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

#51 Use the Force

Use the Force

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 424 posts

Posted 09 May 2011 - 04:55 AM

I think it would be helpful to some people in this thread if they attempted to come up with ways to solve problems without using violence. Dawh suggested that Dawh couldn't think of a way to have a working system of money without using violence to get the system to function. I'm sure you're smart enough to come up with many solutions, Dawh, that don't require violence to get the money to work. It's in everyone's interest to have money so they don't have to trade/barter with each other, right? So why do you think that people wouldn't cooperate with each other and come up with a system of money to help out their own interests? I'm sure they would. I think the problem is that we're all so used to seeing our government "solve" problems with violence that we're not used to thinking about solving problems without violence. I assure you that if you seriously try thinking about it you can easily come up with ways to have money without violence. You don't need a violent government like our own government in order to have money.

Quag: A stateless society would of course not be absent of violence. If you really thought that the vegetables that I was spending hours planting and growing on the plot of land next to the home I spent my time living in (for example) was yours and not mine, you could choose to come after me with whatever weapons you wanted to commit whatever violence you wanted to against me. I doubt you're so mean of a person to want to attack me like that and put your own life at risk by doing so, but if you wanted to you could. I and others would certainly take action against you to make sure that you weren't such a nuisance in the future. As I said, I could go to my non-violent dispute resolution organization rather than the government's violent courts whose rulings are violently enforced by the U.S.'s monopoly on violence. If you can't think of ways to resolve disputes (e.g. is that my vegetable or yours?) without violence for some reason then I suggest you Google dispute resolution organizations and read up on how problems may be solved without violence or simply ask yourself if you really think you would attack me with violence simply because I thought that your vegetable was mine. Are you really that violent of a person that "eventually these kind of problems will lead to violence" -Quag.
  • 0

#52 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 May 2011 - 01:37 PM

UTF yup your talking of a utopia.
Ok first with the money there is NO WAY aside from a govt to create a monetary system. Before govt there was barter then the ancient govts came up with money that represented something of equivalent value to avoid having to take 20 chickens to the next farm 10 miles away and get 2 pigs. If there is no govt creating the money you WILL end up with runaway inflation as someone WILL figure out to print their own and make themselves rich. Sorry HUMAN NATURE has showm 100% of the time that utopias WILL NEVER WORK!

As the the land thing again why is it your land?? because you live there?? possesion may be 9/10 of the law but ther eis now law without govt. So who says it yours you?? well me and the guy on the other side disagree, 2-1 we take your land. You either go peacefully or 2-1 chances are you will have a shallow grave. I'm not trying say I would do that but it only takes a very small percentage of the people to act in such a way for your anarchist society to become a true state of CHAOS.

Now if you first come up with a way to remove greed/violence/dishonesty etc.. from the human psyche there is a chance it could possibly work but then what would you do if any of these traits re-emerge???

I suggest you read The Dispossesed by Ursula K Leguin. She sets up a perfect utopian anarchistic society (I sense you will strongly agree with this society). Honestly it seems wonderfull for the first half of the book. Mind you she had to set it up on a different planet to make it work, then she shows all the flaws in this perfect system.

Note all these arguements are for societies larger than a small village. In a small village almost any type of govt or lack thereof will work as everyone knows each other and peer pressure to conform is increadily strong. Once you get to the size where everyone does not know each other it breaks down. Even in a village, if you get a psycopath or sociopath, well all bets are off.
  • 0

#53 Molly Mae

Molly Mae

    Moderator

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3188 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:La Salle, Illinois, USA

Posted 09 May 2011 - 03:37 PM

If you want to change America, do what I do every election. Make a serious statement.

http://www.mickeyforpresident.com/faq
  • 0

A recipe for honey-pickled apples


Awards:

Bonanova Gold Star

Spoiler for Molly's Rules to Live By

#54 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 May 2011 - 04:47 PM

no such thing as a write in here in canada :(
that is one thing you yanks have on us. Here ya need 100 signatures from people in the riding to get your name on the ballot. That roots out a lot of the crazies and keeps there from being 10 pages of names. So im kinda torn on that.
  • 0

#55 dawh

dawh

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1300 posts

Posted 09 May 2011 - 05:27 PM

no such thing as a write in here in canada :(
that is one thing you yanks have on us. Here ya need 100 signatures from people in the riding to get your name on the ballot. That roots out a lot of the crazies and keeps there from being 10 pages of names. So im kinda torn on that.

For the most part, ours is tempered by apathy. People could make a concerted effort to write in crazy candidates' names, but there is never a large enough population with a vested interest to bother with most write-ins. However, the two-party system we have currently does a pretty effective job of keeping most people outside of the major parties (and a few better known third parties) off the ballot. Though after Senator Murkowski (think I spelled that right) from Alaska lost the Republican primary to Joe Miller in 2010, she still managed to win the election as a write-in, since Miller proved to be a bit of a secessionist nutcase.

I can't find a link, but I did hear about a woman in Washington DC (I think), who saw that there was no candidate running for a position for her district's Advisory Neighborhood Commission. So she wrote in her own name just for fun. She was informed that evening that she won the election 1-0. So write-ins can affect the election results. :lol:

Also, as a media stunt, Steven Colbert (who plays a conservative on his TV show) ran for President in the Democratic primary in his home state of South Carolina (though I don't know how long it's been since he actually lived there) because the Republicans prevented him from running in their primary. Some of our election laws are pretty screwy (:wacko:) since they are a weird amalgam of Federal and State laws (that differ from state to state).
  • 0

#56 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 May 2011 - 07:19 PM

Good points Dawh,
we just had an election here and i would have loved a write in. As it was i ended up spoiling my ballot by voting for everyone. Our silly system gives 2$/year per vote. This made it impossible for me to vote for the guy who came 2nd place (in hopes of knocking off the guy whose party has won my riding for all but i think 8 of the last 150 years) because i didnt want to give the party 8$ as i dont agree with most of their platform. Usually there is a silly candidate (we used to have rhinocerous party that promised ot quit if elected) but this time there was only the established parties.

On a bright note the new govt is a majority and they will almost certainly get rid of the forced subsidy to political parties as they have been trying to kill it since it first came to be. Though, they have other policies i disagree with.
  • 0

#57 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 May 2011 - 07:37 PM

Molly Mae: Suppose Mickey wins....... =)
  • 0

#58 Molly Mae

Molly Mae

    Moderator

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3188 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:La Salle, Illinois, USA

Posted 09 May 2011 - 07:49 PM

Molly Mae: Suppose Mickey wins....... =)


Yes. That's the point. =P

Edited by Molly Mae, 09 May 2011 - 07:49 PM.

  • 0

A recipe for honey-pickled apples


Awards:

Bonanova Gold Star

Spoiler for Molly's Rules to Live By

#59 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 May 2011 - 08:11 PM

If Mickey wins Republicans AND Democrats whould be screaming to see his birth certificate :P:wacko:

Edited by Quag, 09 May 2011 - 08:12 PM.

  • 0

#60 benjer3

benjer3

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 298 posts

Posted 09 May 2011 - 10:25 PM

Quag: Can we please stop beating up on UtF? One can't win an argument, because both people will only leave it feeling more strongly about their opinion than before. Talking and listening is the only way to find the best solution, whether it's what one person thinks or a collaboration of ideas.

UtF: You are right that violence is not needed for a society to work. If a society didn't need violence, it would be much better than what we have today. However, though not you nor I nor the vast majority of people in the world would use violence without reason, it is the minority that make violence necessary. If an institution didn't enforce its laws, its laws would be overrun. Without laws, the society would collapse and those few violent people--those with morals that oppose ours--would rule.

Again, violence can only be avoided when everyone is unified in their morals and wants to do what's right. Different morals will eventually lead to dispute and then to violence. I think it would be helpful to note that our government's violence is defensive. You said yourself that you would defend yourself if you were threatened. While it may not be directly, governments protect us from the chaos and violence that would eventually emerge without it. And violence is needed to defend oneself against violence. And again, while all governments inevitably have corruption and thus violently take from their citizens, it is our duty to make it the least corrupt as possible and thus remove such violence.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users