Government is Irrational.

[Koolay]

@ Koolay

I recommend you move to Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo or Sudan, where these don't have any real, effective government.

Those countries are not free from the initiation of violence. I made it very clear, the initiation of violence is wrong, the costume of your masters are irrelevant.

And if you like Government, I recommend you move to North Korea.

[little_monkey]

@ Koolay

I recommend you move to Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo or Sudan, where these don't have any real, effective government.

Those countries are not free from the initiation of violence. I made it very clear, the initiation of violence is wrong, the costume of your masters are irrelevant.

And if you like Government, I recommend you move to North Korea.

How do you propose that a country be free from the initiation of violence?

[Koolay]

Those countries are not free from the initiation of violence. I made it very clear, the initiation of violence is wrong, the costume of your masters are irrelevant.

And if you like Government, I recommend you move to North Korea.

How do you propose that a country be free from the initiation of violence?

You can have financial incentives by the free market, DRO, etc. But the best chance of a peaceful country developing is improving the treatment of children.

All evidence points to the child's relationship with parents as the biggest predictor of adult behaviour. There's countless studies showing adverse childhoods contribute to dysfunctional behaviour in adult life. I think in many ways, politics and religion merely reflect the childhood of society.

The parallels are undeniable. An abusive parent would say "It's not okay for you to hit other children as a 6 year old, but we can rightfully hit you as adults" come 20 years for that child and when the government says "You can't take peoples money or hit other citizens, but it's okay for us to bomb people and throw millions in cages" it makes sense.

[FlyingNarwhal]

Wow I left for a couple of days and this thread really took off.

You have mentioned that you believe that government should be severely restricted so how do we go about enforcing the proper treatment of children within their homes and keeping them safe from any abuses that may be inflicted upon by their parents. I would argue that in order to insure that kind of safety we would have to take measures that would become extremely intrusive, especially to parents and families that aren't doing anything wrong (which is a good portion of people). And that intrusion would be much greater than the ones we support with our current governments.

[bennyboy]

How do you know that? Do you have a galaxy spanning intellect were you can just predict the future and not provide any reason or evidence?

A few thousand years ago, it was the 'norm' to dash your child's head across the rock to appease the volcano god. Or to execute someone publicly for annoying a monarch. How do you know that democratic government is not just another violent phase in human development when we have become so progressively less violent as a species so far?

I know it, because I can experience anger, lust, jealousy, and other strong motivators on my own. I can see how normally peaceful people behave under stress, and I can see how stress is sometimes unavoidable.

Anyway, your thesis is not that government is sometimes violent-- a thing nobody would disagree with. Your thesis is that government is irrational. You are therefore implying that violence is irrational. There's nothing at all irrational about a king trying to lessen crime by making public displays of cruelty, specifically of those found to commit crime. It might work, and it might not, but it is not irrational.

You seem to be primarily concerned with the lessening of violence among humans. This is a great goal. However, the idea that removing government would cause a net reduction of violence seems highly unlikely to me. Not only that, the things you'd have to DO to be a victim of violence would be much more unpredictable in an anarchic "society." Now, for the government to do me real harm, I generally have to do something harmful myself. Under anarchy, I could have the shit beaten out of me because I looked at someone's wife, or his daughter, because they were physically attractive. I could be killed because I was picking berries in someone else's favorite berry-picking territory. I could be killed because I like the Beegees.

And most importantly, I would have no remedy for the fact that larger, stronger, younger men than I could seize my property, rape my children, or enslave me just because of their physical advantage.

You want anarchy? Go watch how gorillas live, and see if it's a step up.

---

You can't take peoples money or hit other citizens, but it's okay for us to bomb people and throw millions in cages" it makes sense.

I don't agree with throwing low-level pot-dealers in prison. And I see the American government is pretty selective in choosing minorities to jail, where a young white kid is more likely to be given a chance. There's certainly some irrationality there, until you look at the actual goals ( as opposed to the stated goals ) of the actual people in the government.

In the end, though, you are still confabulating evil,violence, and irrationality. None of these things are the same as the others.

[popeyespappy]

Those countries are not free from the initiation of violence. I made it very clear, the initiation of violence is wrong, the costume of your masters are irrelevant.

And if you like Government, I recommend you move to North Korea.

How do you propose that a country be free from the initiation of violence?

Haven't you heard, Joseph? Everybody is just going to start being nice to each other. Those that don't will be shunned. That'll teach em the error of their ways.

[bennyboy]

Haven't you heard, Joseph? Everybody is just going to start being nice to each other. Those that don't will be shunned. That'll teach em the error of their ways.

Yes, that punishment by the majority, who have agree to support certain behaviors and punish others, will really teach those guys. Sounds a lot like a little government, doesn't it?

[_xenu_]

@ Koolay

I recommend you move to Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo or Sudan, where these don't have any real, effective government.

Those countries are not free from the initiation of violence. I made it very clear, the initiation of violence is wrong, the costume of your masters are irrelevant.

And if you like Government, I recommend you move to North Korea.

As several people on this thread have pointed out, no society exists without the initiation of violence. Even your pretend Loonatarian utopia would have it.

---

You can have financial incentives by the free market, DRO, etc.

The free market never has and never will function the way you describe. When violence is profitable, it will be employed. When catering to the violent is profitable, it will be routine just like in any third world shithole.

[genkaus]

Those countries are not free from the initiation of violence. I made it very clear, the initiation of violence is wrong, the costume of your masters are irrelevant.

That is the plain and simple truth that you consistently fail to understand. Without a government in place, there would always be initiation of violence. It doesn't matter how much you go around telling everyone that "initiation of force is wrong" - unless there is an overwhelming power ready to retaliate, some people will always initiate it.

---

You can have financial incentives by the free market, DRO, etc.

You mean a protection racket.

But the best chance of a peaceful country developing is improving the treatment of children.

All evidence points to the child's relationship with parents as the biggest predictor of adult behaviour. There's countless studies showing adverse childhoods contribute to dysfunctional behaviour in adult life. I think in many ways, politics and religion merely reflect the childhood of society.

The parallels are undeniable. An abusive parent would say "It's not okay for you to hit other children as a 6 year old, but we can rightfully hit you as adults" come 20 years for that child and when the government says "You can't take peoples money or hit other citizens, but it's okay for us to bomb people and throw millions in cages" it makes sense.

What world are you living in? You think that every criminal in the world has had an unhappy and abusive childhood? That no one who has been "brought up correctly" would ever commit a crime? That's so wonderfully naive that it borders on a childlike outlook on life.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

And if you like Government, I recommend you move to North Korea.

Rediculous. Really, utterly rediculous.

You preclude any notion of rational and logical debate when you utter nonsense such as the above.