502 replies to this topic

[benjer3]

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.

I'm just following the theme of violence, and I'm thinking of the kind of society that would exist--where everybody has to raise their own food, and stealing food would threaten your life. But you would try to stop me. That dispute resolution organization would have to use violence to return whatever I took. And stopping me would be a form of violence. What if I believed that everything belongs to everybody, that you have no right to stop me? Then you would be using violence to satisfy your own sense of justice.

And just as a side note, that organization would probably be unable to exist without the use of violence to prevent it from being toppled.

[Use the Force]

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.

I'm not a pacifist. I'll use violence in self defense. I just don't support using violence to force other people to give you their money.

[Use the Force]

I'm just following the theme of violence, and I'm thinking of the kind of society that would exist--where everybody has to raise their own food, and stealing food would threaten your life. But you would try to stop me. That dispute resolution organization would have to use violence to return whatever I took. And stopping me would be a form of violence. What if I believed that everything belongs to everybody, that you have no right to stop me? Then you would be using violence to satisfy your own sense of justice.

And just as a side note, that organization would probably be unable to exist without the use of violence to prevent it from being toppled.

The theme of violence? Wow, at least put in a little effort.

Everyone doesn't have to raise their own food... there's this thing called one person can make/grow food and someone else can eat it. And no, dispute resolution organizations don't use violence.

If you thought that you owned the food I was growing in my garden, everyone would think you were crazy and they'd probably suggest you seek some help or just stop acting dumb.

[gvg]

My idea to fine people was just an example. i don't necessarily support it. Just defending the idea. Mostly because I'm defending this side of the argument in a week in school, so i'm testing it out =) Thankfully I don't think my opponenent is a clever as you are.

In actuality, i do think it should be mandatory, but what would happen if you didn't? Tough call.

Maybe instead we could make it mandatory to vote (if you're registered, which again you don't have to do) if you want your tax returns or a tax cut or something? I dunno. I just feel that it being mandatory would make the voting process better. Am i being optimistic? Possibly, which is unusual of my, as I'm usually a little more realistic. but, i dunno, something about it.....

http://www.aolsvc.me...tionary/anarchy Here's another definition. Just adding a different one

[benjer3]

UtF: I'm sorry for the animosity. That's the kind of thing that can't happen for any form of society to work well. Don't think my views have changed, but I don't want to keep being angry about it.

I do think I see where you're coming from, and it does make sense in many ways. I think maybe that you are like me in being an idealist, which isn't necessarily bad, though we may want perfection when perfection isn't possible.

I believe that the perfect society is possible, where everyone is united and no one would have to do anything they do not want to do. There would not have to be a government because everyone, or nearly everyone, would have most of the same values and goals, and would want to do what's right, and so the people would be able to govern themselves without dispute. Any obstacles would be able to be overcome.

But once a significant—maybe not even large—amount of the people believe differently than the others, contention breaks loose and the society breaks down. If everyone believes differently, nothing will be able to be decided on and nothing will be accomplished. If a group of people try to take over, the division in the society will cause them to fall into their hands.

That is why, I believe, we need governments. Governments provide a common law that cannot be disputed, allowing an extremely diverse people to be united and to accomplish great things. Democracies are the best option because they allow the majority (at least to some extent) of the population to decide what this common law is, so there is as little dispute as possible. It is impossible for a government to be perfect as long as the people are divided, but they create the greatest unity possible.

And I think that without unity, very little is possible, as I mentioned before. Without unity of beliefs, trading goods and services, defending the society against outside forces, preventing crime, and doing many other things would be extremely difficult and maybe even impossible. The perfect society would only be possible if everybody had the same values and did their best to carry them out. As for me, I believe this is possible only through religion, but that is for another discussion.

Governments must use its people’s resources in order to maintain itself and the nation’s unity. When learning about civics, we hear about a social contract—an agreement between a people and its government to support each other. The government provides protection and unity while the people provide support and loyalty. If the people do not do their part, the government falls, and vice versa. Both must be strong for a nation to prosper.

Thus, the social contract must involve compromises. Some of the people’s freedom must be given up in order to maintain the rest of their freedom that might otherwise be lost. We are lucky who live in America and countries with similar governments, as we have greater freedom than we can have through any other system.

Finally, with this incredible system at our disposal, it is our duty to make the best of it. No, we may not agree with everything our government does, but we need to support it as well as do our best to change it for the better, or else the whole system decays and tumbles. When we vote, pay our taxes, let our voice be heard, et cetera, we make our government and therefore our society the best it can be. (And if we completely disagree with everything our government does, then we have the right to move to another nation that we do agree with.) And then, if it is possible for our people to join into one heart and one mind, we can create the perfect society, with perfect freedom and with power and respect never before seen on the Earth.



And that’s my view of it. I’d really like to hear what you have to say as well.

[dawh]

I'm a little curious where the concept of money comes from in a "stateless" society? If there isn't some overarching entity that decides what constitutes "money," how do people interact financially? Should they go back to wampum?

Also, I have to say that a "dispute resolution organization" sounds vaguely governmental in function. Who runs such an organization and who gives them the authority to resolve disputes? If I don't want to listen to the verdict of a DRO, what entity in a stateless society can compel me to listen?

For being "non-aggressive," there's certainly a lot of talk of using violence on this thread. Benjer3's right that a stateless society is only going to work if everyone is committed to working together from the get-go. And that just isn't the case right now. Maybe in 500 years or so, but definitely not now.

Do you suppose that you might feel differently about the government if you were an African American growing up in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957? The Federal Government (sometimes violently) started to force the Southern states to treat all of their citizens with the same respect. Of course, the Civil Rights movement was just beginning then, but it was the strength of the Federal Government that allowed that to come about in that instance. Would it have been better if everyone would have had to stand up for themselves?

To change the subject and turn to the Electoral College, I used to think that the EC should be abolished like gvg said, but having thought about it more, I do think that while it's somewhat broken and needs serious work, it shouldn't be removed outright. If elections were decided purely by popular vote, then politicians would only focus on population centers. California, Texas and New York would become more important, not less without the EC.

Population of CA: 36,961,664  Electoral Votes:  55
Population of TX: 24,782,302  Electoral Votes:  34
Population of NY: 19,541,453  Electoral Votes:  31
Population of WY: 544,270  Electoral Votes:  3
Population of AK: 698,473  Electoral Votes:  3

Ratio of Population:
WY/CA:  0.015

Ratio of Electoral Votes:
WY/CA:  0.055

Source: Jul 2009, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division

You can argue whether or not Wyoming or Alaska should be irrelevant to the political system (), but abolishing the Electoral College would make them more irrelevant than they currently are.

[maurice]

Hmm...I don't recall if I added this but I think I did not though I meant to..re: EC

Bush was elected President without gaining the majority of the popular vote. This is a strong argument against the EC, right? I say no. Not because the idea behind is flawed, it is not. Certainly the majority of voters should be listened to. I disagree with the assertion simply because we have no way of knowing if the majority of voters would have voted for Bush under a different system.

I did not vote in 2000. Why not? Living in Texas it was clear that Bush would carry the state (which is why I disagree with the assertion that Texas and California are key states that candidates focus on. There are key states, they just aren't Texas and California, presently). So how many people didn't vote because they felt their vote was devalued. Who knows how the results would have turned out. Mayhaps Bush would have carried the nation.

I will support an argument that the EC system dissuades people from voting, but not that it should be abolished because it allows the loser of the popular vote to still get elected.

Edited by maurice, 02 May 2011 - 07:06 PM.

[dawh]

Hmm...I don't recall if I added this but I think I did not though I meant to..re: EC

Bush was elected President without gaining the majority of the popular vote. This is a strong argument against the EC, right? I say no. Not because the idea behind is flawed, it is not. Certainly the majority of voters should be listened to. I disagree with the assertion simply because we have no way of knowing if the majority of voters would have voted for Bush under a different system.

I did not vote in 2000. Why not? Living in Texas it was clear that Bush would carry the state (which is why I disagree with the assertion that Texas and California are key states that candidates focus on. There are key states, they just aren't Texas and California, presently). So how many people didn't vote because they felt their vote was devalued. Who knows how the results would have turned out. Mayhaps Bush would have carried the nation.

I will support an argument that the EC system dissuades people from voting, but not that it should be abolished because it allows the loser of the popular vote to still get elected.

What do you think about going the Maine/Nebraska route, making each district go to whichever candidate gets the most popular vote in that district? It seems like an interesting balance toward the popular vote, while still maintaining the EC structure. I'm not sure how it would affect the elections, but it certainly could have a large impact. It also might entice people who want to make a statement with their vote to vote since it could actually give their candidate an EV.

[maurice]

Hmm...I don't recall if I added this but I think I did not though I meant to..re: EC

Bush was elected President without gaining the majority of the popular vote. This is a strong argument against the EC, right? I say no. Not because the idea behind is flawed, it is not. Certainly the majority of voters should be listened to. I disagree with the assertion simply because we have no way of knowing if the majority of voters would have voted for Bush under a different system.

I did not vote in 2000. Why not? Living in Texas it was clear that Bush would carry the state (which is why I disagree with the assertion that Texas and California are key states that candidates focus on. There are key states, they just aren't Texas and California, presently). So how many people didn't vote because they felt their vote was devalued. Who knows how the results would have turned out. Mayhaps Bush would have carried the nation.

I will support an argument that the EC system dissuades people from voting, but not that it should be abolished because it allows the loser of the popular vote to still get elected.

What do you think about going the Maine/Nebraska route, making each district go to whichever candidate gets the most popular vote in that district? It seems like an interesting balance toward the popular vote, while still maintaining the EC structure. I'm not sure how it would affect the elections, but it certainly could have a large impact. It also might entice people who want to make a statement with their vote to vote since it could actually give their candidate an EV.

I'd like that. You'd still have some districts where the winner may be overwhelmingly obvious but the impact would be diluted. And in Texas there are hugely Democratic pockets.

Again, I'm not saying the EC is good not bad, I just don't agree with the two big arguments against it (outdated & popular winner doesn't always win)

[Quag]

Dawh very good points about anarchy, was goona make them myself escpecially the money one. You beat me to it so ill just say: I agree with your post. except the no govt working 500 years go bit. No govt can work only on a very small scale such as a village. Beyond the point where a population grows so big people dont really know About the electoral college, well being canadian we have a completely different system so ill let you americans thrash that one about. I prefer our system personally, not perfect but well seems to work better.

UTF:

If you thought that you owned the food I was growing in my garden, everyone would think you were crazy and they'd probably suggest you seek some help or just stop acting dumb.

Why is it your garden? With no govt. there are no laws including property laws. Is it yours just because you said so? What if I disagree and say nope its mine? what do we do then? eventually these kind of problems will lead to violence. No govt means no roads no garbage colection no laws no police no regulation of any kind.

As to the not paying taxes on the war bit. ok lets say you dont pay them. how do you insure the govt doesnt spend that money on the war and instead just cuts pack on say medicare instead?