just for the sake of being jerks. And without the police there to protect them, they wouldn't have made it back to Kansas. And honestly, rightfully so.
Government doesn't make people polite. Firearms are a great equalizer. Westboro Baptist church is a bunch of A-holes... I agree.
and, as it is now, we have too much government, but anarchy isn't the answer.
Redshadowz - I don't think there would be too much of the vigilante justice/cycle of violence you were talking about. I'd think the solutions would be more sophisticated than that, especially in a modern society like ours where people understand and believe in the right to a fair trial, due process, etc...although it is difficult to predict everything down to the last detail.
It's too bad that we have to rely on speculation, although technically, the burden of proof should be on the people who advocate violence and not on those who want the peaceful solution.
Government isn't some nebulous body out there in the nether, government is that vehicle that voters drive to their own ends. Don't blame government blame the folks who demand that government do x, y, and z.
Either you need quotation marks or a citation pointing out where the Supreme Court has made such a statement.
On this we disagree at least in part. Gov. does become that nebulous body unconnected to the people when they campaign and make promises which once elected they discard and often do the opposite.
JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
"In Martinez-Fuerte, we found that the balance tipped in
favor of the Government’s interests in policing the Nation’s
borders. "
As opposed to the 4th amendment rights of individuals.
YES, and both parties are deeply steeped in the cult of Statism.
Any fakester who bleats about party-D or party-R turning-thing-around, well, they are either insane or a total ideologue who supports WHATEVER their nitwitish party does.
I listen to right-wing talk-radio and just SMH and lafffff really hard.......so many of those "conservative" like to push the idea that if "our guy" gets into the WH, well, we will have another
glorious Ronnie-Rebuilding, LOL!!!!!!!
The fact is, big and BIGGER government is very, very much supported by an overwhelming majority of both parties and the US population in general.
On this we disagree at least in part. Gov. does become that nebulous body unconnected to the people when they campaign and make promises which once elected they discard and often do the opposite.
This actually reminds me of a story I heard. The person telling the story was friends with a guy who was just appointed head of the department of housing and development, and he went to visit since he was in the area. He heard crashing noises and looked to see a guy knocking all the framed pictures of the old department head onto the floor, and another guy behind sweeping it up and putting the new pictures on the wall.
So then he said something along the lines of "and that's when I realized that these bureaucrats probably see these politicians and department leaders as blowhards who are gonna be in and out in a few years. Everything pretty much stays the same, but the face in charge is a little different every so often."
Another thing he mentioned was that if you think about it, we're all living under laws that were passed generations ago by the politicians who were representing those people (if you even believe politicians "represent" you, which I don't). Its rare that the state will repeal laws that have been passed, so they just keep building up and are passed on to future generations. That doesn't exactly help the argument that the people have the power in a democracy, simply because we're allowed to vote.
Government also no longer consists of 3 co-equal branches. The Executive branch has taken over.
The reason behind this is because we, the people, have become complacent over the past century. Americans were still pretty much self sufficient until the great depression and WWI. After those two incidents collapsed the country and the government came in to help, we came to depend on that help. It got worse after WWII.
The executive branch became a constitutional joke after JFK was assassinated and LBJ took over. It's been downhill ever since. I am conservative and Reagan was not the perfect conservative POTUS people claim him to be. After all, he was a prior Hollywood democrat, those who were in congressional hearings with Joe McCarthy concerning their communist leanings. Obama's white grandparents fit the communist profile.
When film clips from the movie "1984" came up it should have struck home but I doubt many are familiar with the book or films. I think the 1956 film is better than the one released in 1984 and can hardly (sic) wait to see the crap they will release with the one in production. It will probably be watered down liberal pablum with little to no true ties to the book.
Redshadowz - I don't think there would be too much of the vigilante justice/cycle of violence you were talking about. I'd think the solutions would be more sophisticated than that, especially in a modern society like ours where people understand and believe in the right to a fair trial, due process, etc...although it is difficult to predict everything down to the last detail.
It's too bad that we have to rely on speculation, although technically, the burden of proof should be on the people who advocate violence and not on those who want the peaceful solution.
I don't advocate violence but I don't expect to see violence end with the reduction of a police state and actually expect to see a rise in violence. Why is that, there isn't a threat of being arrested and the possibility of entirely getting away with it is higher than it is now. I don't deny that the Boston and Aurora murderers would have been put to justice already, but I think the cost of the increase innocent lives ended isn't worth it. Plus some of them just want to be martyrs.
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.
