Special Rights

[Michael]

Michael

Looking at the governments that exist on Earth(rather than wasting time on how YOU think things should be or are)at this time we have no Anarchist systems other than where there is war, natural disaster or where government has failed completely. Anarchy is the natural condition of roving humans in the wild, but it does not even survive the meeting of ONE other human(unless you kill all of them on sight). Those who want Anarchist systems are the greedy rich, those that want Socialism are the very poor, somewhere in the middle is where all governments should be and the best government(measured by average income and "happiness" index)is about 50% Socialist and about 50% Capitalist. In fact the whole Scandinavian area is the best place on Earth as far as civilization goes. That's just the facts, Anarchy is lala land, Scandinavia is civilization. Deal with reality.

Grumpy

1,000 years of Irish Anarchy

It should be noted Scandinavian countries greatly reduced the size of public services over a decade ago (because they were strangling their economies) and are reaping the rewards now. AND as usual, right on time, the State is beginning to grow feeding off the productive class like the cancer it naturally is. It should also be noted that Scandinavian countries were traditionally monocultureal. But now some are mulitcultureal - and guess what, the 'socialist' paradise is seeing some cracks in the edifice.

 

[iceaura]

Nevertheless, and despite more than adequate reason, I did not assert impossibility. I simply asserted nonexistence at the moment.
See, that wasn't hard.

The only person having any trouble with it was you. What prevented you from reading it in the first place?

We simply can't know what might have happened had people not resorted to a State because people always have resorted to the State

We have means to gather evidence, estimate, reason, and come to sane assessments, however.

We have hundreds of examples of large cities founded without government provided sewer systems, which have all been examples of people not resorting to a State because they never had resorted to a State for such services - that's what you wanted, right? We know how that turned out, every single time without exception. We also have all the theoretical work modern and ancient that pertains, all - all - of which is in agreement with the results of the hundreds of actual examples. We not only know that cities without public, government-provided sewer systems don't have any at all, we have good theoretical explanations of why they don't. We have no counter theory, and no counterexamples.

1,000 years of Irish Anarchy

You do realize that those people institutionalized slavery, granted no rights of any kind to anyone who did not own land or attain formal professional status, had very complicated and coercion based governmental/legal methods for transferring land ownership ("capitalism" did not exist until the English government introduced it) and endowing professional status, and transferred a good deal of their cultures's "peculiar institutions" (as they came to be called) to the colonies of the Americas

where they founded a couple of the slave-based economies of the northern New World, as well as feeding the land hunger of the early NA pioneers (the only way to gain civil rights and political standing in those cultures, transplanted to a world in which land could be taken and occupied and "owned" by the force of arms available to an ordinary person),

right?

I speak as one who has long valued the heritage of the Celtic peoples of the British Isles, which is my own, and thought it underappreciated, but "anarcho-capitalist" ?! Please. That is fantasy.

And this is delusion:

At one time the car didn't exist. At one time electricity didn't exist. At one time a cure for bacterial infections didn't exist. At one time the radio didn't exist.

I'm sure to someone living 150 years ago the notion I could sit at my desk and at my leisure communicate to someone anywhere in the world, nearly for free, probably would have seemed fanciful - yet here we are. So, who knows iceaura

Incredibly enough, you listed those government provided and government backed and government developed services as evidence that in the future we won't need government provided sewer systems in our large cities. Are you actually reading what you type?

 

[Michael]

iceaura,

This is the Ethics sub-forum. I'm waiting for you to respond to the questions regarding *gasp* ethics.
I've neatly listed them - numbered them even.

Michael

 

[Michael]

We have means to gather evidence, estimate, reason, and come to sane assessments, however.

That's all well and good - and we both agreed that we can not know. It MAY be possible to provide sewer services to large cities without resorting to initiation of violence against innocent people (as I suggest) or it MAY NOT be physically possible to provide sewer services to large cities without resorting to initiation of violence against innocent people (as you suggest). In that case, as I suggested - if one were to live in a moral society, then we'd simply not HAVE large cities.

See? It's quite simple. If you truly believe that large cities are inherently immoral constructions - then you shouldn't be looking for ways to live with immoral institutions but for ways NOT to. If that means we can't live in mega-cities, then so be it.

Once, not that long ago, people thought you needed Slaves to run a 'modern' economy.
Once, not that long before that, people thought you needed an 'Aristocracy' to run a 'modern' economy.
Once, not that long before that, people thought you needed to build large arenas and force people to fight to the death in them, to run a 'modern' economy. And etc.... But here's the thing you will find common across time and place, free-trade creates wealth and with it, prosperity. So, I'm with going with this option - because I think living as a prosperous person in a free society is something we should aim for. Of course, I'm in the 0.0000000001% of the population that thinks like that, and so it's not something you need worry over. Thus, in reality, this all an academic lesson in reason.

So, whereas I'm sure we can voluntarily solve the Will-Free-People-Ever-Be-Able-To-Poop-In-A-Large-City-Without-A-Gun-In-The-Face Dilemma; we'll just never know unless (or until) someone solves that problem. SO, now that we agree on you not knowing if you will or will never take a dump as a free person in a large city - I'll await your answers vis-a-vie 'Special Rights' and the Coffee (1) drinker, (2) owner and (3) worker.

 

[Michael]

Administrative Order

Oh, looky there, POTUS Obama, just this morning, announced that he will be issuing an "Administrative Order" (which requires NO Congressional review) delaying the implementation of provisions of Obamacare that had led to the cancellation of a million or so insurance policies. AND look here's the toilet paper (Forbes) saying he's 'not going far enough'.

I bet there's millions of Americans (maybe even some of you) thinking - YES!!!
F*CK YEAH!!!
You Go Girl - you show them there C o n gressmen who's the B-O-S-S.

Millions of Americans wishing we could just do away with all this pesky 'voting' and 'Congress' and whatever the hell those other branches are about or do and w-h-a-t-e-v-e-r. Just get shit done man. Let the POTUS get in there and do what needs doing.

How much better things would be if we only had an Autocrat in office. Don't you think? It'd be all streamlined-like, and efficient, and stuff... and no one would have to worry about those fruit-loopy people on the other side messing up everything thing that's right-and-good in world. And maybe they're right. I imagine, as more 'Administrative Orders' are given, and found to work 'better' than Congress and Voting, people will come to like that.

Prefer that.


Republics transition to Barbarism and Dictatorships as easy as flipping on the light switch.
Done.

Everything is in place for the taking. And, right now, across American - "Citizens" are cheering Obama on for finally just getting the job done and skipping Congress altogether (they're a big waste of time anyway).

HA!!! LOL!!!


No longer than 25 years, hell, 2035 tops.

 

[Bells]

Jesus Christ since when did Glen Beck and Anne Coulter's bastard love child join the forum!?

 

[Michael]

Jesus Christ since when did Glen Beck and Anne Coulter's bastard love child join the forum!?

Actually Bell's there are 5 very simple questions listed, please feel free to answer them.

 

[Bells]

Civilization is built from free-trade/free-interaction. This is Anarchy.
The State is the obligation to enact force against innocent people (see: War on Drugs, War on Terror, War on Privacy). The State is ANTI-Civilization.

The fact is, you simply don't know WHAT government actually IS. Not surprising, years of public schooling does what is was designed to do - public propaganda.
I bet you raised your hand to Flag and said the pledge your whole childhood not realizing what you were doing.

Why here's some "good" American children being bred up into Tax-Cattle and Cannon-Fodder for the State, learning to obey their Political Masters and the Bankers who own them.
Take a real good LOOK at your State right here:

The description of your image is patently untrue.

The salute actually goes back to the Romans and is more commonly known as the Roman Salute and had been used for a long time before the US adopted it in the Bellamy Salute to the pledge of allegiance. If you look at the salute, it's the hand that matters. The Roman/Bellamy hand gesture has the hand tilted as though to shake someone's hand. That was changed to the hand over heart when the Nazi's adopted the Roman Salute and corrupted it. The Nazi's adopted it after the fascists in Italy, who also adopted it in the 20's as a salute and homage to their Roman ancestry - ie their pure blooded ancestry. And Hitler's obsession with all things Roman..

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

And Hitler's obsession with all things Roman.

His mistaken belief that the Romans were the true Aryans, rather than the Persians.

 

[Bells]

His mistaken belief that the Romans were the true Aryans, rather than the Persians.

Well he would hardly claim that the Persians were the real Aryans. They were not white. The Romans, on the other hand, where his fantasy superior race. They were white and regal.

 

[iceaura]

it MAY NOT be physically possible to provide sewer services to large cities without resorting to initiation of violence against innocent people (as you suggest). In that case, as I suggested - if one were to live in a moral society, then we'd simply not HAVE large cities.

See? It's quite simple.

Yes, it is: all the evidence and all the argument and all the theory indicates that only government can provide sewer services to a city. There is no evidence, argument, or theory indicating otherwise. None. So we have the self-styled "libertarian" here promoting the notion that if if government is necessary to provide sewer systems in cities (overwhelmingly likely) that cities are immoral and moral people will not allow them to exist.

And it never seems to cross this guy's mind that preventing people from living in cities is a poor match for libertarian ideals. When people set out to enforce their morals like that, libertarian ideals get left. There is no known way to do that except coercive force, the identifying trait of government according to this guy.

So what we have is a self-described libertarian setting up, as the real world expression of their moral principles, the worst slums of Calcutta.

Once, not that long ago, people thought you needed Slaves to run a 'modern' economy.
Once, not that long before that, people thought you needed an 'Aristocracy' to run a 'modern' economy.
Once, not that long before that, people thought you needed to build large arenas and force people to fight to the death in them, to run a 'modern' economy.

None of that is so. None of your other similar claims were accurate either. You seem incapable making accurate statements about physical or historical reality - any idea why?

 

[Michael]

Yes, it is: all the evidence and all the argument and all the theory indicates that only government can provide sewer services to a city. There is no evidence, argument, or theory indicating otherwise. None. So we have the self-styled "libertarian" here promoting the notion that if if government is necessary to provide sewer systems in cities (overwhelmingly likely) that cities are immoral and moral people will not allow them to exist.

One more time, because you seem to be digressing.

1) iceaura can not envision a world where large cities can exist and sewage service is provided without resorting to the initiation of force against innocent people and so iceaura therefore thinks it's impossible.
2) Michael thinks given enough incentive and technology it would be possible to provide large cities with sewage service and not have to resort to initiating force against innocent people; and if not - then the answer is simple: don't build large cities.
3) We agreed that no one CAN know if it's possible or impossible to provide sewage service to large cities without initiation of force against innocent people unless it were provided.

It really IS THAT simple. Appealing to historical precedent does not change this fact. I notice you haven't responded to my 5 questions. Given this is about special rights, speaks volumes.

 

[Michael]

The description of your image is patently untrue.

The salute actually goes back to the Romans and is more commonly known as the Roman Salute and had been used for a long time before the US adopted it in the Bellamy Salute to the pledge of allegiance.

There's no historical evidence that Roman's ever used that salute - and the USA's use pre-dates Germany's use. There's good evidence the German's borrowed it from the USA as a method of children indoctrination. (not to mention the USA's government borrows heavily from Rome, example: the Senate, the architecture, republicanism, etc...).

Most of the people alive in early 1900s would have lived their entire lives without ever having had any contact (at all) with the Federal Government. None. At most, maybe the occasional visit to the post office - if that. There was no income tax, no welfare, nothing.

Yet, not even a generation later and they allowed their children to be indoctrinated by pledging themselves to the State - I find this perverse. It's no different than forcing children to say a pledge to defend Christendom or children forced to recite the Qur'an (even when they don't know what the words mean) in Islam or any other pledge to an abstract concept. There's a reason why it's children being forced to do this - they're the easiest to brainwash. Nation States hadn't even existed for that long, yet here we have children already being propagandised to pledge themselves to these newly formed States.

It's a perversion of human nature, and that was my only point. Religion and State, two sides of the same coin.

 

[iceaura]

1) iceaura can not envision a world where large cities can exist and sewage service is provided without resorting to the initiation of force against innocent people and so iceaura therefore thinks it's impossible.

Why do you suppose you cannot paraphrase accurately, or make factual claims that are correct?

I didn't say I couldn't envision it, I said nobody could, including you.

My claim was that nobody has ever installed a city sewer system without having a government do it, that contrary to your claims hundreds of examples exist of cities that did not have governments do it and none of them did it, that you have no idea how to do it, that nobody else does either, that a large body of theory exists in several disciplines explaining why it has never been done and nobody knows how to do it, that no theory or examples or visions exist that provide us with any way to do it, and so forth.

2) Michael thinks given enough incentive and technology it would be possible to provide large cities with sewage service

but has no idea how, and no arguments against the large body of theoretical discouragement and real life examples

and if not - then the answer is simple: don't build large cities.

and continues to live in that peculiar fairyland in which people can be prevented from gathering into cities, needing to defecate, etc, by philosophical arguments.

Pol Pot found the only way anyone has ever found to remove people from cities on moral or ethical grounds. And clearly it passes muster with Michael, because immoral and unethical people - the kinds of evildoers who get together and levy taxes to install city sewage systems - are clearly not "innocent", so force can be used against them.

As long as Pol Pot and his buddies freely associate, refrain from establishing a government, and only use force against the guilty, they're OK - right?

Because that's where your juvenile daydreams are headed.

Most of the people alive in early 1900s would have lived their entire lives without ever having had any contact (at all) with the Federal Government

What kind of mental glitches one needs to maintain a level of oblivious ignorance capable of producing these assertions of yours, I cannot even speculate. What a bizarre, careless, flamboyantly deluded, profoundly ignorant claim.

 

[Michael]

I didn't say I couldn't envision it, I said nobody could, including you.

Ha!

Let me make sure I have you correctly, I don't want to misconstrue your statement. It's impossible to imagine a theoretical sewage system in a large city and therefor we must resort to the initiation of force against innocent people in order to remove sewage in densely populated cities.

Is this correct? If this is not correct, please correct the statement. I've literally spent 5 seconds and thought of two possible scenarios WHILE typing - it's really not that difficult.

 

[Michael]

but has no idea how, and no arguments against the large body of theoretical discouragement and real life examples and continues to live in that peculiar fairyland in which people can be prevented from gathering into cities, needing to defecate, etc, by philosophical arguments.

I never said people should be prevented from moving to large cities. I said IF it's not possible to create a large city without resorting to a Government then such cities are immoral and should not be built. IOWs, if one were to live in a moral city (anarchy) it would have an upper population density limit.

How's this:
Major Premise: Government (the obligated initiation of force against innocent people) is inherently immoral.
Minor Premise: Government is required to form functional large cities (removal of sewage).
Conclusion: Large cities are inherently immoral.

Of course, I don't believe the minor premise is true.

 

[Grumpy]

Michael

Let me make sure I have you correctly, I don't want to misconstrue your statement. It's impossible to imagine a theoretical sewage system in a large city and therefor we must resort to the initiation of force against innocent people in order to remove sewage in densely populated cities.

You have serious cognitive difficulties, it's common in thoughtless ideologues. It isn't force when ALL the people are ankle deep in poo and dysentery. Mutual cooperation is not forcing innocents to do something against their will, it is acquiescing to the common will(NOT to be ankle deep in poo). If everyone is hungry it is not force to collect money from all to purchase food for all, the Anarchists will starve, however(if they succeed in digging out of the mountain of poo they generate by refusing to pay for a sewer when everyone else voluntarily does so).

How's this:
Major Premise: Government (the obligated initiation of force against innocent people) is inherently immoral.
Minor Premise: Government is required to form functional large cities (removal of sewage).
Conclusion: Large cities are inherently immoral.

Your first premise is flawed, governments(the outcome of politics)form naturally when two people meet(assuming one doesn't kill the other, therefore maintaining the anarchy), there is no innocence, we're all people(citizens of the city). It is not inherently moral or immoral.
Your second premise also shows a complete ignorance of how large cities form. They grow from the bottom, from people voluntarily moving there, they are not dictated by the government, the functioning of cities actually creates the need for government(by mutual consent), not the other way round.
So your conclusion is crappy and inherently immoral(it shows thoughtlessness and irresponsibility to your fellow man), cities have sewer systems and sewer systems are inherently moral(they are essential to the common good). It is thoughtless Anarchy that is inherently immoral, being selfishness twisted into a philosophy. Freedom is the ability to do what you like within the rules of civilization, freedom should be maximized to the extent possible within those rules. Anarchy is doing whatever you like without thought for anyone else(often at the expense of everyone else), that's just wrong by civilization's measure. But civilization has outlets for the more Anarchist among us, we send them to the frontiers where a good bit of self sufficiency is a good thing, thus Alaska, or a fishing boat(actually, they are monarchies, but the Captain can be an Anarchist/king, going back to my earlier point about Anarchy leading to kings)or a remote mountain cabin(Ruby Ridge, maybe). Anarchy is incompatible with civilization of any kind, and Anarchists find themselves living under the biggest A_hole who is best at killing those who disagree with his opinion, or living alone on the outskirts of civilization.

Grumpy

 

[Michael]

It isn't force when ALL the people are ankle deep in poo and dysentery.

Look, I'm sorry to say this but the squiggles are beating you. You're talking in nonsensical oxymoron.

It isn't force when ALL the people are ankle deep in poo and dysentery.
Is like saying:
It isn't rape when ALL the people need to procreate.

Ever read about the little school girls in KSA who were prevented from existing a burning building by the law enforcement officers of the State? These psychopaths pushed small innocent children back into the burning building, locked the door, and let them roast in the fires that consumed them alive. State Officers were doing their job, they were doing what was legal, and some probably thought they were even helping' these girls (you know, because the magic sky daddy doesn't like to see little girls without their head coverings in public). Want to know how we know the State Officers were NOT helping the girls - because the girls wanted OUT of the building. Force had to be initiated against these innocent girls to keep them leaving the building.


So, I don't need to know why there's ankle deep poo flowing around in your highly unlikely hypothetical, all I need to know if that for some reason these people do not want your help because you're resorting to the initiation of force against innocent people. Thus, what you are doing is immoral.

Is this making any sense to you yet?



Summery: If you should find yourself in charge of large groups of people who would rather stand ankle-deep in their own shit then accept your offer of 'help' - while you may think you're helping them, more than likely you're a psychopath.

 

[Michael]

Your first premise is flawed, governments(the outcome of politics)

LOL

Politicking is the practice of influencing other people. While politics are a part of government, it doesn't define government. All social organizations have some level of politics. If you're not even going to be bothered enough to look up what the squiggles mean - then why bother?

 

[iceaura]

Let me make sure I have you correctly, I don't want to misconstrue your statement.

As repeatedly noted, you live in a fantasy world and are incapable of accurate factual assertion in general - including presentation of accurate paraphrases. If you want to avoid misconstruing what I post, the easy way is to quote it. If you want to try paraphrasing again, as a mental exercise or whatever, note that the word "impossible" is not mine - begin by crossing it out.

I never said people should be prevented from moving to large cities. I said IF it's not possible to create a large city without resorting to a Government then such cities are immoral and should not be built. IOWs, if one were to live in a moral city (anarchy) it would have an upper population density limit.

And since as far as you know that condition holds, you have declared that as far as you can determine all existing cities (and until someone has come up with at least a theoretically moral sewer system all future cities) are essentially and intrinsically immoral.

That means the people living in them are not innocent (except possibly those who do not defecate where they live and work). So anyone, including any government, is justified in using force against them, according to you.

Meanwhile, you seem uncomfortable with the fact that the connection between "should not be built" and "actually are not built" (never mind the reality of "already are built") is a gun pointing at someone's face, preventing them from joining their fellow human beings and living where they want to live. And that is the means adopted by every other political thinker who has joined you in declaring large cities - the real ones we actually have - immoral, and set out to create a moral world. Pol Pot is the most famous of them, I think, but those psychopaths you mentioned - the ones who agree with you that Western sanitation and public education and the like is immoral - are rising in the charts.