Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Are you planning to vote in the 2012 election


  • Please log in to reply
502 replies to this topic

#31 Use the Force

Use the Force

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 424 posts

Posted 01 May 2011 - 12:05 AM

UTF you claim to have a house, they wont kidnap you they will just take the house from you.
Sorry but you are using the govt for free. govt provides roads you use em?? you pay why should i pay taxes to pave a road you use?? no sense. now if no one builds roads then good bye grocery stores. food and goods, cant get to em, unless of course private roads are built and only those that pay can use em. but how dare you even think of walking on that private road! the list of examples go on forever. garbage nah ill just throw it out back untill my back yard becomes a festering cesspool that makes you sick and kills you. Too bad for you its my yard ill do what i want, you can go to H**L.

How can the government take my house from me if I'm inside it? Actually, I suppose they have ways. They can make it almost impossible for me to sell it, for example. But, my point wasn't how powerful the government's monopoly is. My point was that the government doing that IS violence against me.

Would you justify Harriet Tubman's enslavement because she accepted meals from her master? Of course not, and similarly it's not my fault that the government has a monopoly on roads. Just because I use roads and just because Harriet Tubman ate her master's food doesn't mean it's right to force for me to pay for roads or Harriet Tubman to pay for the food (through labor, not money). And you're right, you shouldn't have to pay for the roads that I use unless you want to.

I'm not sure why statists always seem to have a problem with privatizing roads, but they do time after time again and use it to justify using violence against me through the state to continue funding their government programs and wars.

And what is this nonsense about "you can go to H**L"? Something about people being evil if they don't have guns pointing at them forcing them to pay for government roads, perhaps?

Yes govt has never worked well but lack of govt has never worked at all. its a lesser of two evils situation.
as to the portion of the war how do you calculate that? where do you get your numbers from? sorry the govvt isnt even sure how much it has actually cost them.

Not using violence to force people to buy wars they don't want to is definitely not worse than forcing them to pay for the wars against their will at gun point.

And there's plenty of information for how much money is spent on the military/wars so it would be easily determinable if I wanted to not pay for a certain portion of the spending (military spending, Afghanistan/Iraq War spending, etc):
http://www.stumbleup...DAT2010mint.jpg
http://www.usgovernm...units=b&fy=fy11
http://www.warresist...es/piechart.htm
http://en.wikipedia...._federal_budget

Yeah i'm going overboard here a bit but your arguements make no sense it leads to a total breakdown of society, go visit haiti to see a place where govt is non existant.

Oh, dang, HAITI! I forgot about that! You're right! We better start pointing guns at people or else the vast majority of us are going to lose our education, material possessions, etc, and fall into poverty! Why didn't I see it before?

Anarchy doesnt work it is a pipe dream if one guy lives liek that he is just a jerk if everyone does society breaks down.

Thanks for calling me a jerk. I don't think society breaks down if you stop pointing guns at people, but you don't seem to be in the mood to listen so I'll just leave it at that for now.
  • 0

#32 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 May 2011 - 12:09 AM

Quag: i just feel that mandatory voting in some form is better. In fact, some areas where it's not even enforced still see a higher voter turnout simply because it's a 'law' and people follow laws.

And think about this: it is, by law, mandatory NOT to litter. You can still do so, but you pay a fine. I see no reason that instead we should pay those who don't litter and not pay those who do. I understand that it's a different situation, but you see what I mean don't you?

http://debatepedia.i...mpulsory_voting This website is good for both sides =)

And UtF: If you don't pay the fines, then you break the whatever the law about not paying fines. Thus you would then be punished for not paying your fines, not for not voting. And anyway, if you don't wish to vote, don't register! Simple. Avoids the issue completely.

And no, not wanting to do something is not an excuse for not doing it. Is it excusable not to do jury duty if you're called because you don't want to? is it ok to not tell the truth in a court of law because you didn't want to?
  • 0

#33 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 May 2011 - 12:46 AM

UTF yup i think anyone who thinks anarchy is good is a jerk as they are thinking only of themselves.

If we have no govt we have no police no police means i can take a gun and shoot you take your stuff and thats that all mine game over for you no consequences for me!
roads food slavery?? apples oranges and anarchists none of it goes together.
your right i cant take your education but in an anarchistic society you dont get any unless you pay or rather unless your parents decide to pay for it. cause as a child you cannot earn money untill you old enough to have some sort of usefull skill. there being no govt to make chilkd labor laws.
the stuff about going to hell is the same thing that makes communism fail. Anarchy and communism assume FALSLEY that all people will work to the betterment of others even if in the short term it is to their detriment. SORRY IT DONT HAPPEN! take away rules and laws and such eventually it becomes kill or be killed. at least untill some enlightend peopel reinstitute laws and some for of govt.
People arent inherently evil most the vast majority I believe are good. But if you place people in a world where someone with a gun can do what they want the bad peopel will eventually force the good people to act liek them or lose everything. please read lord of the flies.


Sorry you dont liek wars neither do i but seriously if not wanting to pay taxes for a war you dont liek is your strongest arguement just move to another country that isnt at war. worked for those peopel who moved tothe falkands (yeah cheap jab i know what ya want its saturday night and im sitting at a puter)
Those are estimates after the fact. youre saying the govt goes to war then afterwards when you see the price you can say no thanx?

What im saying is anarchy will ead to haiti where people do poitn guns at each other kids dotn get educated etc. personally I would prefer no one uses guns but that is being unrealistic and utopic. Given the choice i would rather have the guns in hands of peopel who follow a set of rules that are defined and as needed modified by a govt structure and that that govt can be changed by a democratic process. Like winnie said it isnt the wost possible system except when compared to all others.
Yes i would liek to pay no taxes or even less. Yes I would like ther to be less govt waste etc but to think that letting people decide what taxes they will pay would lead to a better world is compeltely unrealistic, It would lead to the total shut down of govt and the decay of the countries infrastrure incease gang activity once the cops are all gone, disease once the garbage stays in the street illiteracy as schools close etc. ALL THIS WILL HAPPEN if you let people decide what taxes they can pay because pretty soon people will stop paying all taxes and then all these govt servces will cease.

gvg if you litter you can damage the enviroment and make unsanitary conditions that can negatively affect me. If you dont vote well then you are just irrelevant. not the same Ill say it again go for the carrot forget the stick. you havent given me one good reason the stick is better than the carrot.

wanna vote get a tax break dont wanna vote dont get it. simple no pain for those who dont vote as it is invisible to them well except for UTF he dotn pay taxes ;)
  • 0

#34 Use the Force

Use the Force

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 424 posts

Posted 01 May 2011 - 12:47 AM

I forgot to reply to this:

an·ar·chist   /ˈænərkɪst/ Show Spelled
[an-er-kist] Show IPA

–noun
1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.

That is the definition of an anarchist. Fundamentally anarchy is a society without govt. problem is govt is necessary for certain things. Who will make/maintain roads? who will clean up the garbage? who will enforce the rule of law? (ok technically if no govt ther is no law but you get the point)

It appears you accept a different definition of anarchism than I do. I'm aware that the word anarchy has been degraded over the years and is now often used to mean chaos, etc. Even this morning in the New York Times of all places I read, "Many expressed mild frustration about limits on their access to damaged homes, the pace of road clearing and power restoration, and anarchic traffic jams caused by roadblocks and nonfunctioning signals." ( http://www.nytimes.c...ner=rss&emc=rss ). Just looking at the article again to show you I see they got rid of "anarchic" which I of course completely agree with because it is a very barbaric use of the word that does no respect for the political position.

There are lunatics in the world who claim to be anarchists and then go shoot people, etc. I don't consider these people anarchists. All of the actual political anarchists would only non-violently revolt against the governments that enslave them by swaying peoples' minds through political discussions like this, etc. Real anarchists, not the lunatics who call themselves anarchists and then go terrorize government people and use violence, are the non-violent people. Anarchism is what you get when you accept the non-aggression principle. You don't have to follow it completely to be an anarchist, but if you learn enough about what anarchism is you'll realize that violence of the kind that the government uses against people (like forcing them to pay taxes or go to jail) is absurd.

Before I was an anarchist I was having a political discussion with my friend (who is an anarchist) once. I rejected what he was saying about the non-agression principle saying that he wasn't really an anarchist and that it was impossible to be an anarchist. I said that if he was to truly follow his principles then he shouldn't initiate force against trees by cutting them down and using them to build his house or whatever else. That's a form of violence if you think about it, even if it's not as severe as some other things like killing a dog or a human. But, after picking at all the little flaws in his argument that his anarchist views were what stemmed from the non-aggression principle I looked back at taxation and it all of a sudden seemed absurd to not let people choose to not pay for one thing or another (whether it be the Afghanistan War or even government healthcare or even police, public schools or roads. A few years ago I thought I was leaning to the liberal side of the political spectrum (like Democrats over Republicans). I thought that all of the government stuff was necessary and that my anarchist's friend's objections about violence were just silly. I thought that for the greater good of society taxation was necessary. I thought that without the gun-enforced taxation and the rest of the aspects of government, then society would "dissolve into anarchy" as people always say using anarchy in a derogatory sense. But, really I had no reason to back up my views. I hadn't tried solving societal problems without violence before. Seriously, try coming up with ways to solve all of the problems that it is currently the government's job to solve without violence. I had never tried the task before. But, the more I thought about it the clearer it all became and eventually I realized that the government's violence wasn't necessary and I didn't have to keep telling myself "but, it's necessary for society to function" to justify the government using violence to force people to do things they don't want to do. Anyways, I'm ranting now and this is getting off topic.
  • 0

#35 Use the Force

Use the Force

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 424 posts

Posted 01 May 2011 - 12:57 AM

Quag: i just feel that mandatory voting in some form is better. In fact, some areas where it's not even enforced still see a higher voter turnout simply because it's a 'law' and people follow laws.

That is a funny phenomena, isn't it? People follow laws just because it's a law. Many times I have been discussion politics with people and I ask them if they think a certain thing is right or wrong. They often express that they think it's wrong, but then they decide that they're going to say it's right because "it's the law" and if people don't follow "the law" then the system won't work and society will collapse. Crazy? Yes. Think of the military soldiers who go shoot people because they were ordered to. If the U.S. government is telling me to do it then it must be a good thing to do! It's the same phenomena. If you were a police officer and were supposed to arrest me because I didn't pay the portion of my taxes for the War in Afghanistan and I said, "No thanks. I haven't committed a crime. I'm not going to let you arrest me because if I let you arrest me I know I'll end up in a jail cell because of the perverted morals of this system." Would you really point your gun at me to force me to go to jail? Why? Because it's your job? Because it's the law? That's nonsense... If you're going to arrest me, do so because you think should use violent force against me for declining to financially support the war in Afghanistan.
  • 0

#36 benjer3

benjer3

    Advanced Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 298 posts

Posted 01 May 2011 - 01:00 AM

The trouble with anarchism is that it is impossible for people to live together unless they have a common law. What if I felt like taking some food from your garden? Who says it's wrong? You would want to shoot me because I'm stealing your food, but I think it's as much mine as anybody else's, and I'm going to shoot you because you're threatening my life. If there isn't some uniform set of laws for a people to live by, no one is right--there is no right--and everybody is justified to do whatever they want to.

Furthermore, even though we give some of our freedom to the government (or the government "takes" it from us), it protects us from the captivity that would be imposed on us by a tyrannical power. If our government didn't protect us, some group could easily overpower us and turn us into slaves that work until they die.

Hey, without any governments, I could get together with a good number people and decide I wanted to wipe out the human race. If I have a big enough group of people, no one can stop me. I'll just do as I please, and what everyone else wants won't matter.
  • 0

#37 Use the Force

Use the Force

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 424 posts

Posted 01 May 2011 - 01:10 AM

And think about this: it is, by law, mandatory NOT to litter. You can still do so, but you pay a fine. I see no reason that instead we should pay those who don't litter and not pay those who do. I understand that it's a different situation, but you see what I mean don't you?

http://debatepedia.i...mpulsory_voting This website is good for both sides =)

And UtF: If you don't pay the fines, then you break the whatever the law about not paying fines. Thus you would then be punished for not paying your fines, not for not voting. And anyway, if you don't wish to vote, don't register! Simple. Avoids the issue completely.

And no, not wanting to do something is not an excuse for not doing it. Is it excusable not to do jury duty if you're called because you don't want to? is it ok to not tell the truth in a court of law because you didn't want to?

If you throw your trash onto my property that is a form of violence--it is an initiation of force--against me. I wouldn't use violence against you for throwing trash onto my property, but I would appropriately deal with your crime non-violently. The point is, I would regard that as a crime. But, if I do NOT pay for the Afghanistan War that the U.S. government is holding, is that a crime? If I do NOT give my money away to the mafia, is that a crime? I certainly wouldn't say so, but then again I'm an anarchist and you're a statist, so maybe you do think that it is a crime that merits a violent punishment (such as a choice between paying a fee, going to jail, or getting shot at). (Note: If you sell me a book (or any other product) and I run out of your store before paying you, then yes, I would obviously regard that as a crime. But, again, if I was the bookseller I wouldn't use violence against the book-thief. There are non-violent ways to deal with criminals that don't involve pointing guns at them and locking them up in cells).

The fines are a form of violent punishment, because if I don't pay the fines then that means the government is going to come after me with their guns to bring me to prison and if I refuse they are going to grab onto me and handcuff me to take me in and if I defend myself from that they'll shoot me.

And why do you think I should be punished for not paying a fine for not voting? That's the same thing as not paying my taxes. Why should I have to pay? Anyways, this is a silly discussion (the mandatory voting one). If you're willing to point a gun at me to make me vote then that's that and I'm done with this discussion.
  • 0

#38 benjer3

benjer3

    Advanced Member

  • Validating
  • PipPipPip
  • 298 posts

Posted 01 May 2011 - 01:17 AM

(Whoops, missed the edit time)

This means there would be more violence in a government-less world. The only reason good governments use "violence" is because they must to defend their citizens from real violence, i.e. killing. As for laws, "violence" must be used or some people will choose not to follow the laws, and then nobody will follow them, and then we're down the government-less toilet described above.

And how do you deal with criminals without violence?

Edited by benjer3, 01 May 2011 - 01:20 AM.

  • 0

#39 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 May 2011 - 01:19 AM

UTF youem to be saying that you are a pacifist not an anarchist.
GAWD i hate these debates on meanings of words. I will use the dictionary definiton of anarchy.
  • 0

#40 Use the Force

Use the Force

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 424 posts

Posted 01 May 2011 - 01:30 AM

The trouble with anarchism is that it is impossible for people to live together unless they have a common law. What if I felt like taking some food from your garden? Who says it's wrong? You would want to shoot me because I'm stealing your food, but I think it's as much mine as anybody else's, and I'm going to shoot you because you're threatening my life. If there isn't some uniform set of laws for a people to live by, no one is right--there is no right--and everybody is justified to do whatever they want to.

Furthermore, even though we give some of our freedom to the government (or the government "takes" it from us), it protects us from the captivity that would be imposed on us by a tyrannical power. If our government didn't protect us, some group could easily overpower us and turn us into slaves that work until they die.

Hey, without any governments, I could get together with a good number people and decide I wanted to wipe out the human race. If I have a big enough group of people, no one can stop me. I'll just do as I please, and what everyone else wants won't matter.

I'd want to shoot you because you're stealing my food? Speak for yourself. Would you really shoot someone for stealing some vegetables from your garden? Dang, maybe it's good we have police instead... just kidding. Anyways, of course I wouldn't shoot you for stealing from me. I'd ask you to give the food back. I'd tell you I consider it theft. I'll tell you that if you try to do it again I'm going to stop you. I would let everyone else in the community know what you did. And of course I could always go to my dispute resolution organization, which of course I would if what you stole was of significant value and you refused to recompensate me a way I found acceptable.

How big is this group of people that you're going to wipe out humans with? A democratic majority? Anyways, I don't think I have to worry about mass numbers of people wiping out all humans in a stateless society. If I did they would wipe us out in our current society.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users