Home | Community | Message Board


Everything Mushrooms
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
Anonymous

for annapurna1
    #2213287 - 01/01/04 03:57 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

continued from this thread.

i'll start by telling you how i feel about government.

anarchy is the most preferable state of human affairs. anarchy, where each and every person exists and lives as they wish, mindful of their neighbor, and keeping their hands to themselves. there is pure and unrestrained liberty. there is no force, and there can be no government. all interactions between all individuals are peaceful and voluntary. this would be the prefered situation.

but this cannot be, because some humans will not play by the rules. some will coerce. some will defraud. some will cheat, steal, kill, rape, or assault. some will initiate force.

in the course of human interactions, there will be force. there will even be organized force. in any sphere of human existence, there will be some group, or even a single person, who has a greater ability to project force than any others. whatever body this is we call the government. it can be the alpha male in a tribe of nomads. it can be a king. or a warlord. it can be a dictator. it can be an elected body of officials. the defining characteristic is that this body has the greatest ability to project force in the land. the existance of such a body is as inevitable as the existance of force.

the government is not special. it is only the biggest army in the land. if something is wrong for a single person to do, it is also wrong for a group to do, even if that group happens to be the one with the biggest army in the land... the trouble with force is that it can only be quelled by force. if you wish to limit the amount of force involved in human interaction, there will come a time when the only way this can be accomplished is by the use of force. force, therefore, is not always completely wrong. it is not wrong to employ force in self-defense or in the defense of a third party from force- the only proper use of force is in response to force, and it is never ok to be the initiator of force. it is wrong for a single person to initiate force, it is wrong for a small group of people to initiate force, and it is wrong for a large group of people to initiate force... even the one with the biggest army in the land.

now... i welcome you (with an open mind) to point out flaws in this line of reasoning and propose an alternative theory of government.


Edited by Anonymous (01/02/04 12:00 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,712
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: ]
    #2213294 - 01/01/04 03:59 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Bravo. BRAVO!


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibledownforpot
Stranger
Male
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 5,715
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: ]
    #2213362 - 01/01/04 04:46 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

I say we all become communists and be equal, not.


--------------------



http://www.myspace.com/4th25


"And I don't care if he was handcuffed
Then shot in his head
All I know is dead bodies
Can't fuck with me again"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,376
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: ]
    #2213717 - 01/01/04 08:21 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Natural Law...you have to love it :wink:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: ]
    #2214210 - 01/02/04 02:11 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

it can be the alpha male in a tribe of nomads

That really isn't how early man operated. They realised very soon that one man - no matter how "alpha" - could catch an animal by himself. Unless everyone in the team was treated equally and happily played their part the tribe quickly starved and died out. Equality was the name of the game.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: for annapurna1 [Re: Xlea321]
    #2214238 - 01/02/04 02:27 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Your "theories" about early man are a load of nonsense to put it mildly.

I distinctly remember our first conversations where you tried to convince me that early man was compassionate and there weren't any wars or problems associated with "corporations" etc and all the other nonsense you spew.

Oy Vey :rolleyes:

mushmaster: Well done.  It looks like you have done your homework. :thumbup:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecarbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: ]
    #2214302 - 01/02/04 03:11 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Mr. Mushrooms writes...
Quote:

Your "theories" about early man are a load of nonsense to put it mildly.

I distinctly remember our first conversations where you tried to convince me that early man was compassionate and there weren't any wars or problems associated with "corporations" etc and all the other nonsense you spew.

Oy Vey






You spew your fair share too, you know, like,
Quote:

Remember Willie Clintone? Remember how he was your friend, or at least someone that was softer in his foreign policy? Remember how he cut our defense by 33%? Remember how much fun he had having his dick sucked by a girl young enough to be his daughter in the Oval Office? Remember how he lied about it? Remember how the American people were outraged? Remember how that single fact had such a tremendous effect on Gore's race for the presidency? Remember how our economy was still strong enough that Gore should have won?




At least you don't still think your Plato.


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: ]
    #2214761 - 01/02/04 10:45 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Oy Vay*


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: carbonhoots]
    #2214863 - 01/02/04 11:53 AM (12 years, 10 months ago)

At least you don't still think your Plato.

:lol: :thumbup:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: for annapurna1 [Re: Xlea321]
    #2214952 - 01/02/04 01:40 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

That really isn't how early man operated. They realised very soon that one man - no matter how "alpha" - could catch an animal by himself. Unless everyone in the team was treated equally and happily played their part the tribe quickly starved and died out. Equality was the name of the game.

in even the simplest of societal organizations, human beings have rules which are enforced. i know that you disagree with me, but i'm telling you as a former anthropology major that it is widely accepted that in the very early days, authority in the simplest human groups was generally held by a single male who was recognized as the most powerful.

even in groups that had a more egalitarian power structure, there were still rules to be enforced and people to enforce them.

the organization you seem to be envisioning is one like this...

the #1 rule is to cooperate. you must get along with your fellow man, and he must get along with you. hardship guarantees that everyone needs to work together if they wish to survive. there needn't be anyone to enforce this rule, because it enforces itself. there is no force. there is no central authority. everyone is equal as part of the group.

now.... sociologists will tell you that cooperation in a population generally decreases as hardship increases, and anthropologists will tell you that violence was very commonplace in early societies, but let us ignore all of that for a moment and imagine that this sort of society actually existed at some real time and place.

it is anarchy. hardship has forced anarchy on the people. it would be a place where there was no use of force. there would therefore be no government. as soon as conditions changed (and they did) force would enter into the equation (as it did) and governments formed (as they did). if it's true that hardship engenders cooperation, peace, and equality (an assumption that most scholars disagree with), it offers nothing to what we are discussing here. people no longer live that way. we have technology, specialization, organization... and force.

the bottom line is: you are nitpicking. what you're saying is highly debatable and totally irrelevant to the discussion. nice attempt at derailing a thread.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: ]
    #2214999 - 01/02/04 02:17 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

you are nitpicking

No you stated "this cannot be". I'm telling you that for 99% of human history this was exactly the way humans lived. So clearly "it can be". That's not nitpicking, it's completly different to what you are trying to say. You are drawing conclusions about human nature based on the last few thousand years of history. It isn't the whole story.

The vast bulk of human history, as any anthropologist will tell you, consisted of small hunter-gatherer groups that were by neccessity based on co-operation, sharing and equality. There were no Bill Gates type figures sat on their ass sending everyone out to work. Small groups simply cannot work successfully like that.

nice attempt at derailing a thread.

Wow, when you're reduced to parrotting enima/johnnyrespect lines you must really know you've hit rock-bottom.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: Xlea321]
    #2215024 - 01/02/04 02:30 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
I'm telling you that for 99% of human history this was exactly the way humans lived.



You seem very certain of that which a normal human being would have no way of knowing. Are you God or are you just ignorant of the extent of your ignorance?


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: Autonomous]
    #2215039 - 01/02/04 02:39 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Nice flame  :rolleyes:

Now have you got anything on-topic to add? Like how you think humans lived if they didn't live in hunter-gatherer groups? Impress me with your knowledge..


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: Xlea321]
    #2215051 - 01/02/04 02:51 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Alex123 said:
Unless everyone in the team was treated equally and happily played their part the tribe quickly starved and died out. Equality was the name of the game.




Care to back up this untenable assertion with some FACTS?

... I didn't think so. :smirk:


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: Autonomous]
    #2215053 - 01/02/04 02:54 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Have you ever read a book on hunter-gatherer society?

I didn't think so.. :smirk:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: Xlea321]
    #2215064 - 01/02/04 03:00 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Yes I have.

I'm still waiting for some facts to back up your claim. Since I know that you are unable to provide them, I will drop this line of discussion right now and allow other readers to draw their own conclusions.

Good Day.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: Autonomous]
    #2215068 - 01/02/04 03:03 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

That was lucky for you :smirk:

So could you tell me the name of the book you read? What did you learn from it? Give us your input on the topic. Are you familiar with the HRAF at all for example? What depth of knowledge do you possess to make your claims?

Since I know you are unable to name the book, I'll drop this line of discussion and allow other readers to draw their own conclusions.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,712
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: Xlea321]
    #2215124 - 01/02/04 03:35 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

Believe me Alpo. We have.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: for annapurna1 [Re: Xlea321]
    #2215187 - 01/02/04 04:27 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

No you stated "this cannot be". I'm telling you that for 99% of human history this was exactly the way humans lived. So clearly "it can be". That's not nitpicking, it's completly different to what you are trying to say. You are drawing conclusions about human nature based on the last few thousand years of history. It isn't the whole story.

perhaps i shouild have said, "this cannot be... except in the mind of alex123 and a handful of unnamed "authorities" who think that in very early times, hardship forced early man to cooperate fully in a coercion-free society."  :smirk:

The vast bulk of human history, as any anthropologist will tell you, consisted of small hunter-gatherer groups that were by neccessity based on co-operation, sharing and equality. There were no Bill Gates type figures sat on their ass sending everyone out to work. Small groups simply cannot work successfully like that.

perhaps, but you'll have trouble finding one who will tell you that there was no such thing as the use of force, and no such thing as some kind of central authority. packs of animals such as wolves usually have some kind of acknowledged leader, as do bands of primates, as did early hominids... including homo sapiens. but whatever...

Wow, when you're reduced to parrotting enima/johnnyrespect lines you must really know you've hit rock-bottom.

um... we were talking about force, government, and liberty, and now we are "debating" whether or not members of prehistoric nomad societies used force against eachother.

the thing is, if you read my last post, the points i'm making are made with the assumption that what you are saying is correct... yes, let's assume that in times of extreme duress, humans will assume a group identity and cooperate with eachother without ever employing coercion. that's just dandy. how does it pertain to modern society, in which conditions are entirely different and people DO initiate force against their fellow man?

i've maintained all along that the preferable state of affairs is one in which force is nonexistent. i don't think a coercion-free society has ever existed. you think that in early times, certain specific circumstances which no longer exist did cause such a social organization to exist. my big question is... what's your point? what impact does this have on the topic at hand? how does this in any way lend support to the forced collectivist schemes which you and others here have frequently come out in support of?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: for annapurna1 [Re: Xlea321]
    #2215240 - 01/02/04 04:59 PM (12 years, 10 months ago)

in the case of your hunter-gatherer utopia, the same rules about force apply. everyone is to keep their hands to themselves. there is voluntary cooperation. people do not use force. there needn't be anyone to enforce this rule, because it enforces itself; those who initiate force will not survive.

what about when this is not the case? what about in a society where people are able to live on more than only a simple subsistence, hunter-gatherer level? what happens in a society where the #1 rule is not self-enforcing and people do use force?

that is the question here.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Hunter Gatherer Societies
( 1 2 all )
Anonymous 1,589 33 05/02/03 05:54 PM
by Anonymous
* another fact about the little eichmanns...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Annapurna1
7,138 151 05/05/05 08:57 PM
by Phred
* Biological Warfare in the War on Drugs LSDempire 871 8 05/19/05 03:48 AM
by LSDempire
* anarchy
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Anonymous 5,507 110 03/10/03 11:06 PM
by Psilocybeingzz
* Anarchy
( 1 2 3 all )
OOOO 2,680 57 05/01/03 04:07 PM
by Anonymous
* Do you view violence as an acceptable form of force to impose your will?
( 1 2 3 all )
RandalFlagg
2,792 58 08/12/05 07:42 PM
by LSDempire
* "With a heavy dose of fear and violence..." Edame 395 2 12/07/03 08:12 PM
by enimatpyrt
* Agriculture tom 765 6 09/05/01 11:35 PM
by madscientist

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
2,972 topic views. 4 members, 0 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Crestline Sales - MycoPath
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.09 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 19 queries.