Ville et anarki ha fungert i Norge?

[Weyoun]

Marine animals are driven by survival and are constantly under threat from predators, compassion will get you killed in their world. Laissez faire economic policies oppress the poor and create monopolies. Government regulation and income redistribution reduces those tendencies.

 

Do you not see the glaring inconsistency between the first and the second sentence you wrote?

 

 

But well, since you AGAIN pretend you can't see my hard questions, I guess we can't really talk.

I called your earlier viewpoint INSANE. You don't seem to feel a need to adress this. - Should I assume your silent agreement here as well?

Endret 18. mars 2013 av Weyoun

[jjkoggan]

You don't know what you're talking about. Yes, it's all biology, but your contrieved attempt at constructing a "boom/bust" cycle at the great barrier reef is utterly laughable.

 

Yes, changes do occur, but the system is STABLE. EQUILIBRIA forms, across the different species. - The key factor for growth, is stability in external influences. For thousands and thousands of years, these species have evolved, adapted, and grown increasingly specialized so that the availible resources may be employed to maximum efficiency.

 

Oh, and since it appearantly wasn't clear. I was not saying "the animals all got along. - I was ridiculing the stupid statist view, which you apparently hold, that ascribes human success to our dedication to "social responsibility", and our "social policies." Free money handouts serve one function, as an economic pacifier. Politicians are far too ignorant to avoid causing massive harm with their "wealth redistributions". (Aka punishing productivity.)

 

Real growth comes from real competition. The fact that an environment of "kill or be killed", between animals without the ability to higher reasoning, might challenge your conceptions.

 

And I dunno, I was hoping you might peak outside the propaganda-curtain for a second or two.

 

Nope, your Darwinist survival of the fittest world may be stable but I much prefer not to live in that world in which my sweet old grandmother or my innocent child has no protection from predators where my wealthy neighbor with his small army of well armed comrades can rape and pillage at will. I prefer the view of our founding father John Adams who understood that limited checks and balances must be in place for the animalistic tendencies of our species, who, left to our base instincts will be greedy and predatory.

[Weyoun]

Double post.

Endret 18. mars 2013 av Weyoun

[Weyoun]

Nope, your Darwinist survival of the fittest world may be stable but I much prefer not to live in that world in which my sweet old grandmother or my innocent child has no protection from predators where my wealthy neighbor with his small army of well armed comrades can rape and pillage at will. I prefer the view of our founding father John Adams who understood that limited checks and balances must be in place for the animalistic tendencies of our species, who, left to our base instincts will be greedy and predatory.

 

Yeah, and what you fail to realize my friend, is that even the most staunch supporters of govermental control back in John Adams' day, were practically anarchist compared to the "Conservatives" today.

 

The social theories of the Democrats hadn't even been invented at that time, and had someone traveled back in time, and given them a full briefing on the Keynesian economics that our so-called "welfare states" are built on, they would have been utterly shocked and dismayed.

 

 

 

 

Isn't it a peculiar assumption you need to assert for yourself? That I genuinely want people to suffer, just so you'll be able to make sense of my views?

 

 

Isn't it possible, that the reason goverment protects the weak, is precicely because both you and me and the rest of us, care about each other?

 

Say I had told you 15 years ago, that, in the course of a few years, millions of people from every walk of life, would get together, and volunteer their time and effort, to create the most amazing and fantastic and complete collection of information that has ever existed on the planet, demanding no money, obeying no order, and answering to noone, except their own desires to do good. And that everyone, in the entire would, would be allowed to help out, and we could all enjoy this collective work at no cost....

 

Would you have belived me? And if so; Wouldn't you have taken for granted, that we'd need some sort of oversight for a project like that?

Yet there it is.

 

 

And isn't it awefully convenient, that despite our best efforts, for virtually every problem we encounter, our government will avoid responsibility, or blame it on us? Everything bad that ever happens, is apparently because we the people, just kinda... suck.

 

 

But fortunately for us, we have the government. They're always willing to flash us an understanding smile! They only occationally make fun of us for having permanent butterfingers.

 

They think we're a bit annoying, but they'll help us out!

But as nice as they are, they don't want to work for free. What they require from us, is a bit more money, and for us to put up with a few more harmless limitations to our liberty.

 

So if things don't work out? Well clearly, we didn't listen! We just kept on messing with the control panel, and now the whole machine is broke. Of course, they COULD have prevented the situation, but their belief in our good heart, made them careless. But if we pay a bit more, they'll hire a guy to watch the control panel full time....

 

 

If the goverment served us so well, why would they need to threaten with jail, unless we give them our money?

 

 

And isn't it strange, that although the US goverment today, is ten times the size of John Adams government, people back then flourished, yet here in the present, everything seems to be getting worse.

 

Does this story seem believable to you?

 

 

I genuinely hope you'll wake up to reality.

Endret 18. mars 2013 av Weyoun

[Politrikks]

And the protection of human rights will fall by the wayside as the vulnerable will not have a mechanism to protect them from a life with dignity. The "market" will exclude them with lno safety net

 

Why? Will you not help people if you are not forced to do so?

[Politrikks]

Explain your utopian plan where there is no state but there are prisons and military

 

Have you heard of blackwater?

 

You might also have heard that many state-side prisons are runned by private enterprises?

 

By the way it is not my plan. I as a single person can not control the market.

[Politrikks]

Laissez faire economic policies oppress the poor and create monopolies. Government regulation and income redistribution reduces those tendencies.

 

Great statement, but do you have any support for that claim?

[Politrikks]

Nope, your Darwinist survival of the fittest world may be stable but I much prefer not to live in that world in which my sweet old grandmother or my innocent child has no protection from predators where my wealthy neighbor with his small army of well armed comrades can rape and pillage at will.

 

You live next to the White house?

[Politrikks]

Isn't it possible, that the reason goverment protects the weak,

 

I am not quite sure it does. Enlighten me.

[jjkoggan]

 

 

Have you heard of blackwater?

 

You might also have heard that many state-side prisons are runned by private enterprises?

 

By the way it is not my plan. I as a single person can not control the market.

 

I see so if my neighbor owns a prison, I can pay him to imprison people I don't like and I can pay another contractor to capture those that I think deserve to be there

 

Might be pretty hard to capture the top people in one of the private militias since theyhavetheir own army

[Skatteflyktning]

I see so if my neighbor owns a prison, I can pay him to imprison people I don't like and I can pay another contractor to capture those that I think deserve to be there

Do you believe that they would like to participate in such a venture (kidnapping) just on your say so?

[jjkoggan]

 

 

Why? Will you not help people if you are not forced to do so?

 

Where I grew up, African Americans could not live, grow up or goto school, so generous was the white society. I played in former slave quarters where torture and murder was commonplace, so helpful was society. Even today many white southerners yearn for the good old days before the government stepped in to end the killing, torture and slavery of millions of Americans with dark skin

 

Yea, there is no dark side to human nature and if only government would not have ended it

[Skatteflyktning]

Even today many white southerners yearn for the good old days before the government stepped in to end the killing, torture and slavery of millions of Americans with dark skin.

Yup, the good old days when the Government was perpetrating, aiding and abetting in the killing, torture and slavery of millions of Americans with dark skin.

Endret 19. mars 2013 av Skatteflyktning

[jjkoggan]

 

Yup, the good old days when the Government was perpetrating, aiding and abetting in the killing, torture and slavery of millions of Americans with dark skin.

 

Yea, it's awful when public opinion shifts and citizens are coerced into giving up their property and can't torture, maim or kill their property. If only we had an anarchy those good ole boys could avoid government oppression and treat their property just as they pleased! Women and the poor would still know their place and uppity niggers would be afraid to cross their path! If only big bad government left them alone !

[Skatteflyktning]

Yea, it's awful when public opinion shifts and citizens are coerced into giving up their property and can't torture, maim or kill their property.

Well, luckily the State still retains the right to do exactly that whenever it feels like it

[jjkoggan]

 

Well, luckily the State still retains the right to do exactly that whenever it feels like it

 

Yea, goddamn state enforcing human rights, everyone knows slave owners were ready to respect the rights of the black man and set them free without state intervention. An anarchy would have eliminated slavery

[Bruker-104685]

Ingenting fungerer her

[Skatteflyktning]

Yea, goddamn state enforcing human rights, everyone knows slave owners were ready to respect the rights of the black man and set them free without state intervention.  An anarchy would have eliminated slavery

It would have been illegal, as opposed to the States slavery which is illegal to resist. On with the yoke.

[jjkoggan]

 

It would have been illegal, as opposed to the States slavery which is illegal to resist. On with the yoke.

 

Yes, the word illegal is irrelevant when compliance is voluntary. Southern slave owners required much bloodshed before they complied

[Weyoun]

I am not quite sure it does. Enlighten me.

Well, on the whole, I agree with you. The net effect of "social programs" is negative.

 

Nonetheless, for a statist looking to reaffirm his propaganda, isolated exceptions are easy to find. So in this case, rigorous truth will at first serve only to confuse.

The key is understanding the underlying principle: Virtues of human action, are NOT contingent upon the benevolence of some arbitrary system of rule.

 

 

Yup, the good old days when the Government was perpetrating, aiding and abetting in the killing, torture and slavery of millions of Americans with dark skin.

Indeed. - At least we can be thankful, that in the modern era, globalization has permitted us to outsource such unsightly practices.

 

Yea, it's awful when public opinion shifts and citizens are coerced into giving up their property and can't torture, maim or kill their property. If only we had an anarchy those good ole boys could avoid government oppression and treat their property just as they pleased! Women and the poor would still know their place and uppity niggers would be afraid to cross their path! If only big bad government left them alone !

 

Yea, goddamn state enforcing human rights, everyone knows slave owners were ready to respect the rights of the black man and set them free without state intervention. An anarchy would have eliminated slavery

 

So let just forget that:

 

Slavery became an industry under.... the state.

Slavery was upheld by, and provided funding for.... the state.

 

Slavery was so useful to the state, than it's obvious moral evil was disregarded, and it took a civil war to bring about change.

 

But you're totally right. When President Lincon freed the slaves in in 1863, this was an entirely novel idea.

It's not like free people, had thoughts of their own. If so, we should trust the government would have shared the credit, and told us about fine organizations such as "The society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully held in Bondage".

They beat Lincon by about... 88 years.

 

 

Where I grew up, African Americans could not live, grow up or goto school, so generous was the white society. I played in former slave quarters where torture and murder was commonplace, so helpful was society. Even today many white southerners yearn for the good old days before the government stepped in to end the killing, torture and slavery of millions of Americans with dark skin

 

Yea, there is no dark side to human nature and if only government would not have ended it

 

Yet somehow, you seem totally fine knowing, that while slavery was abolished a hundred years before you started school, the black people in your community STILL didn't have the same basic rights as you did.

All good things to those who wait, eh?

 

It is absolute folly, to judge the morality of a proposed system, by the immoral acts commited in another.