|
 GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
 Re: for annapurna1  [Re: ]
#2220485 - 01/05/04 12:16 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
if he's piling trash on your property without your permission, taking action against his waste disposal practices is not an initiation of force. he has initiated force against you.
No he is piling it in his garden but I dont like the view or the smell...can I still initiate force?
So are you seriously telling me the world would be a better place if the areas I have mentioned were all turned over to private companies, who are out to make a buck primarily?
Quote:
no. you do not have a right to own slaves. if the majority wishes to own slaves and is not allowed, this is not an infringment on their rights.
Strawman Im afraid. You cannot deny that the will of the majority is merely the will of many individuals. However it does lead quite nicely onto another point: Who decides slavery is illegal under your system? How are laws made?
Quote:
i agree, but i don't think that organization must require force, and i think that the most efficient form of organization is one in which force is minimized.
I agree, I think we would both like to see more efficient organisation and less bad government!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: GazzBut]
#2220510 - 01/05/04 12:26 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
No he is piling it in his garden but I dont like the view or the smell...can I still initiate force?
a problem does arise when property rights cannot be clearly defined. do you own the air that comes onto your yard? do you own the view? this is a possible problem. who may pollute, how much, and for what reasons? who may own the air and water? who may own the land?
So are you seriously telling me the world would be a better place if the areas I have mentioned were all turned over to private companies, who are out to make a buck primarily?
trash disposal should be privately operated, as should emergency fire and medical services. roads i really must admit i'm not sure about.
You cannot deny that the will of the majority is merely the will of many individuals.
i am not denying that at all. what i'm saying is that there is nothing allowable by the will of a majority which is not allowable by the will of a single person. i cannot enslave you. even if it is my will to enslave you, i cannot. this is not an infringment upon my rights. if me and 20 other people want to enslave you, we cannot. if me and the majority wish to enslave you, we cannot. individuals may not initiate force. a majority may not initiate force. i don't see what is so difficult about that.
if the majority wants to officially declare january 5th as "silly hat day" then that's fine, as long as you aren't forced to wear a silly hat and as long as silly hat day festivities aren't funded by coercion.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: ]
#2220540 - 01/05/04 12:41 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
i think the problem i'm seeing is that it's not as easy as... *well, just set up a government that does not initiate force and exists only to keep the peace and preserve liberty"... it's a liittle more complicated than that.
for one, if the government is only "the biggest army in the land", then it really has no more obligations than anyone else. it doesn't need to prevent people fron initiating force, it merely must restrain from doing it itself. who is to say that the biggest army in the land will be up for the job?
how is the biggest army in the land to support itself if it cannot levy taxes? donations? payment for services?
what follows from what i've been talking about is essentially privatization of EVERYTHING.... the government would really be nothing more than a big security firm, the problems of which should be obvious.
another problem for me is property ownership when it comes to raw natural resources, including land. what gives any one human being any more right to a piece of the earth than anyone else?
there is no reason for voting in the system i've been advocating... we'd need either perfect officials or a perfect populace, and of course we have neither. that's the problem to begin with.
i think a government should be very limited in scale. it's primary duty should be to defend liberty. it should have checks and balances. it should have democracy... but not too much. no government is perfect. ultimately, it's up to the people. if they all desire freedom, they needn't a government to preserve it for them, nor can any government take it away. if none desire freedom, no government can guarantee it, and they will not have it.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: ]
#2220682 - 01/05/04 01:49 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
trash disposal should be privately operated, as should emergency fire and medical services. roads i really must admit i'm not sure about.
Okay, So my neighbours ever expanding waste pile catches alight and in turn his property. He has no fire insurance and cannot afford to call out even the cheapest emergency service...what happens then?
Quote:
cannot ensalve you. even if it is my will to enslave you, i cannot. this is not an infringment upon my rights. if me and 20 other people want to enslave you, we cannot. if me and the majority wish to enslave you, we cannot. individuals may not initiate force. a majority may not initiate force. i don't see what is so difficult about that.
I agree and admit that this area is troubling to me. Can the will of the majority be trusted? How do we institute checks and balances on the majority without turning meaningful control over to a minority?
Having considered this though I would feel more comfortable following the will of the majority as opposed to being controlled by a minority of self serving individuals; I believe this is the situation we are currently in.
And rather than issues such as slavery, which lets be honest is hardly likely to be voted back in by any majority, I think we do need to act in line with majority consensus concerning those issues that effect all of us such as foreign policy etc.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: GazzBut]
#2220945 - 01/05/04 03:38 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Okay, So my neighbours ever expanding waste pile catches alight and in turn his property. He has no fire insurance and cannot afford to call out even the cheapest emergency service...what happens then?
that should serve as a pretty good example to others. why is it our responsibility to clean up after someone else's mess and make sure they don't burn down their place when their mountain of trash catches fire?
Can the will of the majority be trusted?
no.
How do we institute checks and balances on the majority without turning meaningful control over to a minority?
we create a constitution guaranteeing individual rights. unfortunately this must be enforced by someone, and how do we select them?
I think we do need to act in line with majority consensus concerning those issues that effect all of us such as foreign policy etc.
or drug policy perhaps? other civil liberties? post 9/11 privacy and due process of law? it's hard because there needs to be some democracy, but not too much... there need to be checks and balances... i am trying to envision a perfect government and i can't. a perfect government could only serve a perfect populace... in which case, why have it at all? problems problems. i don't have all the answers.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: ]
#2222397 - 01/06/04 06:11 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
that should serve as a pretty good example to others. why is it our responsibility to clean up after someone else's mess and make sure they don't burn down their place when their mountain of trash catches fire?
So when my property catches fire because my neighbour couldnt afford to deal with his fire I have to pay? Hows that fair? Admit it, your ideas have more holes than a sieve!
Quote:
Can the will of the majority be trusted?
no.
Any chance of an explanation for your opinion? Seeing as the will of the majority has NEVER truly been followed I'd like to know what you are basing your opinion on.
Quote:
a perfect government could only serve a perfect populace... in which case, why have it at all? problems problems.
You have basically realised the utopian nature of your philosophy. As I said earlier we need more efficient organisation and less bad government. We are not perfect, we are simply improving.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: GazzBut]
#2222927 - 01/06/04 11:29 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
So when my property catches fire because my neighbour couldnt afford to deal with his fire I have to pay? Hows that fair?
ah... you never told me that he was someone's nextdoor neighbor and that his trash heap was a potential hazard to other people. if your neighbor is creating a situation which may be hazardous to you, it's not wrong for him to be forced to rectify things. your neighbor can't open up a fireworks company right next door. he can't open up a shooting range.
Any chance of an explanation for your opinion? Seeing as the will of the majority has NEVER truly been followed I'd like to know what you are basing your opinion on.
there have been times when it has been apparent that the majority has supported things which were not right. the majority currently supports throwing marijuana users in jail. in some countries, the majority supports forcing women to hide everything but their eyes. the majority in some places has at times supported segregation, and slavery before that. just because we have something hindering the will of the majority from becoming law (and this hindrance isn't exactly very effective), it doesn't mean that we cannot clearly see what would happen, and what has happened, when the will of the majority is made law.
|
 RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: GazzBut]
#2222970 - 01/06/04 11:48 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Mushmaster said:
Can the will of the majority be trusted?
no.
Gazzbut said:
Any chance of an explanation for your opinion?
Majority Tyranny is a serious problem in the world of government.
If our governments functioned as direct democracies, they would
be to open to the idiotic whims of the public. What kind of horrid
things do you think that the American public would have voted for
on September 12, 2001? I bet 80% would have voted to nuke the Middle
East. Would that have been a good thing? Public whims should not be
a basis for governmental procedure. An idea should go through many
years and many minds before it can even begin to be instituted into
law. This concept protects us from our own rashness and stupidity.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: ]
#2222974 - 01/06/04 11:50 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
the majority currently supports throwing marijuana users in jail
Not sure about that.
the majority supports forcing women to hide everything but their eyes
Not sure about that either.
I think you're confusing the will of the people in power with the will of the majority. Certainly the vast majority of poor white people never got anything out of slavery - it benefitted the tiny rich minority and put the poor whites out of work.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: ]
#2223007 - 01/06/04 12:04 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
in some countries, the majority supports forcing women to hide everything but their eyes.
Really? Id be very interested to hear where this issue has actually been voted on to give a true reflection of the majority's opinion.
And anyway, if this majority includes women as well as men why is it wrong for them to follow this course of action?
Quote:
the majority in some places has at times supported segregation, and slavery before that.
And if the will of the majority had remained in favour of these things do you really think they would have ever been discarded?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
If our governments functioned as direct democracies, they would
be to open to the idiotic whims of the public.
Thats not how I see direct democracy functioning. We would still have to choose a group of people i.e a political party to act as administrators. They would still get to serve a term, however we would then get the chance to vote on the bills they wished to pass. Im not suggesting that we would vote on every obscure detail of government. To begin voting on only the major issues would be a great improvement on the system we currently have.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: GazzBut]
#2223074 - 01/06/04 12:31 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Are you familiar with the U.S. system of government? (Legislative,
Executive, and Judicial)
The Legislative creates laws and passes them, the president
(executive) signs them into law, and the judicial determines if the
law is legal according to the Constitution.
It seems that you are advocating a U.S. style system where the
president's role is replaced by the public vote? Am I correct
on this?
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
That sounds close to what im suggesting. How would you feel about that?
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: GazzBut]
#2223334 - 01/06/04 01:57 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Id be very interested to hear where this issue has actually been voted on to give a true reflection of the majority's opinion.
Exactly - and if the women don't want it the "majority" isn't going to win anyway because the women will be voting against it.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: Xlea321]
#2223547 - 01/06/04 03:14 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Not sure about that.
in america they do. you can refute the examples i've used (and ok ok... the "everything but their eyes" bit was stretching things a bit), but the principle is the same. see randalflagg's comments. spend a little time in america. see what sort of people live here. make sure to visit a walmart and perhaps also a baptist church. certainly travel the southern states. make sure to catch a few fox news broadcasts. then come back and tell me that the will of the majority can be trusted absolutely.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: GazzBut]
#2223611 - 01/06/04 03:40 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You have basically realised the utopian nature of your philosophy. As I said earlier we need more efficient organisation and less bad government. We are not perfect, we are simply improving.
i still don't see anything wrong with the ideas i put forth in the opening post of this thread. the problem comes when i ask myself, "ok... so what? what does this mean? how do we do this? how do we minimize force in society"...
and i realize that it isn't so simple as just chartering a government based on those principles and from there you go. for governments, whether they are democratic or not, are run by humans, and if all humans respected non-initiation of coercion, we wouldn't have government in the first place. there are problems. i have an idea about how a government should ideally operate, but it's only an idea. from a practical standpoint, it's impossible.
i still believe that it is wrong to disrupt the peace. i still believe that force should be minimized.... but even a rightous government will initiate force. only a perfect one would not, and i've come to the realization that "perfect government" is a contradiction in terms. i still believe that the government must keep its activities to a minimum and must keep force to a minimum. it may tax... but only to provide for its essential functions. it should make use of democracy, without forgetting that democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself. there must be other checks and balances built into it... but a government will never be perfect or permanent. no matter how well crafted, no government can guarantree liberty to those who do not desire it. ideally there would be no government. short of that, there is no perfect situation.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: ]
#2223670 - 01/06/04 04:06 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I think our viewpoints arent all that different really, its just the terminology and the details that differ...well maybe!
An interesting aside, I was flicking channels tonight and saw a documentary about the Romans in England. Apparently they instituted the first fire service over here. They were called the Familia Publica, probabaly manned by slaves. They would put your fire out...but only if you could afford to pay them first!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: GazzBut]
#2224003 - 01/06/04 06:44 PM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
That sounds close to what im suggesting. How would you feel about
that?
Interesting idea. I still worry about having anything close to
direct democracy. I really do not hold out hope for the general
population to act in responsible ways at all times. I also think
that people would get sick of dealing with the legislative process
all of the time(voting on stuff would get tiresome for some people).
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
I really do not hold out hope for the general
population to act in responsible ways at all times.
And you think that the minority who run the system we have now can be trusted to act responsibly at all times?
I think if people were asked to vote on more issues you would see alot less corporate corruption for a start.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: for annapurna1 [Re: GazzBut]
#2225456 - 01/07/04 09:12 AM (20 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
pure democracy is a problem. if the majority wants the state to do something, the state will do it, and that isn't always a good thing.... so we place limits on majority rule in the form of a constitution. we establish a bill of rights that states which aspects of life are not subject to state control, so that even with the support of the majority, the government cannot create a state religion, disarm the populace, imprison people without trial, etc. the trouble is that this constitution is only as good as the people sworn to uphold it, and how are these people selected? the will of the majority. if they aren't up for the job, we've got the supreme court as a last linne of defense.... and who appoints them? a democratically elected official. a constitution is just words on paper if it's not in the hearts of the people. the power of democracy must have limits set upon it, but making sure that those limits are not too great or not too small, and making sure that they are effective at all, is quite a task.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Red Vein Kratom 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
ChromeCrow
BowlKiller
silversoul7
13eetleJuice
1 2 3 all )
Psilocybeingzz
Phluck