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.
Most topics I post on end up going into how society could function without the state as it exists today, so I'll avoid going into detail on that. The idea is that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual, not forced. That would be the ideal we should strive for, in my opinion. If you aren't harming anyone and just want to be left alone, nobody should threaten violence against you for that. If you don't want to pay for something, your neighbors should have no authority to force you to.
The general idea in practice is just that people organize on their own, without any group of rulers dictating how they do so. If people want something and can't do it alone, they have to find others who will help. With the state, they can force people to do what they want. Without the state, they have to reason with them and get their consent...basically treat them like a human being instead of a slave.
The idea that there is no forced rules of society is unworkable. I don't feel like stopping for red lights or recycling. I think I'll burn my garbage in the open air and dump effluent in the street. Without coercion, there is no reason to come to an agreement with neighbors.
What you are advocating is what John Locke wrote about centuries ago, a state of nature. In a complex society, we need rules that all must follow. We have a democracy where our representatives make rules for the benefit of society as a whole. Without such rules, cars would be unsafe, air travel would be risky -- as nobody would know if maintenance was properly completed or whether baby formula was safe.
The type of society liberals claim to want. Obama was elected. He had a Dem Congress. Did liberals get the society they wanted?
Obama himself said he has "a pen and a phone." Did liberals get the society they wanted?
This meme is so popular on CD that I should program my response on an F-key.
The Dems didn't completely control Congress. In the Senate Al Franken was seated nearly eight months after winning his Senate seat. Even if the Senate was controlled by Democrats (e.g. 50 seats), the statement ignores two other facts. a) there were Democrats in the Senate that vote as if they were Republicans. b) Republicans liberally used the filibuster to block legislation.
The Dems never had 60 Senate seats post-2008. They had between 56 and 58 seats. For that very brief period they had 58 seats with consistent support from Bernie Sanders and inconsistent support from Joe Lieberman. The Democrats hardly had 60 Dem seats, and hardly 60 reliable Dem votes. Then in a special election the following January, Scott Brown won Teddy Kennedy’s old seat, and was sworn in on February 4th. Democrats' 60-vote majority in Senate: So close and yet so far - latimes.com
Moreover, while right-wingers view Obama as a leftist and others call him a socialist, he's very much a moderate.
Most topics I post on end up going into how society could function without the state as it exists today, so I'll avoid going into detail on that. The idea is that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual, not forced. That would be the ideal we should strive for, in my opinion. If you aren't harming anyone and just want to be left alone, nobody should threaten violence against you for that. If you don't want to pay for something, your neighbors should have no authority to force you to.
The general idea in practice is just that people organize on their own, without any group of rulers dictating how they do so. If people want something and can't do it alone, they have to find others who will help. With the state, they can force people to do what they want. Without the state, they have to reason with them and get their consent...basically treat them like a human being instead of a slave.
And you get down to your last phrase, and that's where it falls apart.
This is going to sound harsh, but perhaps America is not for you. Not saying you should leave. Just saying that American principles may not work for you.
And you get down to your last phrase, and that's where it falls apart.
This is going to sound harsh, but perhaps America is not for you. Not saying you should leave. Just saying that American principles may not work for you.
Now try going back and actually read what I wrote, rather than reacting in a knee-jerk response.
I specifically said, "Not saying you should leave".
There are some aspects of American life that don't "fit" right to my way of thinking. Doesn't mean I have to leave. Just means I have to live with it while not liking it.
This forum is full of posts demonstrating that there are aspects of American life that conservatives don't like. They don't have to leave. But they have to live with it.
This forum is full of posts demonstrating that there are aspects of American life that liberals don't like. They don't have to leave. But they have to live with it.
This forum is full of posts demonstrating that there are aspects of American life that middle-of-the-roaders don't like. They don't have to leave. But they have to live with it.
Pick any group...some aspects of American life won't gel with their principles. They don't have to leave. But they have to live with it.
Interesting. I do not see the practicality of this in a modern society of 300+ million. Maybe in a small village in the Amazon that has had no exposure to the modern world. I actually think there may be some villages left. OR, maybe you want to live as they do in Star Trek where money does not exist.
I live in a region of 7 or 8 million. Your description sounds like a nightmare to me. No thanks.
Also, to answer your original question, no, I do not think everyone is equal. It sounds like you do or want us to be so your utopian dream can come true. Just my 2 cents. Cheers.
I don't think everyone is equal in ability. The only way in which people are equal is in the rights they have as human beings...mainly the right to not have force used against you when you've done nothing wrong. It also isn't utopian, as I never claimed it would solve all the problems in society. What's utopian is continuing to give people power to control society and think that this time it'll turn out great.
The idea that there is no forced rules of society is unworkable. I don't feel like stopping for red lights or recycling. I think I'll burn my garbage in the open air and dump effluent in the street. Without coercion, there is no reason to come to an agreement with neighbors.
What you are advocating is what John Locke wrote about centuries ago, a state of nature. In a complex society, we need rules that all must follow. We have a democracy where our representatives make rules for the benefit of society as a whole. Without such rules, cars would be unsafe, air travel would be risky -- as nobody would know if maintenance was properly completed or whether baby formula was safe.
No rulers, not no rules. Also, it's the initiation of force that's wrong, not force used to defend against the initiators.
And you get down to your last phrase, and that's where it falls apart.
This is going to sound harsh, but perhaps America is not for you. Not saying you should leave. Just saying that American principles may not work for you.
You're right, it isn't. Neither is any other state.
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.
