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.
A society is a group of people who exist on a community level. They will always create some form of a governing body even without "money."
For a moment, imagine a house. Within a house, yes, there are rules, and there will organically become a kind of government structure as a result of those rules. But what you fail to understand, is that people only obey those rules to the extent that they either agree with them, or because they have no other choice but to obey them.
The moment a person who doesn't agree with the rules of the house can move into their own own house, where they can make their own rules, they do.
Why would anyone want to live in someone else's house, and have to follow their rules, if they didn't have to?
America is currently a big house. And if given the choice, a lot of people would love to move out on their own, so that they can have their own house, with their own rules.
It is true that people would generally not want to live completely alone. People will naturally live together, but never in large numbers.
The only way a large diverse house can be held together, is through force. Think of America as kind of a prison. Where you have a multitude of factions that, if there were suddenly no guards, would kill each other.
America is a fake nation, which is only held together by force.
You could never have anything exceeding Dunbar's number without using force. Which is why there is no government on Earth which wasn't established by force, and only continues to exist by force.
You continue to think that what can exist on a small-scale, among family members, can be projected onto millions or billions of people who often hate each other.
For a moment, imagine a house. Within a house, yes, there are rules, and there will organically become a kind of government structure as a result of those rules. But what you fail to understand, is that people only obey those rules to the extent that they either agree with them, or because they have no other choice but to obey them.
The moment a person who doesn't agree with the rules of the house can move into their own own house, where they can make their own rules, they do.
Why would anyone want to live in someone else's house, and have to follow their rules, if they didn't have to?
America is currently a big house. And if given the choice, a lot of people would love to move out on their own, so that they can have their own house, with their own rules.
It is true that people would generally not want to live completely alone. People will naturally live together, but never in large numbers.
The only way a large diverse house can be held together, is through force. Think of America as kind of a prison. Where you have a multitude of factions that, if there were suddenly no guards, would kill each other.
America is a fake nation, which is only held together by force.
You could never have anything exceeding Dunbar's number without using force. Which is why there is no government on Earth which wasn't established by force, and only continues to exist by force.
You continue to think that what can exist on a small-scale, among family members, can be projected onto millions or billions of people who often hate each other.
It is a delusion.
FWIW, on the bold, I am not thinking that at all. That is what Libertarians think IMO.
I am saying that a strong government ruling everyone - like Communism will not be good for society at large. Also, that the free markets ruling everyone - like anarcho-Libertarianism will not be good for society at large.
Both are damaging to the human experience.
Not sure why you keep quoting me and insinuating that I am a Libertarian when I do not agree that Libertarianism is superior. Libertarians believe your black bold above, not me.
3 - History is not a "myth." Also it was not a "political" necessity that the evil of slavery was rationalized in our country - it was an economic desire (a feeling of wanting more - greed) something that, as stated is rarely discussed in a conversation regarding Libertarianism and how free markets can "harm" just like government can "harm.
The vast-majority of the population never had slaves. This wasn't about individual greed. Nor did the overwhelming majority of society support slavery as a policy merely so that some rich guys could have slaves.
Slavery was an economic necessity, based on geopolitical circumstances.
The United States was desperate to build up our economy, to have the resources to defend ourselves from the other European powers. The governments of the world are, and have always been, in a perpetual state of war with each other. The governments of the world are in a kind of Darwinian struggle with each other. We have no friends.
Slavery was brought here, because we needed the labor to maximize production from the natural resources of our massive continent. And slavery wasn't even an efficient system. Adam Smith said that the "Wealth of nations" was built on specialization, not slavery.
The only areas where slavery was practical, was to produce labor-demanding high-value commodities that were sold primarily to international markets, which provided this country the capital we needed to build our own industry. Industry which was absolutely necessary for the self-preservation of the United States.
Foreign-policy is not guided by domestic-policy. Foreign-policy guides everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
Washington and other American revolutionaries wanted to be "free" of British rule and to create their own governing body. A topic I discussed in a previous post to you - all people either will accept the rule of their governing body, or they will reject it and revolt. The majority of the citizens of the colonies in America decided to revolt. Canada didn't want to be free of British rule, they were fine being a colony/territory of the British empire.
Actually, a majority of the citizens of the colonies did not decide to revolt. Only about a third of the population of the United States actually revolted. And as you might know, only about 3% were actively fighting in the war.
Of course, a lot of people continued fighting the war long after it was over. Shay's rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, both were about the same principles on which the Revolutionary War was fought. For that matter, the Civil War was honestly just a continuation of the Revolutionary War as well.
I think something like 10-25% of Americans think their state should secede from the union. There are obviously plenty of people in California right now who want to secede.
If people were actually individually given the choice between continued union, and separation, you would see a flood of people who would want to separate. And as people began to separate, it would completely destabilize society. What would be left?
Several years ago, I posed the question on this forum, "If given the choice, would you sign the Constitution?"
It was in reference to you signing a contract, whereby you would be bound by that contract for the rest of your life.
Now, before you answer if you would or not, keep in mind this quote by Lysander Spooner...
"Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
If given the choice, why wouldn't you demand a new Constitution? And who would even agree to it?
In any case, I think you severely underappreciate the fragility of society. It is actually incredibly difficult to keep a country together.
Not sure why you keep quoting me and insinuating that I am a Libertarian when I do not agree that Libertarianism is superior. Libertarians believe your black bold above, not me.
I didn't say you were a libertarian. We were having a debate about whether or not people would voluntarily sign up to be ruled by a government if given the choice.
I said that they would not sign up to be governed. And the evidence I put forth is that, there is no time, and no place in history, where the common people were ever individually asked whether or not they wanted to be governed, because everyone knows what the answer would be.
No government is voluntary, because no one would volunteer to be governed.
I agree with you that, even if we were to abolish government tomorrow, and start from scratch, that we would end up right back where we are. But it is because those in power will want to expand their power through conquest and oppression, just as they always have.
Your idea that society is voluntary is a delusion. No society is voluntary. None. Never.
Voluntary society can only ever exist in very small primitive tribes(IE Dunbar's number).
FWIW I think that anarcho-Libertarians see free market capitalism as "less" dangerous than government and IMO they are not less dangerous since they have the potential to cause just as much harm as government does without providing any sort of remedying process (as that would mean a government would have to be created). Also in our Democratic Republican government, our capitalists have actually been given a lot of power to influence elected officials and our government at large. Our entire country was basically founded on capitalism. Contrary to what people believe, the whole "Pilgrims came to America for religious freedom" thing and "that's how America became a country" is entirely false. The "new world" was settled as a business venture. Our government was created by capitalists who formed a communal society who rejected their far off government and decided to create their own governing body.
I agree with the bolded section. The capitalists in America wanted to separate from Britain, so that they could create a new system which suited them better.
But the government they created was not supported by a majority of the population. Which is why so few people were given the right to vote. And to the extent people were actually given a right to vote, it wasn't about what they individually wanted; They were given only the choice between the lesser of two evils, through a system created by those already in power. Just as what happens in every election.
Choose Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, pick your poison, but you were given a choice, so you have no right to complain.
The failure of libertarianism, is that it doesn't create social cohesion. It would lead to the collapse of civilization. Because libertarians take for granted that civilization is a natural outgrowth of human-nature, and is thus a foregone conclusion.
In reality, civilization is fragile, and could collapse into anarchy with the slightest pressure. There is a fine line between civilization and barbarism.
True, but you don't punish people with force for hurting the subjective feelings of others.
I think if that were true, it applies to any type of society. People are irrational, but you can still have things like freedom of speech which are based in logic. It's possible that people will forget the importance of that principle at some point, but people who believe in it should work to maintain it within their society.
On the bold, rampant discrimination is based on prejudice that is first caused by individuals being "harmed." When it is ignored or rationalized on a vast scale, that is when rampant discrimination occurs that violates the rights of members of a society.
On your point about principles, I believe I have posed a logical argument against Libertarianism due to its not considering the facts/principles of human nature. It is logical to state that humans are flawed. It is logical to state that humans create both governments and the free markets. Therefore; it is logical to conclude that both governments and free markets are flawed.
On your point in the red, I agree wholeheartedly. On that point, I also believe that people may forget the importance of a governing body to the lives of all citizens of a particular society. Also that people may forget the importance of a free market system to the lives of all citizens of a particular society. The latter has already been proven due to the rise and failure of Communism across the globe. Anarcho-Libertarianism has been proven a failure due to never having even been given the opportunity to establish itself based on the first logical principle - humans are flawed - we do not trust each other to respect all of our rights as individuals or groups of individuals. We have to have ways to frame and remedy the things that a particular society of humans will not or do not want to tolerate.
On my principle that humans are flawed; my position is that an anarcho-Libertarian society is inherently worse for a society than a Democratic Republican form of government being that it removes the importance of a governing body and the need of humans to frame and remedy what they will and will not tolerate as a society/community.
Now if we are talking of just a generic Libertarian government, like what lifeexplorer seems to be in agreement with and not a "purist" form of Libertarianism as what you state you support, then I posit that such Libertarian government, will eventually morph into a Democratic Republican style of government based on the shared experiences we have as people and the need to revise due to the evolution of a society and its culture throughout time.
So according to logic, a human society will create a governing body to frame what is and is not tolerated and how to remedy those things which are not tolerated; that what is framed and tolerated will change and grow with time. Therefore, anarcho-Libertarianism is not something that society should entertain since it does not allow a system to be created to frame what is tolerated, nor a process to remedy what is not tolerated.
I didn't say you were a libertarian. We were having a debate about whether or not people would voluntarily sign up to be ruled by a government if given the choice.
I said that they would not sign up to be governed. And the evidence I put forth is that, there is no time, and no place in history, where the common people were ever individually asked whether or not they wanted to be governed, because everyone knows what the answer would be.
No government is voluntary, because no one would volunteer to be governed.
I agree with you that, even if we were to abolish government tomorrow, and start from scratch, that we would end up right back where we are. But it is because those in power will want to expand their power through conquest and oppression, just as they always have.
Your idea that society is voluntary is a delusion. No society is voluntary. None. Never.
Voluntary society can only ever exist in very small primitive tribes(IE Dunbar's number).
I think people would sign up to be governed. If what you are stating is true - that people would not voluntarily allow themselves to be governed, then governments would never have been created in the first place. People have a need for structure and they will voluntary buy into a structure that they feel in some way protects them as an individual and a community. ETA: the Libertarian posters are even proof of this. They feel that a Libertarian type of philosophy would be "beneficial" to them and to the country. They would voluntarily join a Libertarian society due to that.
I believe the above based on what you alluded to in your other post - people are afraid of what would happen without a governing body more than they are afraid of the actual government. We do not trust each other to be civilized without some form of government or governing body.
I think people would sign up to be governed. If what you are stating is true - that people would not voluntarily allow themselves to be governed, then governments would never have been created in the first place.
All involuntary governments were the byproduct of conquest. Look at the history of the world, look at even modern examples. Government wasn't spread through discussion, it was spread through conquest and oppression.
"If taxation without consent is not robbery, then any band of robbers have only to declare themselves a government, and all their robberies are legalized." - Lysander Spooner
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
People have a need for structure and they will voluntary buy into a structure that they feel in some way protects them as an individual and a community. ETA: the Libertarian posters are even proof of this. They feel that a Libertarian type of philosophy would be "beneficial" to them and to the country. They would voluntarily join a Libertarian society due to that.
You are making a lot of assumptions. I do agree that many libertarians believe that a libertarian society would be preferable to what we have now. But what they are really saying, is that a libertarian society furthers their own interests more than our current government.
Thus, libertarianism is not the end, it is a means to an end. It is a tool.
So the question becomes, what is it that libertarians want? And can they only get what they want through libertarianism?
My sister is constantly complaining about Americans who hate America. I always reply, "People love the country they love. And they hate the country they hate. It does no good telling someone to love something they don't love. You have to teach them why they should love it."
I don't believe for a moment that anyone truly loves America. Almost everyone wants to change America to be completely different from what it is now. And almost no one agrees with anyone else on what America should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
I believe the above based on what you alluded to in your other post - people are afraid of what would happen without a governing body more than they are afraid of the actual government. We do not trust each other to be civilized without some form of government or governing body.
I would agree that people tend to prefer the status quo, over what would be in fact, a revolution. Revolutions almost-always mean war, and chaos, and uncertainty.
Reminds of Jefferson's quote... "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery ."
He obviously had a purpose for making that quote, as well as Benjamin Franklin who said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
A large portion of the population will always choose security over liberty, at least to a point.
Which reminds me of our Declaration of Independence...
"All experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
I think the world is the way it is for a perfectly logical reason. But I don't think any government at any level was ever voluntary. And all governments are controlled by a handful of elites. The common people are almost-completely irrelevant. They can always be dragged along, mainly through fear.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - HL Mencken
On the bold, rampant discrimination is based on prejudice that is first caused by individuals being "harmed." When it is ignored or rationalized on a vast scale, that is when rampant discrimination occurs that violates the rights of members of a society.
On your point about principles, I believe I have posed a logical argument against Libertarianism due to its not considering the facts/principles of human nature. It is logical to state that humans are flawed. It is logical to state that humans create both governments and the free markets. Therefore; it is logical to conclude that both governments and free markets are flawed.
This is where I disagree, but it might be semantics. As I've said earlier, I don't consider it a government for people to get together, organize, and have rules. It's only government if you give someone special rights that nobody else has - if you have a designated person/group that's allowed to initiate force, and nobody else is allowed to. Do you think it's inevitable that people will do that, or do you think it's feasible that there can be a society where nobody is given "special rights"?
I'd also say people don't "create" free markets...the free market is just people interacting without being forced to, so that just happens naturally. Kind of a minor detail.
Quote:
On your point in the red, I agree wholeheartedly. On that point, I also believe that people may forget the importance of a governing body to the lives of all citizens of a particular society. Also that people may forget the importance of a free market system to the lives of all citizens of a particular society. The latter has already been proven due to the rise and failure of Communism across the globe. Anarcho-Libertarianism has been proven a failure due to never having even been given the opportunity to establish itself based on the first logical principle - humans are flawed - we do not trust each other to respect all of our rights as individuals or groups of individuals. We have to have ways to frame and remedy the things that a particular society of humans will not or do not want to tolerate.
On my principle that humans are flawed; my position is that an anarcho-Libertarian society is inherently worse for a society than a Democratic Republican form of government being that it removes the importance of a governing body and the need of humans to frame and remedy what they will and will not tolerate as a society/community.
Now if we are talking of just a generic Libertarian government, like what lifeexplorer seems to be in agreement with and not a "purist" form of Libertarianism as what you state you support, then I posit that such Libertarian government, will eventually morph into a Democratic Republican style of government based on the shared experiences we have as people and the need to revise due to the evolution of a society and its culture throughout time.
So according to logic, a human society will create a governing body to frame what is and is not tolerated and how to remedy those things which are not tolerated; that what is framed and tolerated will change and grow with time. Therefore, anarcho-Libertarianism is not something that society should entertain since it does not allow a system to be created to frame what is tolerated, nor a process to remedy what is not tolerated.
I agree that lifeexplorer's type of minarchist/small government libertarianism will turn into what we have now, because people still believe we need a ruler or ruling class. Most just take it for granted that we need someone "in charge" that needs to boss everyone around and take their money to "make" society what it should be. They've never thought about how a society could function when rules are enforced bottom-up/as equals. Small government always grows into big government.
So because they believe we need a government, they create one. If they don't believe we need one, they won't create one.
This is where I disagree, but it might be semantics. As I've said earlier, I don't consider it a government for people to get together, organize, and have rules. It's only government if you give someone special rights that nobody else has - if you have a designated person/group that's allowed to initiate force, and nobody else is allowed to. Do you think it's inevitable that people will do that, or do you think it's feasible that there can be a society where nobody is given "special rights"?
I'd also say people don't "create" free markets...the free market is just people interacting without being forced to, so that just happens naturally. Kind of a minor detail.
I agree that lifeexplorer's type of minarchist/small government libertarianism will turn into what we have now, because people still believe we need a ruler or ruling class. Most just take it for granted that we need someone "in charge" that needs to boss everyone around and take their money to "make" society what it should be. They've never thought about how a society could function when rules are enforced bottom-up/as equals. Small government always grows into big government.
So because they believe we need a government, they create one. If they don't believe we need one, they won't create one.
On the bold regarding special rights - yes, I do think that all governments and governing bodies are set up to give specific individuals "special rights."
Even in a Libertarian society, someone will be in charge.
If someone is not given special rights as a leader, coordinator, or some sort of administrator - then people will never get together to organize and create those rules and come to a consensus about the laws/rules and what to do if those laws/rules are not followed (the process). They will also have to designate "special rights" to the people or person who will be charged with following the process to determine if a rule/law has been broken and to render a punishment or award of damages for an offense.
There is no way to do this without forming a governing body. As stated, that is why there has never been an anarcho-Libertarian society.
I will also note that I don't believe that governments necessarily have to enforce taxes. A governing body can decide to seek voluntary donations if they so please. Taxation is not a requirement of government, unfortunately though, people are greedy, same way business people are greedy and they don't want to do anything for free so those people given "special rights" to administer the policies created by government will usually require some sort of fee for their service.
I'll also note that I too, believe our government in this country is too bloated and too large and too all encompassing. So I can understand the desire to have some "freedom" like a Libertarian would like. However, it is illogical IMO to go to a completely anarchist society.
I will further note that I do feel that "change" in regards to the diminishing of the reach of our governing body, though it is not all encompassing like a socialist or communist country. BTW I do think many Libertarians over-exaggerate on this along with run of the mill conservatives who just don't know what complete socialism or communism entails. However, I do believe that our country will have some sort of revolt against the all encompassing reach of government at some point in time. A "schism" will occur IMO. Maybe even another Civil War. Schisms and conflicts and revolutionary acts in a society are also a part of the natural human experience.
From a humanist standpoint though my primary desire is that people make it a norm to think critically, become more skeptical of the status quo, while also more tolerant of the differences of the people of the world. We are more alike than different and we are highly social, intelligent beings capable of treating each other with tolerance and respect. To that point we should focus on creating better governing bodies and rules and processes that are more in line with the way that real people live their lives.
ETA: On the free markets, they are around because people have needs and wants, things that are both natural and emotionally based. When one has a need, they are "forced" physically and mentally to do something about that need for their survival. We need to eat a variety of foods, if we don't have specific vitamins/minerals we will be subject to illness and death. We want to have a variety of things, speaking of illness, medical care comes to mind. Now medical care is not a "natural need" whereas it is not something that we need every day to survive, but it is a way to repair our bodies and health and so if we know someone can cure a sick child or other relative, that healthcare becomes a "desire" based on the force of stress and fear of living without that commodity. How many people talk about how they will "die without _______" some purchase they don't even need. They have a chemical reaction to the desire for that product/service. It forces/compels them to consume said product/service.
Last edited by residinghere2007; 12-07-2016 at 07:47 PM..
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.
