What exaclty makes one decide what's right for others? - Page 6 - MacRumors Forums
Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Aug 1, 2013, 11:33 PM   #126
NewishMacGuy
macrumors 6502a
 
NewishMacGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by zin View Post
How can decisions on national security be made by everybody? How can decisions on law enforcement be made by everybody? How can decisions on resource management be made by everybody? How could you represent your country's interests on an international scale? The idea of a government is that it is representative of its people, and that it is created by, for, and of those people.

It would be very frightening to live in a world that you describe. There would be different police departments every few miles, because each community has decided on vastly different laws; there'd be a courthouse on every neighbourhood, because each one chooses to interpret the laws differently; a different legislature every few miles; an immigration office with internal borders every few miles; a civil war every other day; violent conflicts between newly created "sovereign" villages.

I think that I'm even being generous with "miles" and "villages" because I'm sure there would even be huge disagreements within those. In short, it would be absolute chaos. Of course, however, I have no proof of this, and neither have you of the opposite as, as far as I'm aware, no country has ever attempted to run things in the way that you describe.

If I were given the choice between living in a world of chaos with absolute freedom and the world we currently live in then I know which one I'd choose.

Your argument is essentially invalid because the true meaning of a government is that it is in fact run by the common man, not by the "elites" as you describe.
People do not need governments to come together and work on project in their common interest. They don't need to be forced to do that or directed in the way that they do it by means of the threat of violence.

People will naturally work together in the interest of their common good voluntarily. The only reason the we have authoritarian government is to make you do things that you would not choose to do of your own volition - and there's no good moral or ethical reason for that.

It saddens me that you would be afraid of a world where people were free. You obviously don't think very much of mankind or believe in our fundamental equality. This is slave mentality.

Slaves were always taught that the could exist free of their master and his system of regulation because they were not civilized enough to do so. wasn't true then and isn't true now.

And just because you elect your slave masters doesn't mean that you run the plantation.

>
__________________
2010 i3 iMac-21.5 | 2011 uMBP-15 | 2011 uMBP-13 | iBookG4-12 | 2x ATV 1G | 2x iPhone 1G | 2x iPhone 3GS | 2x iPhone 4S | iPhone 5s | 2x iPod 5.5G | iPod Photo | iPod 2G | 2x iPad 3
NewishMacGuy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 12:18 AM   #127
zin
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewishMacGuy View Post
People do not need governments plutocracies or oligarchies to come together and work on project in their common interest. They don't need to be forced to do that or directed in the way that they do it by means of the threat of violence.
I replaced the word "government" with what I think you are arguing against. The entire point of a government is that it is the people coming together to work on this collective project known as society.

Quote:
People will naturally work together in the interest of their common good voluntarily. The only reason the we have authoritarian government is to make you do things that you would not choose to do of your own volition - and there's no good moral or ethical reason for that.
What do you want to do that your government is preventing you from doing? I asked you this earlier but you brought business regulation into the discussion. What individual things would you like to do but your government is preventing you from doing? After all, your argument rests on individual freedom, not business freedom (unless you think that corporations are people).

Quote:
It saddens me that you would be afraid of a world where people were free. You obviously don't think very much of mankind or believe in our fundamental equality. This is slave mentality.
I disagree entirely. My opinion is that without a government there would be chaos. Your happy utopia where everybody works together is outrageously unrealistic; I make a comparison with your "utopia" with social darwinism, or "everybody for himself", which is not the way any civilisation could ever dream of progressing in.

What you are advocating is a system where a government does not exist. How can there be law and order in a system such as this?

If we get rid of consumer protection laws then the CEOs of the big businesses will continue being nice and honest (even with regulation, they still aren't honest) just because they will feel enlightened in this newly-created utopia?

If we get rid of murder laws then people will stop killing other people because they'll feel enlightened in this utopia?

If you're not advocating the abolition of laws, then you have to acknowledge that there must be some kind of central authority to administer and enforce those laws (kind of like a government).

Quote:
And just because you elect your slave masters doesn't mean that you run the plantation.
There you go again. How can you expect a rational discussion if you factually label elected representatives as "slave masters"? Slave masters usually don't listen to what their "slaves" have to say, which is contrary to what happens in almost every civilised country (governments change direction if the voters voice their disapproval).

You also have not yet directly addressed my post. What about national security? What about law enforcement (or some form of "law" in this paradise)? What about international relations? What about resource management?

Saying things such as 'people will come together to address these things voluntarily' is not enough because, from my understanding, this is precisely what happens under the current system.
zin is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 2, 2013, 01:36 AM   #128
NewishMacGuy
macrumors 6502a
 
NewishMacGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by zin View Post
I replaced the word "government" with what I think you are arguing against. The entire point of a government is that it is the people coming together to work on this collective project known as society.
The difference between people coming together to work on a collectively on a project which they deem to be good and a government is that the former is purely voluntary, while the latter is designed (and required) to force people to do things that they would not do voluntarily - and that's a big difference.



Quote:
What do you want to do that your government is preventing you from doing? I asked you this earlier but you brought business regulation into the discussion. What individual things would you like to do but your government is preventing you from doing? After all, your argument rests on individual freedom, not business freedom (unless you think that corporations are people).
I would rather not provide any of my income and productivity for the development of weapons of mass destruction, the enlargement of a system of spying on the citizens of this country (and the whole world), the establishment of a global empire upheld for the benefit of our large corporations by a network of military bases around the world, the use of covert means to overthrow elected governments in other countries, the extraordinary rendition, torture, and indefinite detention of citizens of other countries, the subsidies granted to large energy companies, the arrest of farmers and confiscation of their property for selling raw milk to willing consumers, etc, etc - yet I am forced to do so by regulations backed up by the threat of violent enforcement.

And while corporations are not natural persons, they should be treated as such under the law because they are nothing but voluntary associations of such persons - and as such they should also bear the full liability for harm done to others just as natural persons do. So yes, individual freedom is the same as business freedom.



Quote:
I disagree entirely. My opinion is that without a government there would be chaos. Your happy utopia where everybody works together is outrageously unrealistic; I make a comparison with your "utopia" with social darwinism, or "everybody for himself", which is not the way any civilisation could ever dream of progressing in.

What you are advocating is a system where a government does not exist. How can there be law and order in a system such as this?
You are supposing that human beings must be externally regulated and governed in order to work together. This is a dim view of humanity and presumes that the human beings who would be selected to do the regulating and governing are somehow less prone to chaotic malfeasance, that they are somehow "better" than those they would deem to regulate and govern. I think not. I think that human beings will work together towards a common cause voluntarily precisely because it is in each individuals best interest to do so. Thus we can be no better off than if we are all pursuing our own self-interest - for who will look out for our own collective interests better than we will individually? Certainly not a government comprised of a smaller subset of us with the authority and power to bend us to their will.


Quote:
If we get rid of consumer protection laws then the CEOs of the big businesses will continue being nice and honest (even with regulation, they still aren't honest) just because they will feel enlightened in this newly-created utopia?
Consumer protection laws do not protect you from malfeasance by big corporations. You are the best protector of yourself from such malfeasance, and you do so by choosing not to do business with corporations that you can't trust. I would be a fool to rely on the FDA to protect me from Monsanto, as only I can protect myself from Monsanto by no buying any of their products. In my business I don't trade with Goldman Sachs, because I know that they will not be a good trading counterparty, I don't need a regulator to tell me that.



Quote:
If we get rid of murder laws then people will stop killing other people because they'll feel enlightened in this utopia?
And people don't kill each other now? Also, historically governments do FAR more killing (even of their own citizens) than citizens do of themselves or of other groups of citizens. If you want to reduce the amount of murder in the world one of the best things you can do is rid yourself of governments.


Quote:
If you're not advocating the abolition of laws, then you have to acknowledge that there must be some kind of central authority to administer and enforce those laws (kind of like a government).
Certainly not. In my profession, dispute resolution is handled by a contractual obligation to submit to arbitration, entirely outside of a system of centralized governmental authority. It works pretty well and is FAR more efficient. If you don't submit to the contractual obligation to a system of arbitration for dispute resolution, then others won't do business with you - no threat of violent force involved.


Quote:
There you go again. How can you expect a rational discussion if you factually label elected representatives as "slave masters"? Slave masters usually don't listen to what their "slaves" have to say, which is contrary to what happens in almost every civilised country (governments change direction if the voters voice their disapproval).
The most effective slave masters listen to what their slaves have to say because if you don't do that to at least a limited extent then you'll have a revolt on your hands. The key to effective slave-mastering (or governing) is letting the slaves have just enough freedom such that you optimize their productivity, but never enough such that they develop the idea that they really don't need you and could get along just fine without your interference and seizure of their property. Of course you will want to educate them to believe that without you the place would be utter chaos because they are sub-human and uncivilized. Wake up!


Quote:
You also have not yet directly addressed my post. What about national security? What about law enforcement (or some form of "law" in this paradise)? What about international relations? What about resource management?
1. Voluntarily funded and staffed - what passes for "national security" concerns these days is the government defending itself, not us.

2. See above

3. Free trade with everyone

4. "Centralized resource management" (aka centrally planned economies) have been a complete and utter failure throughout history. Why would we want that?

Quote:
Saying things such as 'people will come together to address these things voluntarily' is not enough because, from my understanding, this is precisely what happens under the current system.
Except that the current system is not voluntary.

>
__________________
2010 i3 iMac-21.5 | 2011 uMBP-15 | 2011 uMBP-13 | iBookG4-12 | 2x ATV 1G | 2x iPhone 1G | 2x iPhone 3GS | 2x iPhone 4S | iPhone 5s | 2x iPod 5.5G | iPod Photo | iPod 2G | 2x iPad 3
NewishMacGuy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2013, 11:28 AM   #129
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewishMacGuy View Post
The difference between people coming together to work on a collectively on a project which they deem to be good and a government is that the former is purely voluntary, while the latter is designed (and required) to force people to do things that they would not do voluntarily - and that's a big difference.
----
You are supposing that human beings must be externally regulated and governed in order to work together. This is a dim view of humanity and presumes that the human beings who would be selected to do the regulating and governing are somehow less prone to chaotic malfeasance, that they are somehow "better" than those they would deem to regulate and govern. I think not. I think that human beings will work together towards a common cause voluntarily precisely because it is in each individuals best interest to do so.
You might think that his view of humanity is dim, while I think that your view of humanity is out-of-the-ballpark unrealistic. The people in my neighborhood couldn't even plan a charity pool party in memory of a dead friend without it devolving into threats, fighting, and lost friendships. And that's for a neighborhood pool party. And you think an entire country would run smoothly under such a system? Not realistic in any way. Ideologically? Yes. Realistically? No chance.

Quote:
Consumer protection laws do not protect you from malfeasance by big corporations. You are the best protector of yourself from such malfeasance, and you do so by choosing not to do business with corporations that you can't trust. I would be a fool to rely on the FDA to protect me from Monsanto, as only I can protect myself from Monsanto by no buying any of their products. In my business I don't trade with Goldman Sachs, because I know that they will not be a good trading counterparty, I don't need a regulator to tell me that.
This is great, in theory. However, it assumes that everyone has the ability and knowledge to know exactly what to look for in every dealing. I want to go buy a pack of hot dogs...I would now have to research every hot dog company to see which ones were honest, and which were doing sinister things. Now I want to buy some buns. Okay, now let's research the bun companies. Does this sound like a great existence? Not to me in the slightest. I would rather trust that some regulatory body is inspecting these producers at regular intervals. Do I think the FDA is doing a wonderful job? No. Do I think that abolishing them would help? I spit out my drink in laughter.

Quote:
Certainly not. In my profession, dispute resolution is handled by a contractual obligation to submit to arbitration, entirely outside of a system of centralized governmental authority. It works pretty well and is FAR more efficient. If you don't submit to the contractual obligation to a system of arbitration for dispute resolution, then others won't do business with you - no threat of violent force involved.
And when arbitration breaks down, then what? There's no legality behind arbitration. Oh wait...you said the market would sort it out.


Quote:
1. Voluntarily funded and staffed - what passes for "national security" concerns these days is the government defending itself, not us.

2. See above

3. Free trade with everyone

4. "Centralized resource management" (aka centrally planned economies) have been a complete and utter failure throughout history. Why would we want that?
Okay, let's figure out a few other basic things and tell me how they would work.

- Traffic signals...installation, operation, and repair over an entire metro area.
- How would completely private utilities such as water work without any sort of monopoly possibility?
- Neighborhood roads...maintenance?
- Any such thing as a public park, or would they all be privately owned?

Quote:
Except that the current system is not voluntary.
You have claimed frequently that your system is held back because people want power over others and wouldn't let it happen.

So, you mean to say that in the entire history of mankind, not one single example of your system has ever managed to even be tried, solely because people who want power won't let it happen? In the entire history of mankind, no group of people has banded together and escaped to an uninhabited island and started their own completely free society and prospered? Why not? Who's stopping you from grabbing 20 or 2000 of your closest friends and doing it?

You suggest that other planned economies have been complete failures throughout history, yet nothing even close to what you suggest has ever even been tried. Maybe, just maybe, it's because everyone already knows that it will fail and is a waste of everything, and what we have now is better than your suggestion. I hardly think that out of the history of mankind, that NewishMacGuy has the sole answer for the ailings of the world.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 3, 2013, 12:43 PM   #130
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
So, you mean to say that in the entire history of mankind, not one single example of your system has ever managed to even be tried, solely because people who want power won't let it happen? In the entire history of mankind, no group of people has banded together and escaped to an uninhabited island and started their own completely free society and prospered? Why not?
Glibertarians like NMG have been asked to point to a country that is a model of their preferred socio-political system that can demonstrate its effectiveness.

They cannot.

As you point out, that can be expanded to any society in the history of mankind that is a model of their preferred socio-political system that demonstrates its effectiveness.

I would suggest that there is no unit, however small, that functions in the way he wishes. People have conflicting interests, and to expect there be some sort of voluntary cooperation — or as eric/ used to say, "unanimous agreement" — in all of the complex interactions and exchanges we engage in is simply a fantasy and not to be considered seriously.

Human beings don't work that way. Human beings have never worked that way. That is why as long as there have been human societies we've relied on systems of leadership and counsel to lay down rules of conduct that keep our conflicting interests from escalating into all out chaos.

Social harmony has been best achieved through a balance of freedom and limitations, rights and responsibilities. And to that I'd add a realistic and rational understanding of what is practical versus what is fantasy.

For those who continue to cling to fantasy, they have my sympathy. Life must be difficult when their expectations are so outside of the realm they must endure.
citizenzen is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2013, 02:07 AM   #131
astrorider
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Glibertarians like NMG have been asked to point to a country that is a model of their preferred socio-political system that can demonstrate its effectiveness.
Weak. Resorting to pejoratives and ad hominem is often a sign you lack a good argument. It seems out of character for you to go there (that's a compliment). In fact, you sound threatened.

Quote:
They cannot.

As you point out, that can be expanded to any society in the history of mankind that is a model of their preferred socio-political system that demonstrates its effectiveness.
You're arguing for the status quo for the status quo's sake. In the 1700's, had someone argued against women's suffrage because "no effective society has ever granted women the right to vote", would you find it convincing? Maybe you need to Think Different

Quote:
I would suggest that there is no unit, however small, that functions in the way he wishes. People have conflicting interests, and to expect there be some sort of voluntary cooperation — or as eric/ used to say, "unanimous agreement" — in all of the complex interactions and exchanges we engage in is simply a fantasy and not to be considered seriously.
You've never worked out conflicting interests without government support? Of course you have. People work out their differences and come to agreements without government all the time.

Quote:
Human beings don't work that way. Human beings have never worked that way. That is why as long as there have been human societies we've relied on systems of leadership and counsel to lay down rules of conduct that keep our conflicting interests from escalating into all out chaos.

Social harmony has been best achieved through a balance of freedom and limitations, rights and responsibilities. And to that I'd add a realistic and rational understanding of what is practical versus what is fantasy.
Your human experience seems very different then my own. Honestly, your unwavering faith in government, in a time of complete government dysfunction, strikes me as foreign as i'm sure NMG's ideology is to you. I'm reminded of this exchange from The Avengers:

Loki: “Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power. For identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.”

German Man: "Not to men like you"

Loki: "There are no men like me"

German Man: "There are always men like you."

Quote:
For those who continue to cling to fantasy, they have my sympathy. Life must be difficult when their expectations are so outside of the realm they must endure.
Perhaps ironically, it's not as lonely outside the box as it is within.
astrorider is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 4, 2013, 09:49 AM   #132
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrorider View Post
You've never worked out conflicting interests without government support? Of course you have. People work out their differences and come to agreements without government all the time.
When I'm resolving a conflict with my wife I don't involve the government. While most of the time we reach voluntary unanimity, there are times when one side must "put their foot down" and "force" the other to accept a decision.

Yet even within marriage—the smallest unit of human interaction—where there is so much incentive to cooperate and resolve conflicts, the rate of divorce is an indicator of how difficult it is to find unanimity.

In a marriage there is pooled property, there may be offspring, there was at one time probably deep and abiding love—all of which provide incentive for working out conflicts, yet so often couples cannot. It is therefore even more unrealistic to expect voluntary unanimity when it comes to conflicts with others with which you don't share a deep, personal and physical relationship.

---

You bring up an interesting point about civil rights and how they've been extended to women and minorities over time. Could it likewise be that in the future we'll evolve to see that systems that NMG is advocating for become seen as normal and preferable?

It's possible. But here's where I see the difference.

Civil rights were in existence and enjoyed by white males for years before they were extended to women and minorities. The model for civil rights had been in existence and had proven workable and beneficial and we expanded the scope of those who it applied to.

There is no such model for the kind of system for which NMG advocates. If it could be proven to work, then there would be reason to accept it as a tenable alternative. However, without any proof that it can work on any significant scale, it is merely a flight of fantasy, and should not be accepted as a viable solution.
citizenzen is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2013, 02:30 PM   #133
NewishMacGuy
macrumors 6502a
 
NewishMacGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Glibertarians like NMG have been asked to point to a country that is a model of their preferred socio-political system that can demonstrate its effectiveness.

They cannot.

As you point out, that can be expanded to any society in the history of mankind that is a model of their preferred socio-political system that demonstrates its effectiveness.

I would suggest that there is no unit, however small, that functions in the way he wishes. People have conflicting interests, and to expect there be some sort of voluntary cooperation or as eric/ used to say, "unanimous agreement" in all of the complex interactions and exchanges we engage in is simply a fantasy and not to be considered seriously.

Human beings don't work that way. Human beings have never worked that way. That is why as long as there have been human societies we've relied on systems of leadership and counsel to lay down rules of conduct that keep our conflicting interests from escalating into all out chaos.

Social harmony has been best achieved through a balance of freedom and limitations, rights and responsibilities. And to that I'd add a realistic and rational understanding of what is practical versus what is fantasy.

For those who continue to cling to fantasy, they have my sympathy. Life must be difficult when their expectations are so outside of the realm they must endure.
And authoritarians like CZ point out that mankind is doomed to be forever chained to authoritarian states because we are incapable of acting responsibly when given free choice.

I invite those who are not yet sure to make direct observation in their own lives and in historical record of the results of authoritarian societies and the results of societies which strive towards upholding and promoting individual free choice, and ask yourself which would you rather live in.

>
__________________
2010 i3 iMac-21.5 | 2011 uMBP-15 | 2011 uMBP-13 | iBookG4-12 | 2x ATV 1G | 2x iPhone 1G | 2x iPhone 3GS | 2x iPhone 4S | iPhone 5s | 2x iPod 5.5G | iPod Photo | iPod 2G | 2x iPad 3
NewishMacGuy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2013, 09:46 PM   #134
skottichan
macrumors 6502a
 
skottichan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Send a message via AIM to skottichan Send a message via MSN to skottichan
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewishMacGuy View Post
And authoritarians like CZ point out that mankind is doomed to be forever chained to authoritarian states because we are incapable of acting responsibly when given free choice.

I invite those who are not yet sure to make direct observation in their own lives and in historical record of the results of authoritarian societies and the results of societies which strive towards upholding and promoting individual free choice, and ask yourself which would you rather live in.

>
In a nutshell, if left to their own devices, mankind will fall over itself to oppress the weak and disenfranchised. At those points, the government has to step in and tell the oppressors to "grow the **** up". I've heard many people argue against marriage equality with the "freedom of speech" card. Hell, I've heard "freedom of speech" used far too many times, to justify some seriously sickening hate speech.
skottichan is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2013, 10:17 PM   #135
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Couldn't help myself ... found this website: Center for a Stateless Society which advocates [emphasis mine] ...

Quote:
The Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) is an anarchist think-tank and media center. Its mission is to explain and defend the idea of vibrant social cooperation without aggression, oppression, or centralized authority.

http://c4ss.org/about
Yet what do I find on the right hand side of the page? This screen shot speaks volumes ...



If you can't even run a think tank without a centralized authority, how do they expect to run a state?

Last edited by citizenzen; Aug 5, 2013 at 11:45 PM.
citizenzen is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2013, 07:45 AM   #136
NewishMacGuy
macrumors 6502a
 
NewishMacGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Couldn't help myself ... found this website: Center for a Stateless Society which advocates [emphasis mine] ...



Yet what do I find on the right hand side of the page? This screen shot speaks volumes ...

Image

If you can't even run a think tank without a centralized authority, how do they expect to run a state?
The issue is not whether people will organize or not. The issue is voluntary interactions vs those which are involuntary. Authoritarian governments and states use the threat of violence to force involuntary interactions, and that is why they are immoral.

>

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by skottichan View Post
In a nutshell, if left to their own devices, mankind will fall over itself to oppress the weak and disenfranchised. At those points, the government has to step in and tell the oppressors to "grow the **** up".
If you believe that mankind will digress to oppression, then centralizing power into the control of authoritarian governments just gives mankind a more perfect tool for the oppression of the disenfranchised and the weak.

>
__________________
2010 i3 iMac-21.5 | 2011 uMBP-15 | 2011 uMBP-13 | iBookG4-12 | 2x ATV 1G | 2x iPhone 1G | 2x iPhone 3GS | 2x iPhone 4S | iPhone 5s | 2x iPod 5.5G | iPod Photo | iPod 2G | 2x iPad 3
NewishMacGuy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2013, 07:59 AM   #137
TheAppleFairy
macrumors 6502a
 
TheAppleFairy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: 岩手県
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Couldn't help myself ... found this website: Center for a Stateless Society which advocates [emphasis mine] ...



Yet what do I find on the right hand side of the page? This screen shot speaks volumes ...

Image

If you can't even run a think tank without a centralized authority, how do they expect to run a state?
Hugh, not everything on the internet is real. I wouldn't trust any screenshots that come from a site like www.citizenzen.com
TheAppleFairy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2013, 08:09 AM   #138
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Again from the website ... "cooperation without centralized authority."

Yet they have a form of centralized authority, a system of directors and coordinators who funnel the various needs and desires of their members into a cohesive voice. Why? Because without that direction and coordination there would be chaos and their message would be muddled and ineffective.

The website itself is a demonstration of that. Someone chose that one photo, the column structure, the background color, the font and most importantly the message within the pages. Do you believe that every member of that organization agrees with those choices? I doubt it.

An anarchists website should be little more than a wiki, giving anybody (within the organization at least) the opportunity to choose what content they want to appear in the way they want it to. That would be a truer expression of their preferred system. Otherwise there is coercion and oppression.

Do you wonder why they don't run their site that way? It would be a chaotic mess. Just like society would be if it were run as anarchists wished. If anarchists can't even follow their own philosophy maintaining a website, why would anybody think they could run a state?

Last edited by citizenzen; Aug 6, 2013 at 08:15 AM.
citizenzen is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2013, 02:19 PM   #139
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewishMacGuy View Post
The issue is not whether people will organize or not. The issue is voluntary interactions vs those which are involuntary. Authoritarian governments and states use the threat of violence to force involuntary interactions, and that is why they are immoral.
Immoral? A few bad apples spoil the entire barrel. If you want a functioning society, you must have a mechanism to make people conform to some degree (aka laws), lest they spoil everything for everyone else.

If they don't like it, they can move to a Libertarian paradise like, say, Somalia.
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2013, 03:09 PM   #140
NewishMacGuy
macrumors 6502a
 
NewishMacGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
Immoral? A few bad apples spoil the entire barrel. If you want a functioning society, you must have a mechanism to make people conform to some degree (aka laws), lest they spoil everything for everyone else.

If they don't like it, they can move to a Libertarian paradise like, say, Somalia.
The problem with Somalia is not that they have no "governments", but rather that they have several "governments" competing for dominance of a larger territorial area.

>
__________________
2010 i3 iMac-21.5 | 2011 uMBP-15 | 2011 uMBP-13 | iBookG4-12 | 2x ATV 1G | 2x iPhone 1G | 2x iPhone 3GS | 2x iPhone 4S | iPhone 5s | 2x iPod 5.5G | iPod Photo | iPod 2G | 2x iPad 3
NewishMacGuy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2013, 04:33 PM   #141
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewishMacGuy View Post
People do not need governments to come together and work on project in their common interest. They don't need to be forced to do that or directed in the way that they do it by means of the threat of violence.

People will naturally work together in the interest of their common good voluntarily. The only reason the we have authoritarian government is to make you do things that you would not choose to do of your own volition - and there's no good moral or ethical reason for that.

>
I'm not sure that is really feasible at the scale of a large nation, partly due to the amount of organization required to maintain infrastructure. You wouldn't have a single form of paper currency to facilitate trade. You could make notes for things like debts. I suspect that is the only way corporations would survive under such a system, by setting up bartering systems amongst themselves. City planning would still be a nightmare. Overall I'm not sure why you think such a thing would work when it comes to a larger scale. A quick search suggests the US alone contains 313.9 million people. That is much different from a community of 100 or less, where you might find a greater range of services fulfilled through volunteer labor.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NewishMacGuy View Post
And authoritarians like CZ point out that mankind is doomed to be forever chained to authoritarian states because we are incapable of acting responsibly when given free choice.

I invite those who are not yet sure to make direct observation in their own lives and in historical record of the results of authoritarian societies and the results of societies which strive towards upholding and promoting individual free choice, and ask yourself which would you rather live in.

>
That is just such a loaded statement, as it's not feasible for each person to calculate the repercussions of each and every action. With earlier technology, more time on average was dedicated to basic survival.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2013, 09:27 AM   #142
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewishMacGuy View Post
The problem with Somalia is not that they have no "governments", but rather that they have several "governments" competing for dominance of a larger territorial area.

>
Right, which is what humans naturally do when there is no group in authority....they form a group and attempt to become the authority.

That's why my go-to quip for Libertarianism is "Slave or Warlord? QUICK, CHOOSE!"
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 7, 2013, 10:21 AM   #143
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
The problem with Somalia is not that they have no "governments", but rather that they have several "governments" competing for dominance of a larger territorial area.
Exactly.

This is what humans have done since they've been humans.

Good luck trying to change that.
citizenzen is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 08:30 AM   #144
NewishMacGuy
macrumors 6502a
 
NewishMacGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
I'm not sure that is really feasible at the scale of a large nation, partly due to the amount of organization required to maintain infrastructure. You wouldn't have a single form of paper currency to facilitate trade. You could make notes for things like debts. I suspect that is the only way corporations would survive under such a system, by setting up bartering systems amongst themselves. City planning would still be a nightmare. Overall I'm not sure why you think such a thing would work when it comes to a larger scale. A quick search suggests the US alone contains 313.9 million people. That is much different from a community of 100 or less, where you might find a greater range of services fulfilled through volunteer labor.
Private (and voluntary) organizations can build and maintain any infrastructure project that would be supported by a free market more cost effectively than government - and would therefore be able to better build and maintain any infrastructure project which is actually efficient to build and maintain. The addition of government to the building and maintenance of infrastructure just makes us poorer on aggregate.

Government support and enforcement of a fiat paper currency and the associated debauchery that results from monetary expansion via fractional reserve lending certainly makes us all poorer on aggregate in order to benefit the very few who are closest to the monetary creation process. Free markets make for better money.

>

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
Right, which is what humans naturally do when there is no group in authority....they form a group and attempt to become the authority.

That's why my go-to quip for Libertarianism is "Slave or Warlord? QUICK, CHOOSE!"
No difference, so why not at least try to be free?

>

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Exactly.

This is what humans have done since they've been humans.

Good luck trying to change that.
Humans have done lots of evil things to other humans throughout our history. Because we have done evil to fellow man historically does not justify visiting it upon him today. Should we not at least attempt to be better?

>
__________________
2010 i3 iMac-21.5 | 2011 uMBP-15 | 2011 uMBP-13 | iBookG4-12 | 2x ATV 1G | 2x iPhone 1G | 2x iPhone 3GS | 2x iPhone 4S | iPhone 5s | 2x iPod 5.5G | iPod Photo | iPod 2G | 2x iPad 3
NewishMacGuy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 10:02 PM   #145
P-Worm
macrumors 68020
 
P-Worm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Can any of the libertarians point to a country that has a more efficiently run health care system than those countries that have a version of universal health care?

P-Worm
P-Worm is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2013, 09:39 AM   #146
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewishMacGuy View Post
Private (and voluntary) organizations can build and maintain any infrastructure project that would be supported by a free market more cost effectively than government - and would therefore be able to better build and maintain any infrastructure project which is actually efficient to build and maintain. The addition of government to the building and maintenance of infrastructure just makes us poorer on aggregate.
So I'm trying still to figure out how your world would work. Okay, so we have tens of thousands of roads with traffic lights and signs and other such things in my city. How would this all be maintained privately or voluntarily. Details, man....details. Not "government makes us poorer on aggregate". That doesn't describe anything. If you want people here to buy into your assertions, you need to describe how they would work. I can see busses and trains and stuff like that being private, fine. But the actual roads and lights...you're going to have to help me out here.

And now for a dose of no-government-freedom and solutions. Your neighbor has a 20-year-old who is trying to get his new thrash metal band going. They practice every night in the garage with the door open, blasting their music until 2:00am. Numerous neighbors have pleaded with them to stop so that they can sleep. They refuse because, well, they don't have to stop. In your world, is it better just to put up with this because you're free. Is the onus now on you to have to move away? How would situations like this be handled when the party making things terrible for everyone else simply refuses to cooperate?
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2013, 01:15 PM   #147
splitpea
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Among the starlings
Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post
And now for a dose of no-government-freedom and solutions. Your neighbor has a 20-year-old who is trying to get his new thrash metal band going. They practice every night in the garage with the door open, blasting their music until 2:00am. Numerous neighbors have pleaded with them to stop so that they can sleep. They refuse because, well, they don't have to stop. In your world, is it better just to put up with this because you're free. Is the onus now on you to have to move away? How would situations like this be handled when the party making things terrible for everyone else simply refuses to cooperate?
You stand your ground and take care of the problem. Duh.

__________________
What's the point of a sig showing the system I owned in 2006?
splitpea is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 9, 2013, 11:48 PM   #148
4JNA
macrumors 68000
 
4JNA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: looking for trash files
we just need another Wyld Stallyns album.

wow. long thread. that hurt.

seems like people are forgetting the truth man, and like duking it out and stuff.

Bill & Ted already fixed this when they said in their movie;

Quote:
Originally Posted by @Bill & Ted
seven minutes ago... we, your forefathers, were brought forth upon a most excellent adventure conceived by our new friends, Bill... and Ted. These two great gentlemen are dedicated to a proposition which was true in my time, just as it's true today. Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
__________________
KATE: RISC architecture is gonna change everything. DADE: Yeah. RISC is good.
4JNA is offline   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I just can't decide!!!! thatsmega.net MacBook Pro 6 Nov 11, 2013 05:48 AM
New in iOS7: Open Airplay. This means WHAT exaclty PeteLP iOS 7 0 Jun 14, 2013 04:26 PM
Help me to decide walkie MacBook Pro 0 Dec 21, 2012 11:00 AM
Can't decide between a 4S or a 5 ICON5o2 iPhone 39 Dec 11, 2012 06:48 PM
I can't decide! Help! HenryHealy MacBook Pro 11 Jun 16, 2012 04:31 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:37 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC