I was actually confused about this thread to begin with too. Because I took the whole point of the thread to mean "why is one side's arguement better than the other" or "why might one side's arguement be better, but less heard/understood or believed". So I guess that is why from the beginning as someone so rudely pointed out my post didn't make much sense. I thought Balbus was asking why is the left's arguement better, but less people believe it or whatever?
Quote: Originally Posted by Balbus Next why would I want to bring in things I oppose such as the patriot act, wiretapping and the drug war? Didn't say you supported those things. What i said was that you(even in this discussion) and the Left use the same arguements and justifications for your use of Government control as the Right. Fear. But it is not the same arguments you seem to agree that I don’t support the patriot act, wiretapping and the drug war. So why would I do anything to bring them in? I’m concerned with trying to lessen suffering and pain, do these things actually lessen suffering and pain, or does the right just use that justification to bringing in right wing control mechanisms that you agree I oppose. Think about it You claim you want a better society many on the right claim they want a better society does that mean your arguments are the same? No that’s stupid Your ideas of what constitutes a better society are completely different. Just because two people say they want the same thing doesn’t mean they do. You basically have to see what people stand for, what they support and what they don’t support and what they want to achieve. Some people are actually concerned with lessening suffering and pain. The neo-cons are using the fear of suffering and pain to try and bring in things that will do little or nothing to lessen real suffering or pain. Please say you can see the difference? ** Ok let me try and understand You are saying that trying to limit or eradicate pain and suffering are not a sufficient reason for any action that limits others ability to do as they please. Also you seem to be saying that anarchists wouldn’t need such limits because they would not do anything that would cause pain and suffering. So there are no need for limits if people are anarchists. But as you accept the majority of the people are not anarchists. So what of those that aren’t anarchists or are your type of anarchist? You reply to that seems to be education in relation to seatbelts you say “education should be used as to the benefits of seatbelt usage.If an individual then decides not to wear a seatbelt, they take on the risk, no one else” So you seem to be saying you could accept the death and suffering of others. That if people are not educated enough or intelligent enough, or aware enough to wear a seatbelt then it is not worth trying to save them, let them suffer and die. I was just wondering how far you would go in that attitude So I asked “Lets say you have a child and the two of you find yourselves on a cliff top path very close to the edge. You warn her not to play, but she is a child and forgets and begins to skip and jump and nearly slips over the edge. Do you let her continue and just risk losing her, give her another warning (but knowing she’ll probably forget again) or do you take her hand and lead her until the path becomes safe?” And “are you saying you could shrug off the death of a son or daughter and say ‘It was their own choice”? You have given us a lot of bluster but you still haven’t answered The thing is that talking about abstractions and theory is often a far cry from the often-devastating possibilities of reality, as anyone that has lost friends and family will tell you. ** Let us go back to your pronouncement Education not prosecution You say it as if they were mutually exclusive that it is one or the other that they cannot co-exist even be part of the same thing. I’m a great believer in education and in relation to putting on your seatbelt it has worked, but so have laws on road safety. Imagine someone that isn’t as aware as a anarchist doesn’t wear a seatbelt and their child learns from them (is educated) not to wear a seatbelt themselves? People are not prosecuted after they have died they are taught to wear a seatbelt by having it taught to them as part of the highway code and by being fined if they are found not wearing one. They are educated. In my house there is a single step from one level to another, through being taught and trial and error my toddler has leant to get down it with no problem. But she’s a kid and she forgets and runs through the house and falls over the step. I don’t get overly worried it is only one step (and she learns from it) but would I be a easy going in the step was a cliff? I don’t want her to die so I’d probably take her by the hand and lead her to safely even if she wanted to play and was struggling to get away. As a child she might see it as a unnecessary punishment and a check on her freedom but if she were more mature it is very unlikely she would risk her life that way. You say “Not wearing a seatbelt is idiotic, It could lead to my or (if you insist) my child's death” so you don’t need the law as you have said you would wear one. But what of those that are not as mature educated and aware as you?
The specific cause that you champion is not the point of contention. THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS (belive me i'm as sick of saying that as you are of ignoring it). The issue is with using fear to expand control over the personal choices (that do not affect others) of individuals. Since you refuse to deny my assumption that you see the state (this time in hands of the political left) as a parental figure that needs to protect individuals from themselves, i will further assume that assumption was correct. I dont care whether it's seatbelt laws or the patriot act, supported by the left or right, its aim is the control of the personal choices of the individual. To exercise the power to approve or deny the ability to preform actions that do not affect anyone other than that individual. I put the question to you: How far will you go with your argument? Outlaw fast food? It will save lives and bring down health costs to the community... Outlaw questionable speech? Hate speech written on t-shirts and the kkk marching in the street sure doesnt promote community solidarity... Outlaw certain religions? Islam oppresses women, Judaism promotes mutilation in the form of circumcision.... Allow warrentless searches? Think of how many lives you could save with a checkpoint at every intersection... The best course to take for the people of this country (and the world) isnt to insure that the right people have power, but to limit the the amount of power itself. But what of those that are not as mature educated and aware as you? What of them? I have no obligation to protect free willed individuals from themselves. As far as how far i would take my arguement: The burden of proof is not on me guy. The burden of proof is on the person, group, community, nation to justify their exercise of power over the individual, not on the individual to justify his ownership of himself and his choices.
"The specific cause that you champion is not the point of contention. THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS (belive me i'm as sick of saying that as you are of ignoring it)." I wasn’t ignoring it, it just hasn’t been shown to be relevant so far. The phase is usually interpreted as meaning that someone is willing to do ‘bad’ things to achieve a ‘good’ goal. You certainly have tried to claim that I would somehow support bad things the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq (which I opposed) the patriot act (which I oppose) and the war on drugs (which I oppose) But that fell flat. So what is left, what are the ‘bad’ things I seem to want, that you oppose? I said that I would wish to try and limit pain and suffering you oppose that view you believe that people should suffer misery, pain even death even when those things could be prevented. So it seems in you view that the ‘bad’ things I want to do is limit pain and suffering. But many people including I, don’t see that as a ‘bad’ thing, that is what we have been discussing, in part. Until you can prove that letting people suffer and die when that could be prevented is a ‘good’ thing you cannot say that my goal (a better life for everyone) is not justified by my means (trying to lessen pain and suffering) ** The issue is with using fear to expand control over the personal choices (that do not affect others) of individuals. It’s not fear it’s prudence. You have already said that it would be better for people if they put seatbelts on, you already say that people should be educated to wear seatbelts. As I’ve pointed out such a thing as a seatbelt law is a very good means of education. And as I’ve pointed out above several times most actions effect others, suffering, pain and death hardly ever happen within a vacuum. I mean I’m sure others besides myself have noticed you still refuse to answer the simple questions of what your attitude would be to losing a son or daughter would be, could you shrug it off or would you feel pain? ** I put the question to you: How far will you go with your argument? Outlaw fast food? It will save lives and bring down health costs to the community... Why outlaw it when people are educated about it’s ill effects they leave it alone (you claim you are a great believer in such education). In the UK once people learnt about it, sales at places like McDonalds dropped and they have had to cut back their UK operations closing many outlets. The thing is that I quite fond of most fast foods, fish and chips, kebabs, hamburgers, and they are perfectly all right as far as I’m concerned as long as it is in moderation. What about health and safety regulations in connection with food and drink, those are meant as preventive measures to make sure food and drink is safe? ** Outlaw questionable speech? Hate speech written on t-shirts and the kkk marching in the street sure doesnt promote community solidarity... You make a point of saying that you are in favour of things but only as long as it does “not affect others”, I would say that such things as these do affect others. Even then I’m not saying that I’d necessarily stop such things. But again education comes into it. ** Outlaw certain religions? Islam oppresses women, Judaism promotes mutilation in the form of circumcision.... I think all religions are stupid but many people find such crutches comforting. I would however make sure that religions would not get favourable treatment (like not paying taxes). But again education comes into it. ** Allow warrentless searches? Think of how many lives you could save with a checkpoint at every intersection... Searches for what? Checkpoints for what? What are you going on about..? (Isn’t this getting a bit silly, this isn’t an argument it’s just completely unfounded accusations because you haven’t anything sensible to say. What next, are you going to accuse me of wanting to lock up everyone in solitary confinement so they will be safe, or that I want all building to be only 6 feet tall so people can’t kill themselves jumping off them?) ** The best course to take for the people of this country (and the world) isnt to insure that the right people have power, but to limit the the amount of power itself. It’s a good slogan but it is very clear from your post that you want the ‘right’ people (anarchists) in charge of your society. And presumably you would want those ‘right’ people to be in the ‘organisations’ you say will have the power to arbitrate and organise things within your view of an anarchist society. ** (i asked) But what of those that are not as mature educated and aware as you? (your reply) What of them? I have no obligation to protect free willed individuals from themselves. Which brings me back to another question of mine you still haven’t answered. “Lets say you have a child and the two of you find yourselves on a cliff top path very close to the edge. You warn her not to play, but she is a child and forgets and begins to skip and jump and nearly slips over the edge. Do you let her continue and just risk losing her, give her another warning (but knowing she’ll probably forget again) or do you take her hand and lead her until the path becomes safe?” She is a 'free willed individual' but she is also immature and unaware of the danger she is in.
Right. Wrong and misleading. I never said you supported those particular actions. What i said was that Left's method for achieving thier goals was the same as the Right's. Using fear to increase the amount of control that the state has over individuals. I dare anyone to look back through this thread and show me where i stated that you (or the left) supported the patriot act or the war on drugs. Stop trying to twist my words (and that some someone can look back through this thread and see where that this isn't the first time i've called you out on that...). Wrong again, and i've already addressed this. I don't think people should suffer. I also don't think people should let the fear of pain and suffering allow them to justify a barter between freedom and security. a better life for everyone trying to lessen pain and suffering those are both goals, trying lessen pain and suffering is not a means it's a goal. Your means are using ever more increasing State control over the actions of individual lives. You've already demonstrated in this thread that it is fear by trying to appeal to my natural fear for the safety of my child to justify your position. correct. It's a very good means of brining more revenue into government. That's not the "education" i was refering to. Jesus fucking christ Balbus i've addressed that question several times over! In post#50: You said: You might be able to shrug off the death of a son or daughter and say ‘It was their own choice” but most parents would be devastated and only wish to turn back time so they could lock the seatbelt themselves. And I’m sure that the people that have gone through a windscreen and now live with painful and disfiguring scars, if given the chance would have worn a seatbelt. In post#53: I replied: Perfect example of a member of the left (you) using fear ( "You might be able to shrug off the death of a son or daughter", "I’m sure that the people that have gone through a windscreen and now live with painful and disfiguring scars, if given the chance would have worn a seatbelt") to promote government coersion (laws that punish an individual for choosing not to wear a seatbelt). How is that any different than the right's use of fear? Because it could save lives? Thats the same arguement they use for the patriot act, wiretapping and the drug war. I'm not swayed... In one post you just proved my point. In post#54: You said: So – would you let the girl play and risk her life or do you take her hand and lead her to safety? Is a simple question. and repeated: You might be able to shrug off the death of a son or daughter and say ‘It was their own choice” but most parents would be devastated and only wish to turn back time so they could lock the seatbelt themselves. And I’m sure that the people that have gone through a windscreen and now live with painful and disfiguring scars, if given the chance would have worn a seatbelt. and added for good measure: OK first of all are you saying you could shrug off the death of a son or daughter and say ‘It was their own choice”? In post#55: I replied: Trying to appeal to my fear of losing a family member to argue for the need of a law proves the point I'm making. In post#56: I posed you the question: How does that analogy apply to this discussion? Again, are proposing the State as a parental figure looking out for the best interest of the individual? With the Left at the wheel of government instead of the Right? In post#62: You said: So I asked “Lets say you have a child and the two of you find yourselves on a cliff top path very close to the edge. You warn her not to play, but she is a child and forgets and begins to skip and jump and nearly slips over the edge. Do you let her continue and just risk losing her, give her another warning (but knowing she’ll probably forget again) or do you take her hand and lead her until the path becomes safe?” And “are you saying you could shrug off the death of a son or daughter and say ‘It was their own choice”? You have given us a lot of bluster but you still haven’t answered The thing is that talking about abstractions and theory is often a far cry from the often-devastating possibilities of reality, as anyone that has lost friends and family will tell you. and also added: In my house there is a single step from one level to another, through being taught and trial and error my toddler has leant to get down it with no problem. But she’s a kid and she forgets and runs through the house and falls over the step. I don’t get overly worried it is only one step (and she learns from it) but would I be a easy going in the step was a cliff? I don’t want her to die so I’d probably take her by the hand and lead her to safely even if she wanted to play and was struggling to get away. As a child she might see it as a unnecessary punishment and a check on her freedom but if she were more mature it is very unlikely she would risk her life that way. In post#67: I replied: Since you refuse to deny my assumption that you see the state (this time in hands of the political left) as a parental figure that needs to protect individuals from themselves, i will further assume that assumption was correct. Over and over you prove my point. Cut the bullshit Balbus! Let me try to pose a question to you that can't possibly be misread (although you continue to surprise me): Do you feel that the Left is justified in appealing to the individual's fears of pain, suffering, and premature death (for themselves or loved ones) in order to continue the expansion and support of the State into the lives and actions of Individuals as long as it's "for a good cause"? My answer would be: no. I don't think that the State is a necessary entity. I believe it to be an inherently harmful and oppresive institution that has always and will always seek to further it's existence and expansion into every domain of an individuals life, regardless of who is at the helm. The same could be said about seatbelt usage. You said: As I’ve pointed out such a thing as a seatbelt law is a very good means of education. And so, Using your own reasoning and arguement: As a child she might see it as a unnecessary punishment and a check on her freedom but if she were more mature it is very unlikely she would risk her life that way. Wouldn't it be "prudent" to pass a law forcing Mcdonalds and other Fast Food companies to start serving healthier food. You know, for the health of our children... Why would this arguement apply to one set of personal choices that can have dire consequences but not another? Those would seem the logical course of your reasoning. As long as it's shown to prevent pain, suffering and premature death... Do you want to amend that statement to include : within reason? If so, who are to say what's within reason? I would say something as trivial as a law making it a punishable offense to choose not to wear a personal safety device is unreasonable.
I also think this depends on which aspect or part of the left people are talking about. If the left is talking about human and civil rights then of course they put forth better arguments for the most part. If the left is talking about economics as it relates to promoting socialism and Marxism then they have been shown to be more wrong than right.
"I don't think people should suffer" But you claim that you “I don't think the obsession mankind has for trying to defeat death and vanquish pain is healthy” “We need pain as much as we need joy” “Without pain what is pleasure” Quotes that seem to imply that you thing there should be avoidable suffering even death. Have you changed your mind? ** "Wouldn't it be "prudent" to pass a law forcing Mcdonalds and other Fast Food companies to start serving healthier food. You know, for the health of our children... Why would this arguement apply to one set of personal choices that can have dire consequences but not another?" It is about the level of risks. Only one medium or serious accident without a seatbelt is likely to kill or badly injure a person. Only one hamburger at a fast food joint does not kill or badly injure a person. In the UK there are health and safety regulations about food standards, all fast food places have to be up to those standards if not they can be closed down and the owners prosecuted. These like the seatbelt laws are in place to limit any potential danger, one in a car the other in a restaurant or fast food place. Are you saying that besides not having seatbelts laws you would also not have any food standards regulations? ** You ask what is ‘within reason’ but the whole approach to what is ‘within reason’ is at the heart of this argument or hadn’t you realised that? As I’ve said very clearly before you have to look at the values people stand for and the policies they are pushing. You seem to believe that somehow all policies are the same that trying to pass a Patriot act is the same as wanting a seatbelt law. So I can only imagine that to you it seems to follow that the two people the one that wants the patriot law and the one that’s supporting seatbelt law must have the same set of values. As I’ve been trying to point out that is just silly. Just because I’m in favour of seatbelt laws does not make me in favour of wanting to lock up everyone in solitary confinement. But to you it would seem the logical course of my reasoning, why, is that the way your logical reasoning works? My reasoning doesn’t work that way, because it is not logical. Think about it, even if my value system was completely dominated by the idea of saving people from pain and suffering locking them up in solitary confinement is likely to increase their suffering, and so wouldn’t be logical. But my views on suffering and pain are tempered by other ideas that I’ve expressed many times, like freedom, happiness, etc. I’m not dogmatic I weigh up the differing factors and come to an opinion I’m comfortable with and think I can defend with a degree of honour. These are the ways in which the limits of my reasoning is worked out. So what is within reason in your philosophy? I’ve been trying to discover this by asking you about such things as child and food safety, questions that you haven'y yet answered.
Sorry but that’s not exactly correct. You are replying to a simple question by giving a statement of you belief. I’ll try and explain. Imagine someone asks - Question : Do you want a glass of water? Reply: I think it is terrible that some governments put fluoride in the public water system. Q: So do you want a glass of water? Reply : I think it is terrible that some governments put fluoride in the public water system Q: So does that mean you DON’T want a glass of water? Reply : I think it is terrible that some governments put fluoride in the public water system Q: So does that mean you DO want a glass of water? Reply : I think it is terrible that some governments put fluoride in the public water system ** So we come to my question. Would you lead the girl to safety? Reply: I think it terrible that some politicians use fear to pass legislation I don’t like So would you lead the girl to safety? Reply: I think it terrible that some politicians use fear to pass legislation I don’t like So does that mean you wouldn’t lead her to safety? Reply: I think it terrible that some politicians use fear to pass legislation I don’t like So does that mean you would lead her to safety? Reply: I think it terrible that some politicians use fear to pass legislation I don’t like As I’ve said it’s not exactly an answer to the question is it?
“I never said you supported those particular actions” OK, I said that I (like many left wingers) hoped for a reduction in people’s pain, suffering and the lessening of preventable deaths through left wing policies. Your argument on one level seems to be that we need suffering “We need pain as much as we need joy” because “Without pain what is pleasure?” And on another level that you don’t care if others suffer unnecessarily, that is their choice. I disagree You then threw at me examples and quotes from the right, about things that many left wingers (including myself) oppose. You tell people that you want to enforce "free speech zones" and fence people with opposing views away from those who support you and they say no way. You tell people that you want to enforce "free speech zones" because: “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” (John Ashcroft) or: "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or non-support that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way.” (Secret Service agent Brian Marr on NPR), well then it makes perfect sence. YOU…? But not me, I wouldn’t bring in those policies, so why are you even bring them up? I mean so far of all the things you have implied I would somehow agree with, from the outlawing of fast food to unwarranted searches, the ONLY thing so far that you find that I definitely approve of is seatbelt and helmet laws. And in that you agree with me that it would be a lot better if people did wear seatbelts. In fact the only thing we seem to disagree with on this is that I wish to lessen other peoples suffering and pain while you claim not to care if others suffer and die unnecessarily because that is their own choice. Which brings me back to the questions you have so far refused to answer. Do you protect your daughter from possible danger or do you let her possibly die even when you know she may have very little understand of the danger she is in? It is an important question because it tests the depth of you convictions and the extent of your philosophy. I mean would you see her death as being her fault and dismiss it or would you feel pain and welcome that emotion, as it would heighten your future sense of joy and pleasure? ** I would lead her to safety, because I understand the dangers she cannot, I support seatbelt laws because I understand that many people just don’t have a clue just how dangerous not wearing one can be. I would lead her to safety because as most of those who have lost a close friend or relative will tell you the pain they feel doesn’t make their world more joyful.
Motion “If the left is talking about economics as it relates to promoting socialism and Marxism then they have been shown to be more wrong than right” How? What is the point of an economy? Is it to make a communities quality of life better?
“Lets say you have a child and the two of you find yourselves on a cliff top path very close to the edge. You warn her not to play, but she is a child and forgets and begins to skip and jump and nearly slips over the edge. Do you let her continue and just risk losing her, give her another warning (but knowing she’ll probably forget again) or do you take her hand and lead her until the path becomes safe?” I can understand why Shane might find it difficult to answer the question directly. I mean you would have to be a real arsehole of a parent to leave your child in that much potential danger, as well as being a particularly callous person. But at the same time, if he does help it seems to make a mockery of his argument that he believes that individuals even those that might not understand the potential danger should not be helped and just die or suffer injury instead. He asks me “Do you feel that the Left is justified in appealing to the individual's fears of pain, suffering, and premature death (for themselves or loved ones) in order to continue the expansion and support of the State into the lives and actions of Individuals as long as it's "for a good cause"?” The implication seeming to be that the ‘left’ is doing something just so it can have more control over peoples lives. As if the parent had purposely taken the child to the cliff top just so they could lead them to safety or that they are hyping a none existent threat so as they can set the president of leading the child to ‘safety’. Shane has often mentioned such misinformation in his post, implying that politicians ‘create’ fear just so they can get more power and points to examples from the right such as the Patriot act. But what if the threat is real? Should governments have powers to contain an outbreak of a new strain of influenza? Should it crack down on contaminated or poisonous food? Should it try and make the water safe to drink and the air safe to breathe? Should it try and limit conflicts by settling disputes? Is it justified to try and save people from genuine threats? What if the cliff is real? What if the threat is not made up? What if the probability the child will fall and die is high? What then? Is it then justified to lead her to safety?
Balbus Despite my repeated attempts of clarification it still appears that we are not thinking on the same level, and at times not even having the same discussion. I am an anarchist. To me a seatbelt law is just as oppressive as a security checkpoint. It matters not what the positive results of the oppression might be. I'm sure that lives are saved because people put on their seatbelts so they will not get a ticket, just as i'm sure that some terrorist plots are foiled because of government surveillance. It is all outside of the bounds of reason to me. Laws on graffiti and wiretapping are in the same catagory. You do not seem to understand the difference between the statements: "People should wear seatbelts." and "People should wear seatbelts, and if they don't we will...." Smoking bans, gun laws, marijuana prohibition, warrantless searches, searches with warrants, police, hate crime law, speed limits, food standards, the epa, the fda, the fbi, the dea, the cia, the dhs, the nsa, social security, minimum wage, affirmitive action, the fmla, the fdcpa, the illegalization of prostitution, welfare, green paper money, metal state issued coins, fed taxes, state taxes, school taxes, war on drugs, war on terror, parental advisory stickers, drug testing, voting, new laws limiting number of cough drops you can buy, anti-graffiti legislation, legislation of any kind, building codes, warning labels, private property, public property, eminent domain, gambling laws, drinking laws, fire codes, fire marshals, air marshals, car insurance, health insurance, life insurance, dress codes...... It's all the same. It all started with 2 people getting together and deciding what was "prudent" for everyone else. My territory, your territory, my tribe, your tribe, and not to long from now the new global tribe. Burn it all. Tear up the constitution, give everyone a gun, let the population drop off to what nature can sustain, tear up the roads and blacktop, erase every dotted line from the map, let private property become public property become just land. I'm sick of the pre occupation of protecting everybody from everybody and i'm even more sick of the front of protecting everybody from everybody if only you just let this group or that group gain a little more inch here and there until all you have left is an inch. There are no good laws, no good corporations, no altruistic governments. It's all an attack on individual autonomy. And it comes from the left and right flanks. I owe you nothing, i owe government nothing, i owe my neighbor nothing. I am not responsible for the people in darfur, kosovo, france, china, n. korea, india, new orleans, new york city, boston, chicago, or anywhere else. They are responsible for their own survival, health, food, happiness, ect. Why are we so complacent with being dependent on everyone else? Live your own life! sorry. got into a little rant there.... Call me immoral. If i educate my son on the dangers of not wearing a damn seatbelt, he decides not to wear one and (god forbid) is harmed in an accident, whose fault is it? where does the responsibility lie? on him and no one else. It's no different than if i were to warn my son about the dangers of unprotected sex, of skydiving, and of joining the military. The responsibility is his to make for his life. the state is not your mommy.
But at the same time, if he does help it seems to make a mockery of his argument that he believes that individuals even those that might not understand the potential danger should not be helped and just die or suffer injury instead Balbus, there is a difference between "help" and "enforcement", between a man and his child and the state and the individual. Apples and oranges guy. there is no coorleation between my natural fear for my offsprings saftey to imposing my will on an adult "for their own good". A stranger in toledo is not my child, and i have no reason to fear for his saftey. If he doesnt want to wear a seatbelt it is not my concern, business, or responsibility to change his actions.
As if the parent had purposely taken the child to the cliff top just so they could lead them to safety or that they are hyping a none existent threat so as they can set the president of leading the child to ‘safety’. THAT IT!!! Stop comparing the state to a parental figure, it doesnt add up!!! I'm done.
Why are we so complacent with being dependent on everyone else? I really don't wanna get involved in the conversation again, and I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone. But in partial answer to the question, I think that the key factors are erratic population distribution, and uneven distribution of scarce natural resources. The second ensures trade, and with trade comes all sorts of informal and formal social and economic structures, which in turn lead to political structures that lead to trust and dependency. "We talk about civilization as though it were a static state. There are no civilized people yet." -Jacque Fresco
I do care. That is where we seem to differ, both emotionally and politically. The Anarchist philosophy I admire is also caring, in it welfare would not be needed because people would care for others without having to be asked to. Laws to set such things as minimum wage would not be needed because people would get a fair and decent payment for their services because those employing them would see that as the caring thing to do. To me an anarchist society is one in which everyone cares for each other, the community and the planet. When you say that to you Anarchy means giving everyone a gun, and letting each individual sort out his or her own survival, I can only despair. That is not a caring society it is its complete opposite. It would create a terrifying turmoil, an brutish place where everyone is in competition with everyone else for the resources to live, a place where human life is cheep and where the population (according to you) would just “drop off” in what I presume is some Darwinist free for all orgy of death. I like most people don’t want to be permanently alone, I may like to take solitary walks or sit in solitary contemplation, but on the whole I want and like company. Even coming here is a part of that, I come to debate ideas with others because I enjoy the experience of interacting. I enjoy parties, the company of friends and family and I love been with my partner and child. To a large extent a human beings emotional wellbeing is dependent on such interactions. The people I know are my tribe my clan, we learn from each other, help and support each other, but they are also just fellow humans I have meet along my way. A stranger in Toledo, Moscow, Hong Kong or Chipping Sudbury is just a stranger because you haven’t got to know them. As such I care for them as fellow humans and although the emotional bonds are not as strong as those I have with my friends they still exist. You seem to be saying that this is wrong in some way that I should only care about myself and at a pinch, my very immediate family. How is a society like that meant to work? All you’ve said so far is that it would involve some kinds of ‘organisations’ that would come together in some way or other and kind of sort things out in some way you can’t explain. But beyond these fuzzy comments you will not go, because you admit you don’t know. But it seems to me that if no one cares about anything beyond looking after number one, how are they going to care enough even to get involved in organising anything beyond their own self interest. I mean you make it quiet plain that in your opinion the human next door is the same as a human in Dafur and a person should not care what happens to either of them, since it has nothing to do with you. So if a persons next door neighbour is being raped, tortured or hacked to pieces with a machete they shouldn’t care, help or even empathise with them. What happens to other people should be a complete irrelevance. So if people are too sick to make a living, let them die. If people are too old to survive let them die? If you kill a hundred people by selling them dangerous drugs or infected meat that’s ok? Poison a river and kill a thousand, fine. Make the planet uninhabitable for people in the future, that all right too. I mean you owe them nothing all that is important is your immediate survival. But to me that’s not Anarchy, it is utter madness. You might say that is not what you meant to say, but it is what you post says, its all there. ** Yes it appears that we don’t think the same, I couldn’t be as callous as you seem to want to be or as emotionally frigid and detached. But are your Social Darwinist ideas ‘better’ than the left wing argument? Do I want to live in your vision of a future society? A place where I need a gun just to survival, where I have to be on constant vigil in case of attack and where if I get too sick or old I will receive little or no help. A land where I’m meant to feel detached from those that are suffering or are in pain and where I’m not to interfere if I see people being raped, tortured or exploited. A place where I can only see might become the only right. That may seem attractive to you but to me it seems like hell, and not in the least the communalcentic left wing vision where people help and care for each other. You ask “Why are we so complacent with being dependent on everyone else?” If by that you are wondering why people get together in groups and communities to improve their lives and care for each other, its because it works. By helping and caring for each other people can live longer and have healthier, happier and more productive lives. That is why it has been the model for human existence, from the first tribes to the latest unions of states, it might not be perfect and in my opinion has a great need for improvement but it is a model that works. I hope that one day the human race will have no need for the laws and regulations that are sadly now so badly needed to guide us within these groupings but we can only try and work for that day. I do it because I care. **
As these replies relate to an original post here I think they would be better off answered here. Quote: Originally Posted by Balbus I know this was a reply to me repeating your statement about wishing to arm everyone. I know you don’t like me repeating it but the fact is it shocked me. Here is the statement in full - “Tear up the constitution, give everyone a gun, let the population drop off to what nature can sustain, tear up the roads and blacktop, erase every dotted line from the map, let private property become public property become just land” To me yours is a very negative philosophy and your views on guns just highlights this even more. It is not about trying to understand others motivation or about caring for others or changing things for the better it is about defending what is yours and to hell with anyone else. It's not about " to hell with everyone else". It's about individual autonomy with free association and the ability to defend one's person. Quote: Originally Posted by Balbus As you say - “I am not responsible for the people in darfur, kosovo, france, china, n. korea, india, new orleans, new york city, boston, chicago, or anywhere else. They are responsible for their own survival, health, food, happiness, ect.” I mean imagine someone is starving or needs the money for an operation that would save their life in your philosophy it seems it acceptable for them to shot you in the back and take your money, they are just taking responsibility for “their own survival, health, food, happiness, ect.” Kindness and altruistic activities are not in opposition to a philosophy of personal responsibility. Oppression exists because people allow themselves to be oppressed. i do not believe i have an absolute moral imperative to defend those who refuse to defend themselves. But i retain the right to help any person or group of people i choose. Not only that, though i have no moral imperative to help anyone i don't want to, id have self-interest in fighting alongside those who are likeminded and who are oppressed. Their continued oppression puts me at a greater likelyhood of oppression myself. So, i reject the notion that i have feed the homeless or care about the iraqi people, but i choose to. **
“It's about individual autonomy with free association and the ability to defend one's person.” But this seems to mean in plain language – “I owe you nothing, i owe government nothing, i owe my neighbor nothing. I am not responsible for the people in darfur, kosovo, france, china, n. korea, india, new orleans, new york city, boston, chicago, or anywhere else. They are responsible for their own survival, health, food, happiness, ect.” To me that seems like “to hell with everyone else” I mean people are being raped and murdered in Darfur and you seem to be saying that if that was happening next door you would do anything?. “Oppression exists because people allow themselves to be oppressed. i do not believe i have an absolute moral imperative to defend those who refuse to defend themselves” I mean you are saying that if someone stronger impose their will on someone stronger that is the weaker person’s fault for being weak, so they deserve all they get? ** As I’ve said you seem to be someone that doesn’t care, it’s all about your own self-interest and everything else can go hang. Sorry I unable to be (and wouldn’t want to be) that detached from other people.