Lets play a game...

[steveh_131]

I think that there's no doubt that if there were no government, courts, etc., it's pretty clear that everyone would live together in peace and harmony and that no one would try to victimize the weak for their own personal gain.

It's a good thing that we have a gigantic, bloated government that keeps these things from ever happening.

This thread is like a straw-man contest! lol

 

[HoughMade]

It's a good thing that we have a gigantic, bloated government that keeps these things from ever happening.

This thread is like a straw-man contest! lol

It sure is..."ever"? Puhlease.

The elimination of all societal ills must be accomplished by government or we would be better off with no government?

My friend, the role of government is not a toggle switch, it's a dimmer switch. It's not all or nothing (as Zen seems to be advocating), but a matter of what the least amount of government is necessary to accomplish the things government is uniquely suited to do.

 

[2A_Tom]

I'm a Christian, but unlike you I do not need Christian beliefs to know right from wrong and act accordingly. This isn't an attack on you or on Christianity, merely a statement based on the information you have provided. Not everyone needs threat of real or imagined punishment to be a good human being.

That is an amazing statement. Judges 17:6, 21:25, Isaiah 53:6 & 64:6

Romans 2:14-15


For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;

 

[steveh_131]

It sure is..."ever"? Puhlease.

Peace and harmony? Puhlease. Strawman for a strawman.

The elimination of all societal ills must be accomplished by government or we would be better off with no government?

My friend, the role of government is not a toggle switch, it's a dimmer switch. It's not all or nothing (as Zen seems to be advocating), but a matter of what the least amount of government is necessary to accomplish the things government is uniquely suited to do.

I don't think that Zen, or anybody else here, was advocating anarchy. I think you're missing his point.

 

[2A_Tom]

His premise WAS total anarchy.

I believe his Point was the present burdensome gubmint.

Most would agree with his point, but his premise is faulty.

I would say that most on this board are minarchists at heart. Although you would probably never vote for the republican because he is not pure enough.

 

[HoughMade]

His premise WAS total anarchy...

As made clear in this thread and another.

I still think he's trolling.

 

[steveh_131]

His premise WAS total anarchy.

Did you know that engaging in a discussion of hypothetical extremes can sometimes lead to a greater understanding, even if you don't advocate those hypothetical extremes?

I would say that most on this board are minarchists at heart.

Either we are reading a different board or you have an entirely mistaken definition of 'minarchist'.

 

[traderdan]

If all governments ended tomorrow, by day after tomorrow, governments would begin springing back up again.

Yes...We are more than highly evolved animals, and the knowledge of our Creator is in our DNA. The weak must be protected and nurtured. It is in our nature to plan and to build. Unfortunately, the lust for dominance and our indwelling greed, poison our good intentions.

 

[BugI02]

Or put another way; all human interaction is pack dynamics, and someone always wants to be the big dog.

 

[ZenMaster]

As made clear in this thread and another.

You are incorrect, sir. The title makes it clearer than clear. The other thread lacks such an up-front title, but its no less clearly stated.

But here you go, anyway: The presence of government is irrelevant.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But, yet, I've never been able to find a single person who said they'd start killing people...

Wait, so in a real world where threats can have real consequences, no one has stated they'd start committing crimes against specific people if they were allowed to? I find that shocking. See, if I say I'd kill Rhino because he's made of lots of meat and he's going to bleed to death from self inflicted cuts anyway so there's no reason to let that go to waste, then the real Rhino in a world of real consequences may take offense. Then I've got this big too-doo with Rhino and he's asking me to stand still and let me test his new ear wax removal system.

Do you really think anyone is going to admit to being a rapist, even a rapist? Why not just walk into a room, say "any child molesters in here, raise your hand" and when no one does, ever, conclude that child molesters do not exist.

This whole self-reporting as a criminal thing may have some issues...

 

[HoughMade]

We all know that the incarceration of criminals has absolutely no special or general deterrent effect, so why do it?

 

[jamil]

But, yet, I've never been able to find a single person who said they'd start killing people...

...

If he were really serious about finding people who would say they'd start killing people, I think he'd have asked the question of a group more likely to say they would. Fallacious questions are entertaining but they're still fallacious.

I imagine in your line of work you could probably name some neighborhoods where some residents might just demonstrate their answer.

 

[jamil]

If he were really serious about finding people who would say they'd start killing people, I think he'd have asked the question of a group more likely to say they would. Fallacious questions are entertaining but they're still fallacious.

I imagine in your line of work you could probably name some neighborhoods where some residents might just demonstrate their answer.

Oh crap. Did I just Denny this thread?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Oh crap. Did I just Denny this thread?

Self reporting as a Denny noted.

 

[2A_Tom]

The supreme court has ruled that those with intentions of doing harm to others need not self incriminate under the Fifth Amendment.

Marchetti v. United States

Haynes v. United States

 

[jamil]

Self reporting as a Denny noted.

I sense that this makes it even worse.

 

[ZenMaster]

Wait, so in a real world where threats can have real consequences, no one has stated they'd start committing crimes against specific people if they were allowed to? I find that shocking. See, if I say I'd kill Rhino because he's made of lots of meat and he's going to bleed to death from self inflicted cuts anyway so there's no reason to let that go to waste, then the real Rhino in a world of real consequences may take offense. Then I've got this big too-doo with Rhino and he's asking me to stand still and let me test his new ear wax removal system.

Do you really think anyone is going to admit to being a rapist, even a rapist? Why not just walk into a room, say "any child molesters in here, raise your hand" and when no one does, ever, conclude that child molesters do not exist.

This whole self-reporting as a criminal thing may have some issues...

Clearly, you are the winner of this thread, sir.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Clearly, you are the winner of this thread, sir.

Is the prize a hat? I sorta like hats.

 

[ZenMaster]

Is the prize a hat? I sorta like hats.

The prize is a free drink.



From a fire hose.