angelofdeath Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 such is the nature of government. you either take the whole package or you lose. you cant pick and choose, like you can in a market. even voting for a politician, you get a package, not just his position on one issue. i dont seek impose lmited government on you, i merely seek to be left alone and not have your system imposed on me. and the imposing it on others.... is what you are justifying by suggesting that people some how consent to the system, if they are given a right to change their masters by a vote. democracy is nothing but a way of justifying your coercive system. if one cannot opt out of government on whatever level they wish, it is a form of slavery, in the same manner a slave couldnt opt out of the control of his master. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Nowhere in the world has what you want AOD unless you live in the middle of nowhere, even tribal villages in peru etc have village elders and councils a form of government. I do understand what you want AOD but it just wouldnt happen and I don't blame you for wanting it either, but the country you live in is a democracy whether you like it or not. Unlike a slave you are not being held against your will, you can leave if you like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Do you guys understand how the black market in something develops? Drugs were made illegal, so now you have criminals who supply the drugs you can't get other wise, and since this is now a business they create harder drugs to insure that they can sell their products. If the black market for drugs didn't exist you wouldn't have this billion dollar industry that is putting all of these drug dealers in power. How many drug lords have you seen come out and THANK the US government for their drug policies, because without those they wouldn't have been able to accomplish what they accomplish? How about cartels getting weapon supplies from the FBI and other organizations? You ignore things like this as well. But I guess you guys ignore things like Iran/Contra, you know where the government actually brought in the drugs, supplied them, created the problem and than enforces said problem? What kind of fantasy do most of you live in? Do you really believe the propaganda that much? As for this FEMA argument, do you all really think people are in general that evil? There would be plenty of people lining up to help. I'm sure I could dig up plenty of examples of regular people/local charities coming to aid people in need. No the system that RP is trying to switch to isn't perfect, but no system is, I just lean towards the side that allows me to have the most freedom as possible. And we can't even discuss 9/11 really, because the real cause for what happened on that day has not been brought to light yet. BUT if we are to believe the official story, than had we not behaved the way we have all over the world the past 100 years, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. We caused the anti-american hatred on a world scale, are we untouchable? Obviously not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Nowhere in the world has what you want AOD unless you live in the middle of nowhere, even tribal villages in peru etc have village elders and councils a form of government. I do understand what you want AOD but it just wouldnt happen and I don't blame you for wanting it either, but the country you live in is a democracy whether you like it or not. Unlike a slave you are not being held against your will, you can leave if you like. i agree that no one is able to live free in the sense i argue for, which is why i keep saying this: 'we are the healthiest patient in the cancer ward.' just think about that for a second...it implies exactly what you said, that everyone is doomed or not free. i can leave the tax jurisdiction, if and only if, i sign up for another tax jurisdiction. did you know that you cant even revoke your US citizenship unless you prove you are resident of another tax jurisdiction? its sort of like..'you can leave this plantation, only if you move to another one.' but the argument you present, is once again circular. for instance, my ancestors were here BEFORE the US government was created. they lived in defiance of the king of england. they were anti federalists. now, if they pre dated the US government, never consented to it, the question is, what gave them the right to exist to impose their will on this group of people? so in reality, this entire argument is based on 'do you consent to such and such policy.' if you do not consent to it, you are being coerced. period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Im not saying any of that shady shit didnt happen, I understand the black markets too, I personally don't think drugs should be illegal, they should just be added to the already multi billion legal drug industry at least then there would be some kind of quality control. But by legalising the stuff wont affect anything the criminals will just move onto something else. I dont agree with the government doing some of the shady stuff they do, I just dont understand what freedoms you guys want, you are free! you can have pretty much anything you want, Im glad that you can't go to a local walmart and buy a biochemical weapon (I know gone to the extreme but just to prove a point). What can't you do now that you want to be able to do? and is it worth having that additional little thing you want at the detriment of the people on welfare or the ill but America already isnt that fussed about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Im not saying any of that shady shit didnt happen, I understand the black markets too, I personally don't think drugs should be illegal, they should just be added to the already multi billion legal drug industry at least then there would be some kind of quality control. But by legalising the stuff wont affect anything the criminals will just move onto something else. I dont agree with the government doing some of the shady stuff they do, I just dont understand what freedoms you guys want, you are free! you can have pretty much anything you want, Im glad that you can't go to a local walmart and buy a biochemical weapon (I know gone to the extreme but just to prove a point). What can't you do now that you want to be able to do? and is it worth having that additional little thing you want at the detriment of the people on welfare or the ill but America already isnt that fussed about them. we've had this discussion 100000000 times, but look at what is happening in this country. its not really about what i personally 'want' its about having the liberty to do it if i want. every single aspect of our lives is regulated, taxed, coerced. privacy is non existent. government controls every aspect of ones life. govts are even shutting down and arresting people for kids having lemonade stands. they are swat teaming amish farmers who sell raw milk. you cant do anything without getting permission. can i go to the store and buy morphine sulphate? the obama doj just raided gibson guitar company for...wait for it.....using legal imported wood for their fingerboards. they have signed statements from the indian government saying the products are LEGAL and they are still under attack. i think a better question is...'what are people still allowed to do without any government interference?' much shorter list and answer to that, than the one you asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I know what you mean AOD but this is what I see wouldhappen if everyone could do what they wanted, everything was legal, no permission needed for anything. I know you have mentioned before there should be tax for courts and a military to protect the borders. So you dont mind paying that bit of tax. I don't want to pay that tax, nor does my neighbour or anyone in my city and the next city, so eventually you dont have any money for the military. Are you going to round up and imprison the people that didnt pay the military tax? because that goes against your principles! But how will you defend yourselves against highly equipped military forces from abroad? Also everything is legal with no restrictions, if people can pay tax if they want, then how you going to fund a police force? without enough police what is to stop me from just being a criminal, I certainly have the arsenal for it as everything is unrestricted, and I know the shopkeeper will, so il will blow him away before he can me, I know I wont get caught because there is no real police force because not enough people want to pay that tax so I know they cant even investigate these crimes because the taxes revenue has only paid for 3 policemen. It is just chaos. I know it is an extreme example however it could happen and I see you use these extreme examples all the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!@#$% Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 !@#$%, are you seriously trying to say that when the govt declared war on drugs and war on terror that it did not create more 'terror' and more drug use? big government does not make people old, sick or crazy. if you really think the war on drugs created more addicts then i can't help you. the terror thing as we all know is rooted in crappy foreign policy, because we like to manipulate other cultures for their RESOURCES (and to feed our business machine.) i'm so over this. for me, the whole attitude embodies a complete lack of integrity and honor, and a preponderance of greed. i don't see it any other way. over and out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 It's actually the opposite of that, but whatever you say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I know what you mean AOD but this is what I see wouldhappen if everyone could do what they wanted, everything was legal, no permission needed for anything. I know you have mentioned before there should be tax for courts and a military to protect the borders. So you dont mind paying that bit of tax. a free society, has plenty of 'controls' and order. for instance, property rights are the the biggest regulator known to man. the issue is consent. if one consents to having their property taken, that is their choice. its fine to have this property taken, as long as they consent. otherwise, it is theft. I don't want to pay that tax, nor does my neighbour or anyone in my city and the next city, so eventually you dont have any money for the military. Are you going to round up and imprison the people that didnt pay the military tax? because that goes against your principles! But how will you defend yourselves against highly equipped military forces from abroad? Also everything is legal with no restrictions, if people can pay tax if they want, then how you going to fund a police force? without enough police what is to stop me from just being a criminal, I certainly have the arsenal for it as everything is unrestricted, and I know the shopkeeper will, so il will blow him away before he can me, I know I wont get caught because there is no real police force because not enough people want to pay that tax so I know they cant even investigate these crimes because the taxes revenue has only paid for 3 policemen. It is just chaos. the reason i say that i support a minimal state is because we are no where close to a free society. i basically find myself arguing for early constitutional size government. i really feel that there is no need to argue for privatizing the police dept (although they didnt really exist in america until the early 1900's) because we are no where near that point. i think this debate could take place if a small state was actually achieved. who knows, i might even wind up the statist in the debate and argue for state defense services. the other reason why i dont spend to much time arguing for private courts or the like is because of the free rider problems that are brought up which as far as im concerned arguing for these things is largely fruitless, again because people cant even comprehend the concept of our own constitutional government let alone, something smaller. atleast in arguing for the minimal state, it has basis in american tradition that one can point to. to show that this is not that radical of an idea (limited government) because at one time we had it. when you go about your business during the day, do you really feel that cops are the only thing keeping you from maiming, killing, and stealing? but just to make another point, how on earth can you be concerned about monopolies on force, the most powerful taking control, when you are creating this situation by allowing government to monopolize these services? if you want, start a thread on privatizing police and military and we can go at it till we are blue in the face, but i'll only touch on it as far as i did in this thread, since it is the RP thread. but despite all this, the govt police and military are responsible for inconceivable amounts of violence and mayhem. also, dont forget that govt creates a moral hazard situation where they depend on govt without relying on themselves. i'd imagine if defense services were voluntary, the militia would make a large revival and people would largely become responsible for most of their own security. defense starts at home and the best defense is a firearm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 how on earth can you be concerned about monopolies on force, the most powerful taking control, when you are creating this situation by allowing government to monopolize these services? because it isn't the chaos free for all that could happen if everything was like the situation I described, but I agree this has strayed from RP, sorry for the derail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 big government does not make people old, sick or crazy. if you really think the war on drugs created more addicts then i can't help you. the terror thing as we all know is rooted in crappy foreign policy, because we like to manipulate other cultures for their RESOURCES (and to feed our business machine.) i'm so over this. for me, the whole attitude embodies a complete lack of integrity and honor, and a preponderance of greed. i don't see it any other way. over and out alright alright, i'll play. i'll just start considering you 'greedy' unless you give your house to a drug addict! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 because it isn't the chaos free for all that could happen if everything was like the situation I described, but I agree this has strayed from RP, sorry for the derail. na, actually i think its a good derail, but it is so in depth, it would require its own thread. then again, this thread is absolutely F'd anyway. hahaha 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 alright alright, i'll play. i'll just start considering you 'greedy' unless you give your house to a drug addict! that guy is jesus christ, you didn't know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 why the fuck do you keep getting banned. what did you do... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 cheers for the read, I still don't think it would really be relevant in the scenario I mentioned, mainly because if we changed the way society is now to the completely free society that I mentioned before then I do believe it would be more chaotic, mainly because I don't believe people would contribute enough to be able to support working police forces and military, I find most people will only look out for themselves (not everyone but most). Im not about to go patrolling the neighbourhood and stopping people robbing each other out of the goodness of my heart, I have a family Im not putting myself on the line like that, and I think a lot of people would also think that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 preferably I would opt for neither, I suppose you have to look at how it would work in society, you could end up with rival neighbourhoods similar to the horrors you see between rival clans in africa, mass genocide attempts, brutal rape/killings. I know we all like to think we are civil people and the people on here that we speak to are as well, however I try to look at the lowest common denominator, maybe it is my lack of faith in humanity I don't know. I tend to think that a lot of these options have been explored over time and democracy is, at the moment, the best option for a civilised society. As I always say I am not 100% for the things governments do but looking at all the evils this is the one I think is preferable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Eugen Ehrlich's[/url] conception of the living law interesting. Eugen Ehrlich argues the nature of law is essentially behavioural. It is born of an inner order which is found in social norms and established through the voluntary collective actions of associations within society. From the inner order of associations a form of living law can be established as law through the scientific observation of the actions of people within society. This living law is intrinsically tied to social interaction and can be found everywhere although in differing forms, its success is drawn from its ability to achieve peaceful relations between those who choose to accept it as a guiding framework for behaviour. For Ehrlich, the formalised institutions of law are a further expression of this notion of societal norms, yet they differ in that their positive expressions may not reflect the actual law established by behaviour. In this sense the law of the modern state has assumed a monopoly on these formal institutions where in doing so it occupies a strange contextual position; it attempts to claim a monopoly on the declaration of law and the right to coercively apply its declaration and yet this declaration is only an assertion rather than law if it is not taken on board as a social norm. In this way it is understood that positive state law is no more or less a form of legitimate law so long as it falls within the body of living law. Ehrlich asserts that state law has relatively little power to operate with effective normative functions, as where ever state law is not a reflection of living law its declaration will not hold as law over time regardless of the level of coercive force employed towards ensuring compliance. Furthermore, Ehrlich’s conception of living law is that it holds external influence in so far as it is beneficial to those within its reach. In this sense, Ehrlich’s notion of law is a meek one, it is a useful tool to be employed by those who may gain from it, although the expression of benefit may be subtle and subconscious. While Ehrlich was writing around the turn of the 20th century and could not have conceived of the dystopian methods of modern states to achieve compliance, such as signals intelligence and facial recognition software in public spaces etc, his theory is still highly useful. Its strength is its strive to understand legal legitimacy, by drawing a distinction between social and state norms Ehrlich derives a framework which can explain a breakdown in the legitimacy of state law where there has been a radical divergence from living law. The events of the Arab Spring may be a good example of this idea at work. Erhlich's theory further holds strength in its ability to explain the relative stability of representative democracies, as within this model the living law finds relatively greater expression within state law than it would do within a despotic state. Here is a recently published, quite well written, book on Ehrlich in pdf if you do find this concept interesting. http://ebookee.org/Living-Law-Reconsidering-Eugen-Ehrlich-Onati-International-Series-in-Law-and-Society-_371091.html AOD; Have you heard of Ehrlich? I haven't seen reference to him in the Austrian cannon, but I would be very surprised if Heyak was not influenced by him to some degree at least. Ill probably get banned again after this, so, peace out. quoted per request Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 seems a lot like states of nature of french philosophers, locke, rousseau, etc. except it tends more to the idea of social contract as evolutionarily beneficial rather than "made by man" i think ehrlich's idea is just an iteration of the misconception that things like altruism and other social acts can't be natural developments in the evolution of human sociability. just a thought. is crossfirecoolguy oner the dude who used to hop in my philosophy thread? frankiefiver? politics of this board are so stupid sometimes. you still doing philosophy and physics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Argued with some guy Caligula who has about a billion posts in channel zero, it was petty shit that went back and forth for ages tit for tat. It seems that he complained and since Symbols is his buddy she now has a vendetta against me. On top of this I don't think it helps that she emphatically disagrees with my posts here. There seems to be some correlation between points made and posts deleted rather than just being banned. I pm'ed her attempting to sort it out but it was ignored and I was again banned. Can you do me a favour and quote my response about Ehrlich in a reply so if she deletes it Decy can still read it later? Cheers bruz. Keep up the good work. All I have to say to this is LOL. And, I'm not surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 that guy is jesus christ, you didn't know? ok she's a chick, i didn't know. she has me on ignore anyway... and she's a bleeding heart. banning one of the best contributors on 12oz over and over because you disagree with him is pretty immature too. JUST MY THOUGHTS. i've had my conflicts with frankie in the past too but i can admit the dude is smart as hell and has contributed great stuff to threads. seeing him get banned but not others on this forum who have done the same shit he supposedly did is funny. crooked yes thats frankie. anyway back to ron paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Capslock Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Clarence Darrow on the fallacy of beneficent state law. But admitting the orthodox view of government to be correct, then how stands the case? The great majority of mankind still believe in the utility of the state. They not only believe that society could not exist without the state, but likewise that this political institution exists and is maintained for the public good; that all its functions and activities in some mysterious way have been conferred upon it by the weaker class of society, and that it is administered to save this class from the ravages of the vicious and the strong. Of course, there are many humane officials, men who use their power to promote the public good, as they see and understand the public good. These, in common with the community, look upon the endless provisions of our penal code as being the magical power that keeps the state from dissolution and preserves the lives and property of men from the vicious and the bad. The idea of punishment, of violence, of force, is so interwoven with all our concepts of justice and social life that but few can conceive a society without force, without jails, without scaffolds, without the penal judgements of men. The thought never suggests itself to the common mind that nature, unaided by man’s laws, can evolve social order, or that a community might live in measurable peace and security moved only by those natural instincts which form the basis and render possible communal life. To be sure, the world is full of evidence that order and security do not depend on legal inventions. From the wild horses on the plains, the flocks of birds, the swarming bees, the human society and association in new countries amongst unexploited people, suggestions of order and symmetry regulated by natural instincts and common social needs are ample to show the possibility at least of order or a considerable measure of justice without penal law. It is only when the arrogance and the avarice of rulers and chiefs make it necessary to exploit men that these rulers must lay down laws and regulations to control the actions of their fellows. Darrow, C. 'Resist Not Evil', published in 1903 by Charles H. Kerr & Company, Chicago, Illinois. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 my main issue with articles like that and others are they were written so long ago, society is a much different animal that it was back then. I am not saying they are wrong, I am just saying that their views are dated and not applicable to the world that we now live in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Capslock Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 my main issue with articles like that and others are they were written so long ago, society is a much different animal that it was back then. I am not saying they are wrong, I am just saying that their views are dated and not applicable to the world that we now live in. Do you care to elaborate on what are the fundamental differences between contemporary society and the society during the turn of the 20th century that makes these concepts irrelevant or inapplicable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 it is just personal opinion but pretty much most things have changed, globalisation, the erosion of family, the way information is used and spread, technology, education. I'm trying to think of things that I could say are still the same, but I can't off the top of my head, the world we live in is very very different. I'm not saying they are completely irrelevant I just think that the changes in society that we havenow in comparison to 1900 make things different. It is just my opinion though I don't have anything to back it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Capslock Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 it is just personal opinion but pretty much most things have changed, globalisation, the erosion of family, the way information is used and spread, technology, education. I'm trying to think of things that I could say are still the same, but I can't off the top of my head, the world we live in is very very different. I'm not saying they are completely irrelevant I just think that the changes in society that we havenow in comparison to 1900 make things different. It is just my opinion though I don't have anything to back it up. In many ways the 19th and turn of the 20th century was relatively as global and innovative as we are today. Trans-national trade, communication networks and technological innovation was at a historical highpoint only returned to in the later stages of the 20th century. For example, current international fibre optic cables largely follow the telegraph submarine cables of the late 19th century. I don't disagree that these are different times, but I feel it is not possible to dismiss the writings of early 20th century theorists on the basis that they had never used an iphone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Ron Paul: "It's a mistake to think that poor people get the benefit from the welfare system. It's a total fraud. Most welfare go to the rich of this country: the military-industrial complex, the bankers, the foreign dictators, it's totally out of control." can't wait to see these upcoming debates :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 I dont understand how the welfare goes to the rich, then again I only really know how welfare is in the UK, if you are rich and you apply for welfare they say no (hell you dont even need to be rich, just have a bit of savings and they wont allow you on welfare) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zig Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 On the SENSATIONALISM that PEOPLE DEPENDANT ON OUR WELFARE SYSTEM WOULD BE LEFT OUT TO ROT AND DIE: Ron Paul QUOTE a constitutionalist president should propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare, and unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucracies to shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance government's obligations to those who are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative provisions. Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead, we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help — churches and private charities. SOURCE: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html read the article. learn stuff. real plans CILONE. real plans for reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 There are other ways to get "welfare". Welfare just isn't only food stamps and monthly checks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.