Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 6, 2004, 07:08 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)

so we will just have any ignoramus walking around with a gun?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Y'all be careful, now -- y'hear?

--Jackney Sneeb

lostkiwi · Mar 7, 2004, 03:26 am

So Mr. sneeb, is it one or the other? You either want government as your lord and master or no government at all?

I think before you post another "test" you ought to remove your own bias from it. No?

As it turns out a civilized people can use a government. That's right People using Government, using it for the few things it is good for. The problem with government as you might know is that it is inherently wasteful and has a tendency to do nothing well but grow beyond what ever boundaries you give it. The burden for this tragedy must be born by people like gecko who believe that government actually has their best interests in mind. Never mind that it is imposable to keep the best interests of 280 million people (with conflicting interests, mind you) in mind when making a law.

The only type of government that is moral then is a severely limited government. One that has only a few very specific issues to deal with.

I say that a government should exist to protect my liberty from foreign powers, to protect me from violence and to protect me from fraud. Would you feel safe in a world where anyone can do anything to avenge some wrong wrought against them? Even some perceived wrong? Do you want to live in a world where only might makes right?

I, for one, would rather have a third party dispensing this justice. I feel the same if someone tries to rob me either at gunpoint of through and act of fraud, a third party should be the one deciding an equitable outcome in these situations, the law of the gun should not prevail.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if somebody came up with a framework for a nation where all the rights of individuals were protected by that very document? Where government is limited by law? Wouldn’t something like that be great? And wouldn’t it be nice if the very people that benefited from this idea didn’t proceed to shit all over it for generations to come?

Just a thought. So Mr. sneeb, is it one or the other? You either want government as your lord and master or no government at all?

I think before you post another "test" you ought to remove your own bias from it. No?

As it turns out a civilized people can use a government. That's right People using Government, using it for the few things it is good for. The problem with government as you might know is that it is inherently wasteful and has a tendency to do nothing well but grow beyond what ever boundaries you give it. The burden for this tragedy must be born by people like gecko who believe that government actually has their best interests in mind. Never mind that it is imposable to keep the best interests of 280 million people (with conflicting interests, mind you) in mind when making a law.

The only type of government that is moral then is a severely limited government. One that has only a few very specific issues to deal with.

I say that a government should exist to protect my liberty from foreign powers, to protect me from violence and to protect me from fraud. Would you feel safe in a world where anyone can do anything to avenge some wrong wrought against them? Even some perceived wrong? Do you want to live in a world where only might makes right?

I, for one, would rather have a third party dispensing this justice. I feel the same if someone tries to rob me either at gunpoint of through and act of fraud, a third party should be the one deciding an equitable outcome in these situations, the law of the gun should not prevail.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if somebody came up with a framework for a nation where all the rights of individuals were protected by that very document? Where government is limited by law? Wouldn’t something like that be great? And wouldn’t it be nice if the very people that benefited from this idea didn’t proceed to shit all over it for generations to come?

Just a thought.

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 7, 2004, 05:46 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lostkiwi,)
So Mr. sneeb, is it one or the other? You either want government as your lord and master or no government at all?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I prefer self government, the only legitimate kind.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lostkiwi,)
I think before you post another "test" you ought to remove your own bias from it. No?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No. I'm openly biased against the belief in "government." I admit it, and embrace it. The belief in some people having the right to rule others is a self-contradictory delusion, and it won't go away by my pretending it is a legitimate contender in the marketplace of ideas.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
As it turns out a civilized people can use a government.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Civilization needs mass extortion?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
That's right People using Government, using it for the few things it is good for. The problem with government as you might know is that it is inherently wasteful and has a tendency to do nothing well but grow beyond what ever boundaries you give it. The burden for this tragedy must be born by people like gecko who believe that government actually has their best interests in mind. Never mind that it is imposable to keep the best interests of 280 million people (with conflicting interests, mind you) in mind when making a law.

The only type of government that is moral then is a severely limited government. One that has only a few very specific issues to deal with.

I say that a government should exist to protect my liberty from foreign powers, to protect me from violence and to protect me from fraud. Would you feel safe in a world where anyone can do anything to avenge some wrong wrought against them? Even some perceived wrong? Do you want to live in a world where only might makes right?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
And in order for it to have revenue, it must take what others have earned, by force. Swell. I feel safer already. To whom do we owe this "price" for freedom and civilization? Politicians? They are why society can be civilized? Is not the definition of civilization mutual cooperation, without violence and fraud? How on earth can the initiation of violence (under the euphemism of "taxation") be the price for the lack of violence? "I have to rob you, so I can make sure no one robs you." There has never been a robber more effective than those who claim to be "government." There has NEVER been a murderer more effective than those who claim to be "government." There has NEVER been an individual or organization more destructive to every decent aspect of human society than those whom everyone insists we neeeed to preserve civilization. If world wars, holocausts, and massive extortion rackets are the "civilization" that we have paid this high price for, then fuck civilization. Give me anarchy, where if someone wants to rob me, he will do it openly, without preaching about how some scrap of parchment and magical political rituals gave him the right. The one and only serious threat to my freedom comes from those Grand High Exalted Mystic Rulers that the masses insist are our saviors from all the nastiness of humanity.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I, for one, would rather have a third party dispensing this justice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Why?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I feel the same if someone tries to rob me either at gunpoint of through and act of fraud, a third party should be the one deciding an equitable outcome in these situations, the law of the gun should not prevail.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What do you suggest the police should use to enforce justice -- beanshooters?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if somebody came up with a framework for a nation where all the rights of individuals were protected by that very document?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
[Why? Before you dismiss communism, consider the kind of nation we would have if reality did not exist, and the happy utopia of communism could work.

It can't. Neither can "limited government." By its very nature, the essence of "government" is this: every individual is morally obligated to dismiss his/her own judgment, and instead obey the commands of a select few. That isn't just a bad idea. It's insane, and impossible. "Government" is an impossibility, not just a bad idea. Simple logic dictates that I cannot be obligated to follow someone else's judgment above my own. (It's not even possible, even if I wanted to try such a bad idea.)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Where government is limited by law? Wouldn’t something like that be great? [No.] And wouldn’t it be nice if the very people that benefited from this idea didn’t proceed to shit all over it for generations to come?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Here is the Grand Delusion in all its sparkling appeal: "I need a government strong enough to protect me from all enemies, yet too weak and limited to kick my ass."

Why doesn't that work? If the founders proved anything, it is that no matter how strictly you limit the myth of "government," it will break out, and become totalitarian. Logic dictates only two possibilities:

1) I am morally obligated to obey politician commands (a.k.a. "laws").
2) I am NOT morally obligated to obey them.

Pick one. #2 makes you an anarchist. #1 makes you insane.

"Oppressive government" is redundant, not just in practice, but in actual meaning. "Government," by definition, is those who use force that the rest of us do not have the right to use. Should we be shocked that it leads to oppression? We have a society, consisting of mere mortals, with the rights of mere mortals. Acknowledging "government" in any form is to accept that some select group of mere mortals has the right to use violence in situations where the rest of us don't have that right. By definition, "government" is the addition of immoral violence to society. That's why the results always suck. All "law" is a threat of force. Every individual already has the right to make all the just threats (against thieves, murderers, etc.). The distinguishing characteristic of this "government" myth is that it is okay for it to use violence in situations where it would be immoral for mere mortals to use violence (e.g. "taxation," "regulation," etc.).

Why is anyone shocked that "governments" always end up being oppressive? Why would anyone expect anything else? If you give your permission for a select group of people to use immoral violence, what the bloody hell good will come from it?? Unjust violence (a.k.a. "government") does not create peaceful society.

--Jackney Sneeb

Write Winger · Mar 7, 2004, 02:27 pm

Once there are people who contribute less than others to the upkeep of the left wing's pet parasite class then there is no equality or fairness...there us just a plurality who pay little or no taxes being net consumers of a system being paid for by a minority who work harder, smarter and take responsibility for themselves.

I sincerely believe that we need to split the country into a free one and a socialistic one and start over. Right now, we have a system where those who sponge off the rest is quickly becoming a majority. Roughly half the people think this is a wonderful idea and vote that way consistantly. When the majority is complete due to the opening of borders and the votes in congress raising the income thresholds where income taxes are paid, we will have a situation that mo matter who those of us who want to keep our earnings vote for, we will be overruled by those who think we somehow owe them a living. I believe in freedom....so set me free. Let those who think like I do have our own country...I will be happy to move to that place.

My guess is that the political left would oppose such an idea because their idea of freedom is milking the productive to buy the votes of their constiuencies. Well screw their constiuencies...I am not interested in "feeding my neighbor" if he can feed himself. If he wants me to feed him, I require he provide something of value in trade be it labor or goods and services.

LiveAndLetLive · Mar 7, 2004, 03:32 pm

I got a 4 on this "quiz." However, while I took it, I found flaws in the questions, IMO. Here's some commentary:

1. If you don't vote you can't complain.

I said false, but this is merely about sentiment, not a political philosophy or advocacy.

2. Without government, there would be no roads.

False, obviously, since there are and have been private roads.

3. I can not be trusted to figure out right and wrong for myself.

False, clearly. But the better question is can "everyone," and does "everyone" know the difference and can be "trusted." I would have said "true" to that...is there any debate?

4. People need to be controlled, lest they run amok.

I don't think I answered this one. Too vague. Frankly, there are LOTS of people who need to be controlled. Osama, John Hinckley, Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, FDR...all these people could have used some control, as all used aggression in one form or another.

5. Anarchy means chaos and destruction.

False, for it doesn't "mean" that.

6. If you don't pay taxes, you are stealing from society.

False, easily so.

7. We all have a moral obligation to obey the law.

I don't think I answered. It's too vague. We have a moral obligation, as I see it, to do unto others as we'd have others do onto us. We have a moral obligation not to murder or steal. Obeying, I dunno, trade regulations, no.

8. The United States is a democracy.

too easy, false.

9. The constitution grants us our rights.

You know, I said false, I think. Our rights are self evident. The Constitution recognizes SOME of them. But if one said true, that might also be "correct," as there is the 9th Amendment.

10. The government should determine what is right and wrong for us.

Easily false. However, a "mediating party" of some sort, perhaps, could theoretically determine proper relations among a free peoples.

11. Society has an obligation to protect the weak and infirm.

Bad wording here. First, what is "society"? What is an obligation? What is "protect"? And who are the weak and infirmed? I think I skipped this one.

12. The majority rules.

In some sense, the majority DOES rule. The better question might be, "should our social relations be governed in any and all respects by a majority vote?" That'd be a false for me.

13. Politicians are our servants.

I think I skipped this one. Some do view themselves as servants, some don't. Few act as servants. The system is not servant to the people currently.

14. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization.

Think I said false. But this question, I think, is off point. Might have asked are taxes JUSTIFIED to create a civilized society? I'd say false to that.

15. Democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others that have been tried.

I think I skipped this one. What are called "democracies" do tend to recognize more rights than non-democracies. But what's the point of this question?

16. The police have a right to use lethal force in cases where it would be wrong for others to do so.

I really don't recall HOW I answered this one. Probably false. However, I am personally not trained to determine when to use lethal force, and it's not at all always clear, especially in a split second situation. If the lethal force was required to save my OWN life, certainly false. Say I and a police officer were witnessing what I thought was a murder in progress. I'd defer to the police in such a situation, yes.

17. The state should have the right to monitor the populace in efforts to provide security.

Well, I said true, I believe. Call it "state" or "mediating party," or whatever. The key word here is "monitor." I took that to mean not in a rights infringing way.

18. The lesser of two evils is better than none at all.

I believe I skipped this, as it sounds like a trick question. Of course no "evil" is better than "less evil." What's it all mean? I have no idea.

19. We shouldn't abolish the state until we have something to replace it with.

I think I skipped this one, too. It's too hypothetical. The state is quite large right now, so I don't see abolition as being on the table.

20. Government doesn't have to be moral, that's why it's the government.

I think I said false, but what the heck does this really mean?

21. Politicians are supposed to lie, when it is in the national interest.

You know, I may have said "true" here. I believe there are RARE times when lying is appropriate. Say if Pres. Bush lied in order to stop 9/11 from happening, I'd support that.

22. When in a war, it's "my country, right or wrong!"

Easily false.

23. The government exists to protect the rights of the people.

I think this is a trick question. I do support an "entity" that would protect people's rights.

24. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Not sure what I said on this. Not sure what it's getting at, either.

25. We need a government that is strong enough to vanquish all enemies, yet can't trample on our rights.

I said true. If it doesn't "trample," what's the problem?

gecko · Mar 7, 2004, 03:50 pm

that question about the US being a democracy was that sarcasm? or was it asking if its a republic?

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 7, 2004, 03:58 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LiveAndLetLive,)
I got a 4 on this "quiz."<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yayy! - After some of the comments I've seen here lately, that low a score reinforces my faith in humanity!

--Jackney Sneeb

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 7, 2004, 03:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
that question about the US being a democracy was that sarcasm? or was it asking if its a republic?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It's a belief of many state-worshippers. They tell me that all the time.

--Jackney Sneeb

gecko · Mar 7, 2004, 04:10 pm

its a deliberately fixed question
because if you answer false then you make it sound like the US gov't isnt a democracy/republic

if you answer true
then you show your lack of knowledge of politics

this test was very obviously biased most of those true flases were extremes that most normal people dont live by

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 7, 2004, 06:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
its a deliberately fixed question
because if you answer false then you make it sound like the US gov't isnt a democracy . . .<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
It's not.
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
. . ./republic

if you answer true
then you show your lack of knowledge of politics

this test was very obviously biased most of those true flases were extremes that most normal people dont live by<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
It's biased. I acknowledged that earlier. All of the statements are things state-worshippers tell me repeatedly about what they themselves believe.

--Jackney Sneeb

lostkiwi · Mar 7, 2004, 08:06 pm

Mr. Sneeb

The problem is seems with democracy is that once the people learn they can vote themselves a part of the treasury everything goes downhill from there.

I lament the fact that the great nation the Founding Fathers laid out for us has been trampled under a stampede to see what group can get the most out of the government, as well as throng of politicians promising whatever people desire to remain in power. Is this the fault of government? I don't think so, I place the blame on the people who voted these laws into being in the first place, as well as the philosophies the misled them into believing this is OK.

If taxes were voluntary would anyone pay them? Probably not. But I believe there is a more equitable solution the taxes on income. Being charged for the services you use for instance, or a tax on consumption rather than production.

The Real question here is wither government should have a monopoly on violence or not? I believe that it should, (as long as it is severely regulated) because I don't care to live in some shoot it up western where the fastest gun is also the most just. Civilization exists because of the social contract we all have entered, when someone decides to break this contract it is the governments job to settle things equitably between the two parties. The alternative is a dark ages full of warfare between neighboring tribes or families. Don't think so? Take a better look at history.

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 8, 2004, 12:37 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lostkiwi,)
Mr. Sneeb

The problem is seems with democracy is that once the people learn they can vote themselves a part of the treasury everything goes downhill from there.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Yeah, that's one of the inherent problems. Also, that they can vote to enslave the losers. Also that I can't subordinate my judgment to just one other human being, let alone 50% + 1 of the 200,000,000 other humans in the US who are old enough to vote. Also that polticians use it as an excuse to do lots of things that are either bad economics or just plain wicked.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I lament the fact that the great nation the Founding Fathers laid out for us has been trampled under a stampede to see what group can get the most out of the government, as well as throng of politicians promising whatever people desire to remain in power. Is this the fault of government? I don't think so, I place the blame on the people who voted these laws into being in the first place, as well as the philosophies the misled them into believing this is OK.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Me, too. While I blame the voters most of all, I must say that the founders should have known their plan would turn out this way (and some of them did). The Constitution, though leaps ahead of previous attempts at "government," was a mistake. As soon as they got to "Congress shall have the power..." they screwed up. As soon as they thought that their hearings, and their scribbles, and their political rituals, could Ccreate a ruling class with the inherent right to rule, they had already screwed up beyond recognition the only things they got right. All men and created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights. So how the bloody hell did some of these men acquire extra rights? Who the bloody hell gave them to them? What's this "shall have the power" crap? Says who?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
If taxes were voluntary would anyone pay them? Probably not. But I believe there is a more equitable solution the taxes on income. Being charged for the services you use for instance, or a tax on consumption rather than production.

The Real question here is wither government should have a monopoly on violence or not? I believe that it should,<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Why?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
(as long as it is severely regulated)<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Regulated by whom, if "government" has a monopoly on violence?
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
because I don't care to live in some shoot it up western where the fastest gun is also the most just.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
You just traded that for a deal where the guys with the biggest and most guns are also the least just.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Civilization exists because of the social contract we all have entered, when someone decides to break this contract it is the governments job to settle things equitably between the two parties. The alternative is a dark ages full of warfare between neighboring tribes or families. Don't think so? Take a better look at history.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
No, I don't think so. You started to make sense when you correctly pointed out why democracy bites. Now, you're claiming an agreement I was not a party to obligates me to obey politicians for the sake of civilization. I tried that. It nearly got me killed, and resulted in me shooting at people I never met and had nothing against. Since I quit believing in state-promulgated propaganda like "social contract," I haven't killed anyone. I prefer the way I look at things today.

--Jackney Sneeb

gecko · Mar 8, 2004, 04:40 am

shooting at people? so you joined the military? and surprise! you had to act like a soldier? why join the military
or did you truly not realize what the military meant

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 8, 2004, 06:37 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
shooting at people? so you joined the military? and surprise! you had to act like a soldier? why join the military
or did you truly not realize what the military meant<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
I was young, I believed the propaganda the state fed me in its "education system," and I wanted to defend my country from the evil commies who the president claimed were threatening us all. The commies are gone (Yayy! we won!), yet the US is still fighting around the world. How come?

I came to realize later in life that the president was a liar (he admitted he didn't think we could defeat the Vietnamese), congress was a bunch of con artists working for corporate interests, and the US had become the major threat to peace in the world.

Christopher Hitchens called what the US did in Vietnam under the regime of Johnson/Nixon/Kissinger "wicked." I can't think of a more descriptive term for a policy of intentional death and destruction under false pretenses. I don't put as much blame on politicians as I do the guys (like me) who should have used better judgment than to trust and obey them. To that end I dedicate the remainder of my life to the destruction of the Myth of "Government."

--Jackney Sneeb

gecko · Mar 8, 2004, 07:44 am

let me ask you this

lets IMAGINE that what the "state" told you was lies, and you believed it

what makes you THINK your current judgement is anymore sound?

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 8, 2004, 08:19 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
let me ask you this

lets IMAGINE that what the "state" told you was lies, and you believed it

what makes you THINK your current judgement is anymore sound?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Logic.

--Jackney Sneeb

gecko · Mar 8, 2004, 08:44 am

talk about answering with out answering....

what i mean is, (and i think you knew what i meant anyway)
if your judgement was so flawed before, what makes yout hink that your current reasooning is any less flawed

Jackney Sneeb · Mar 8, 2004, 09:00 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,)
talk about answering with out answering....

what i mean is, (and i think you knew what i meant anyway)
if your judgement was so flawed before, what makes yout hink that your current reasooning is any less flawed<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I used bad judgment when I was 17 because I had been conditioned by parents, teachers, and the media to believe politicians had the right to order us all around and take our money. They told me politicians knew better than the people about things like national defense. The high school taught civics and "government." It wasn't until I got to college after my service in the military that I took philosophy and learned something about logic and critical thinking. Exeperience has taught me that the things politicians tell us are not always the truth. So, I had to develop my own judgment and come to my own conclusions about things. I assume my judgment is better than it was when I was 17 because I see people getting smarter with experience most of the time, and I don't think my case is any different. I compare my behavior now with what I did when I believed in "government" and I prefer it this way. I compare my arguments with those of state-worshippers, and I see theirs riddled with contradictions. Logic is the noncontradictory integration of subjective concepts about objective reality. The more contradictions I see in a line of reasoning, the less likely I am to trade mine for it.

Besides that, Lyndon Johnson eventually admitted he lied about Vietnam, so there's no reason to even question my judgment about that..

--Jackney Sneeb

gecko · Mar 8, 2004, 09:02 am

yes but do you really believe that your BASIS in flawed logic is so easily removed? no matter how delicious the apple, a tree on loose soil is still on loose soil

you cliam you know better now, because back then you were given false propaganda by the "man"
well whats to say that your current deductive abilty isnt still flawed?

do you think there is 1 right and 1 wrong ??

maybe what they told you was wrong

and maybe what you believe now is wrong

gecko · Mar 8, 2004, 09:03 am

state-worshippers and chaos-worshippers is so much more realisitc designations

Mar 6, 2004, 07:08 pm	#61 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) so we will just have any ignoramus walking around with a gun?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Y'all be careful, now -- y'hear? --Jackney Sneeb

Mar 7, 2004, 05:46 am	#63 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lostkiwi,) So Mr. sneeb, is it one or the other? You either want government as your lord and master or no government at all?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I prefer self government, the only legitimate kind. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lostkiwi,) I think before you post another "test" you ought to remove your own bias from it. No?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No. I'm openly biased against the belief in "government." I admit it, and embrace it. The belief in some people having the right to rule others is a self-contradictory delusion, and it won't go away by my pretending it is a legitimate contender in the marketplace of ideas. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by As it turns out a civilized people can use a government.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Civilization needs mass extortion? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by That's right People using Government, using it for the few things it is good for. The problem with government as you might know is that it is inherently wasteful and has a tendency to do nothing well but grow beyond what ever boundaries you give it. The burden for this tragedy must be born by people like gecko who believe that government actually has their best interests in mind. Never mind that it is imposable to keep the best interests of 280 million people (with conflicting interests, mind you) in mind when making a law. The only type of government that is moral then is a severely limited government. One that has only a few very specific issues to deal with. I say that a government should exist to protect my liberty from foreign powers, to protect me from violence and to protect me from fraud. Would you feel safe in a world where anyone can do anything to avenge some wrong wrought against them? Even some perceived wrong? Do you want to live in a world where only might makes right?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And in order for it to have revenue, it must take what others have earned, by force. Swell. I feel safer already. To whom do we owe this "price" for freedom and civilization? Politicians? They are why society can be civilized? Is not the definition of civilization mutual cooperation, without violence and fraud? How on earth can the initiation of violence (under the euphemism of "taxation") be the price for the lack of violence? "I have to rob you, so I can make sure no one robs you." There has never been a robber more effective than those who claim to be "government." There has NEVER been a murderer more effective than those who claim to be "government." There has NEVER been an individual or organization more destructive to every decent aspect of human society than those whom everyone insists we neeeed to preserve civilization. If world wars, holocausts, and massive extortion rackets are the "civilization" that we have paid this high price for, then fuck civilization. Give me anarchy, where if someone wants to rob me, he will do it openly, without preaching about how some scrap of parchment and magical political rituals gave him the right. The one and only serious threat to my freedom comes from those Grand High Exalted Mystic Rulers that the masses insist are our saviors from all the nastiness of humanity. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I, for one, would rather have a third party dispensing this justice.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I feel the same if someone tries to rob me either at gunpoint of through and act of fraud, a third party should be the one deciding an equitable outcome in these situations, the law of the gun should not prevail.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What do you suggest the police should use to enforce justice -- beanshooters? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Wouldn’t it be wonderful if somebody came up with a framework for a nation where all the rights of individuals were protected by that very document?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> [Why? Before you dismiss communism, consider the kind of nation we would have if reality did not exist, and the happy utopia of communism could work. It can't. Neither can "limited government." By its very nature, the essence of "government" is this: every individual is morally obligated to dismiss his/her own judgment, and instead obey the commands of a select few. That isn't just a bad idea. It's insane, and impossible. "Government" is an impossibility, not just a bad idea. Simple logic dictates that I cannot be obligated to follow someone else's judgment above my own. (It's not even possible, even if I wanted to try such a bad idea.) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Where government is limited by law? Wouldn’t something like that be great? [No.] And wouldn’t it be nice if the very people that benefited from this idea didn’t proceed to shit all over it for generations to come?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Here is the Grand Delusion in all its sparkling appeal: "I need a government strong enough to protect me from all enemies, yet too weak and limited to kick my ass." Why doesn't that work? If the founders proved anything, it is that no matter how strictly you limit the myth of "government," it will break out, and become totalitarian. Logic dictates only two possibilities: 1) I am morally obligated to obey politician commands (a.k.a. "laws"). 2) I am NOT morally obligated to obey them. Pick one. #2 makes you an anarchist. #1 makes you insane. "Oppressive government" is redundant, not just in practice, but in actual meaning. "Government," by definition, is those who use force that the rest of us do not have the right to use. Should we be shocked that it leads to oppression? We have a society, consisting of mere mortals, with the rights of mere mortals. Acknowledging "government" in any form is to accept that some select group of mere mortals has the right to use violence in situations where the rest of us don't have that right. By definition, "government" is the addition of immoral violence to society. That's why the results always suck. All "law" is a threat of force. Every individual already has the right to make all the just threats (against thieves, murderers, etc.). The distinguishing characteristic of this "government" myth is that it is okay for it to use violence in situations where it would be immoral for mere mortals to use violence (e.g. "taxation," "regulation," etc.). Why is anyone shocked that "governments" always end up being oppressive? Why would anyone expect anything else? If you give your permission for a select group of people to use immoral violence, what the bloody hell good will come from it?? Unjust violence (a.k.a. "government") does not create peaceful society. --Jackney Sneeb

Mar 7, 2004, 02:27 pm	#64 (permalink) (top)
Write Winger Molten Ash Location: Texas Posts: 96	Once there are people who contribute less than others to the upkeep of the left wing's pet parasite class then there is no equality or fairness...there us just a plurality who pay little or no taxes being net consumers of a system being paid for by a minority who work harder, smarter and take responsibility for themselves. I sincerely believe that we need to split the country into a free one and a socialistic one and start over. Right now, we have a system where those who sponge off the rest is quickly becoming a majority. Roughly half the people think this is a wonderful idea and vote that way consistantly. When the majority is complete due to the opening of borders and the votes in congress raising the income thresholds where income taxes are paid, we will have a situation that mo matter who those of us who want to keep our earnings vote for, we will be overruled by those who think we somehow owe them a living. I believe in freedom....so set me free. Let those who think like I do have our own country...I will be happy to move to that place. My guess is that the political left would oppose such an idea because their idea of freedom is milking the productive to buy the votes of their constiuencies. Well screw their constiuencies...I am not interested in "feeding my neighbor" if he can feed himself. If he wants me to feed him, I require he provide something of value in trade be it labor or goods and services. My book... Write Winger: Solutions for the Politically Oblique available from Booklocker.com

Mar 7, 2004, 03:58 pm	#67 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LiveAndLetLive,) I got a 4 on this "quiz."<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yayy! - After some of the comments I've seen here lately, that low a score reinforces my faith in humanity! --Jackney Sneeb

Mar 7, 2004, 03:59 pm	#68 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) that question about the US being a democracy was that sarcasm? or was it asking if its a republic?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It's a belief of many state-worshippers. They tell me that all the time. --Jackney Sneeb

Mar 7, 2004, 03:26 am	#62 (permalink) (top)
lostkiwi Molten Ash Posts: 60	So Mr. sneeb, is it one or the other? You either want government as your lord and master or no government at all? I think before you post another "test" you ought to remove your own bias from it. No? As it turns out a civilized people can use a government. That's right People using Government, using it for the few things it is good for. The problem with government as you might know is that it is inherently wasteful and has a tendency to do nothing well but grow beyond what ever boundaries you give it. The burden for this tragedy must be born by people like gecko who believe that government actually has their best interests in mind. Never mind that it is imposable to keep the best interests of 280 million people (with conflicting interests, mind you) in mind when making a law. The only type of government that is moral then is a severely limited government. One that has only a few very specific issues to deal with. I say that a government should exist to protect my liberty from foreign powers, to protect me from violence and to protect me from fraud. Would you feel safe in a world where anyone can do anything to avenge some wrong wrought against them? Even some perceived wrong? Do you want to live in a world where only might makes right? I, for one, would rather have a third party dispensing this justice. I feel the same if someone tries to rob me either at gunpoint of through and act of fraud, a third party should be the one deciding an equitable outcome in these situations, the law of the gun should not prevail. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if somebody came up with a framework for a nation where all the rights of individuals were protected by that very document? Where government is limited by law? Wouldn’t something like that be great? And wouldn’t it be nice if the very people that benefited from this idea didn’t proceed to shit all over it for generations to come? Just a thought. So Mr. sneeb, is it one or the other? You either want government as your lord and master or no government at all? I think before you post another "test" you ought to remove your own bias from it. No? As it turns out a civilized people can use a government. That's right People using Government, using it for the few things it is good for. The problem with government as you might know is that it is inherently wasteful and has a tendency to do nothing well but grow beyond what ever boundaries you give it. The burden for this tragedy must be born by people like gecko who believe that government actually has their best interests in mind. Never mind that it is imposable to keep the best interests of 280 million people (with conflicting interests, mind you) in mind when making a law. The only type of government that is moral then is a severely limited government. One that has only a few very specific issues to deal with. I say that a government should exist to protect my liberty from foreign powers, to protect me from violence and to protect me from fraud. Would you feel safe in a world where anyone can do anything to avenge some wrong wrought against them? Even some perceived wrong? Do you want to live in a world where only might makes right? I, for one, would rather have a third party dispensing this justice. I feel the same if someone tries to rob me either at gunpoint of through and act of fraud, a third party should be the one deciding an equitable outcome in these situations, the law of the gun should not prevail. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if somebody came up with a framework for a nation where all the rights of individuals were protected by that very document? Where government is limited by law? Wouldn’t something like that be great? And wouldn’t it be nice if the very people that benefited from this idea didn’t proceed to shit all over it for generations to come? Just a thought.

Mar 7, 2004, 03:32 pm	#65 (permalink) (top)
LiveAndLetLive Molten Ash Posts: 72	I got a 4 on this "quiz." However, while I took it, I found flaws in the questions, IMO. Here's some commentary: 1. If you don't vote you can't complain. I said false, but this is merely about sentiment, not a political philosophy or advocacy. 2. Without government, there would be no roads. False, obviously, since there are and have been private roads. 3. I can not be trusted to figure out right and wrong for myself. False, clearly. But the better question is can "everyone," and does "everyone" know the difference and can be "trusted." I would have said "true" to that...is there any debate? 4. People need to be controlled, lest they run amok. I don't think I answered this one. Too vague. Frankly, there are LOTS of people who need to be controlled. Osama, John Hinckley, Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, FDR...all these people could have used some control, as all used aggression in one form or another. 5. Anarchy means chaos and destruction. False, for it doesn't "mean" that. 6. If you don't pay taxes, you are stealing from society. False, easily so. 7. We all have a moral obligation to obey the law. I don't think I answered. It's too vague. We have a moral obligation, as I see it, to do unto others as we'd have others do onto us. We have a moral obligation not to murder or steal. Obeying, I dunno, trade regulations, no. 8. The United States is a democracy. too easy, false. 9. The constitution grants us our rights. You know, I said false, I think. Our rights are self evident. The Constitution recognizes SOME of them. But if one said true, that might also be "correct," as there is the 9th Amendment. 10. The government should determine what is right and wrong for us. Easily false. However, a "mediating party" of some sort, perhaps, could theoretically determine proper relations among a free peoples. 11. Society has an obligation to protect the weak and infirm. Bad wording here. First, what is "society"? What is an obligation? What is "protect"? And who are the weak and infirmed? I think I skipped this one. 12. The majority rules. In some sense, the majority DOES rule. The better question might be, "should our social relations be governed in any and all respects by a majority vote?" That'd be a false for me. 13. Politicians are our servants. I think I skipped this one. Some do view themselves as servants, some don't. Few act as servants. The system is not servant to the people currently. 14. Taxes are the price we pay for civilization. Think I said false. But this question, I think, is off point. Might have asked are taxes JUSTIFIED to create a civilized society? I'd say false to that. 15. Democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others that have been tried. I think I skipped this one. What are called "democracies" do tend to recognize more rights than non-democracies. But what's the point of this question? 16. The police have a right to use lethal force in cases where it would be wrong for others to do so. I really don't recall HOW I answered this one. Probably false. However, I am personally not trained to determine when to use lethal force, and it's not at all always clear, especially in a split second situation. If the lethal force was required to save my OWN life, certainly false. Say I and a police officer were witnessing what I thought was a murder in progress. I'd defer to the police in such a situation, yes. 17. The state should have the right to monitor the populace in efforts to provide security. Well, I said true, I believe. Call it "state" or "mediating party," or whatever. The key word here is "monitor." I took that to mean not in a rights infringing way. 18. The lesser of two evils is better than none at all. I believe I skipped this, as it sounds like a trick question. Of course no "evil" is better than "less evil." What's it all mean? I have no idea. 19. We shouldn't abolish the state until we have something to replace it with. I think I skipped this one, too. It's too hypothetical. The state is quite large right now, so I don't see abolition as being on the table. 20. Government doesn't have to be moral, that's why it's the government. I think I said false, but what the heck does this really mean? 21. Politicians are supposed to lie, when it is in the national interest. You know, I may have said "true" here. I believe there are RARE times when lying is appropriate. Say if Pres. Bush lied in order to stop 9/11 from happening, I'd support that. 22. When in a war, it's "my country, right or wrong!" Easily false. 23. The government exists to protect the rights of the people. I think this is a trick question. I do support an "entity" that would protect people's rights. 24. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Not sure what I said on this. Not sure what it's getting at, either. 25. We need a government that is strong enough to vanquish all enemies, yet can't trample on our rights. I said true. If it doesn't "trample," what's the problem?

Mar 7, 2004, 03:50 pm	#66 (permalink) (top)
gecko Molten Ash Posts: 70	that question about the US being a democracy was that sarcasm? or was it asking if its a republic?

Mar 7, 2004, 04:10 pm	#69 (permalink) (top)
gecko Molten Ash Posts: 70	its a deliberately fixed question because if you answer false then you make it sound like the US gov't isnt a democracy/republic if you answer true then you show your lack of knowledge of politics this test was very obviously biased most of those true flases were extremes that most normal people dont live by

Mar 7, 2004, 06:22 pm	#70 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) its a deliberately fixed question because if you answer false then you make it sound like the US gov't isnt a democracy . . .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It's not. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by . . ./republic if you answer true then you show your lack of knowledge of politics this test was very obviously biased most of those true flases were extremes that most normal people dont live by<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It's biased. I acknowledged that earlier. All of the statements are things state-worshippers tell me repeatedly about what they themselves believe. --Jackney Sneeb

Mar 7, 2004, 08:06 pm	#71 (permalink) (top)
lostkiwi Molten Ash Posts: 60	Mr. Sneeb The problem is seems with democracy is that once the people learn they can vote themselves a part of the treasury everything goes downhill from there. I lament the fact that the great nation the Founding Fathers laid out for us has been trampled under a stampede to see what group can get the most out of the government, as well as throng of politicians promising whatever people desire to remain in power. Is this the fault of government? I don't think so, I place the blame on the people who voted these laws into being in the first place, as well as the philosophies the misled them into believing this is OK. If taxes were voluntary would anyone pay them? Probably not. But I believe there is a more equitable solution the taxes on income. Being charged for the services you use for instance, or a tax on consumption rather than production. The Real question here is wither government should have a monopoly on violence or not? I believe that it should, (as long as it is severely regulated) because I don't care to live in some shoot it up western where the fastest gun is also the most just. Civilization exists because of the social contract we all have entered, when someone decides to break this contract it is the governments job to settle things equitably between the two parties. The alternative is a dark ages full of warfare between neighboring tribes or families. Don't think so? Take a better look at history.

Mar 8, 2004, 12:37 am	#72 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lostkiwi,) Mr. Sneeb The problem is seems with democracy is that once the people learn they can vote themselves a part of the treasury everything goes downhill from there.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yeah, that's one of the inherent problems. Also, that they can vote to enslave the losers. Also that I can't subordinate my judgment to just one other human being, let alone 50% + 1 of the 200,000,000 other humans in the US who are old enough to vote. Also that polticians use it as an excuse to do lots of things that are either bad economics or just plain wicked. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I lament the fact that the great nation the Founding Fathers laid out for us has been trampled under a stampede to see what group can get the most out of the government, as well as throng of politicians promising whatever people desire to remain in power. Is this the fault of government? I don't think so, I place the blame on the people who voted these laws into being in the first place, as well as the philosophies the misled them into believing this is OK.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Me, too. While I blame the voters most of all, I must say that the founders should have known their plan would turn out this way (and some of them did). The Constitution, though leaps ahead of previous attempts at "government," was a mistake. As soon as they got to "Congress shall have the power..." they screwed up. As soon as they thought that their hearings, and their scribbles, and their political rituals, could Ccreate a ruling class with the inherent right to rule, they had already screwed up beyond recognition the only things they got right. All men and created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights. So how the bloody hell did some of these men acquire extra rights? Who the bloody hell gave them to them? What's this "shall have the power" crap? Says who? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by If taxes were voluntary would anyone pay them? Probably not. But I believe there is a more equitable solution the taxes on income. Being charged for the services you use for instance, or a tax on consumption rather than production. The Real question here is wither government should have a monopoly on violence or not? I believe that it should,<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Why? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (as long as it is severely regulated)<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Regulated by whom, if "government" has a monopoly on violence? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by because I don't care to live in some shoot it up western where the fastest gun is also the most just.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You just traded that for a deal where the guys with the biggest and most guns are also the least just. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Civilization exists because of the social contract we all have entered, when someone decides to break this contract it is the governments job to settle things equitably between the two parties. The alternative is a dark ages full of warfare between neighboring tribes or families. Don't think so? Take a better look at history.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No, I don't think so. You started to make sense when you correctly pointed out why democracy bites. Now, you're claiming an agreement I was not a party to obligates me to obey politicians for the sake of civilization. I tried that. It nearly got me killed, and resulted in me shooting at people I never met and had nothing against. Since I quit believing in state-promulgated propaganda like "social contract," I haven't killed anyone. I prefer the way I look at things today. --Jackney Sneeb

Mar 8, 2004, 04:40 am	#73 (permalink) (top)
gecko Molten Ash Posts: 70	shooting at people? so you joined the military? and surprise! you had to act like a soldier? why join the military or did you truly not realize what the military meant

Mar 8, 2004, 06:37 am	#74 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) shooting at people? so you joined the military? and surprise! you had to act like a soldier? why join the military or did you truly not realize what the military meant<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I was young, I believed the propaganda the state fed me in its "education system," and I wanted to defend my country from the evil commies who the president claimed were threatening us all. The commies are gone (Yayy! we won!), yet the US is still fighting around the world. How come? I came to realize later in life that the president was a liar (he admitted he didn't think we could defeat the Vietnamese), congress was a bunch of con artists working for corporate interests, and the US had become the major threat to peace in the world. Christopher Hitchens called what the US did in Vietnam under the regime of Johnson/Nixon/Kissinger "wicked." I can't think of a more descriptive term for a policy of intentional death and destruction under false pretenses. I don't put as much blame on politicians as I do the guys (like me) who should have used better judgment than to trust and obey them. To that end I dedicate the remainder of my life to the destruction of the Myth of "Government." --Jackney Sneeb

Mar 8, 2004, 07:44 am	#75 (permalink) (top)
gecko Molten Ash Posts: 70	let me ask you this lets IMAGINE that what the "state" told you was lies, and you believed it what makes you THINK your current judgement is anymore sound?

Mar 8, 2004, 08:19 am	#76 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) let me ask you this lets IMAGINE that what the "state" told you was lies, and you believed it what makes you THINK your current judgement is anymore sound?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Logic. --Jackney Sneeb

Mar 8, 2004, 08:44 am	#77 (permalink) (top)
gecko Molten Ash Posts: 70	talk about answering with out answering.... what i mean is, (and i think you knew what i meant anyway) if your judgement was so flawed before, what makes yout hink that your current reasooning is any less flawed

Mar 8, 2004, 09:00 am	#78 (permalink) (top)
Jackney Sneeb Igneous Magma Posts: 240	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (gecko,) talk about answering with out answering.... what i mean is, (and i think you knew what i meant anyway) if your judgement was so flawed before, what makes yout hink that your current reasooning is any less flawed<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I used bad judgment when I was 17 because I had been conditioned by parents, teachers, and the media to believe politicians had the right to order us all around and take our money. They told me politicians knew better than the people about things like national defense. The high school taught civics and "government." It wasn't until I got to college after my service in the military that I took philosophy and learned something about logic and critical thinking. Exeperience has taught me that the things politicians tell us are not always the truth. So, I had to develop my own judgment and come to my own conclusions about things. I assume my judgment is better than it was when I was 17 because I see people getting smarter with experience most of the time, and I don't think my case is any different. I compare my behavior now with what I did when I believed in "government" and I prefer it this way. I compare my arguments with those of state-worshippers, and I see theirs riddled with contradictions. Logic is the noncontradictory integration of subjective concepts about objective reality. The more contradictions I see in a line of reasoning, the less likely I am to trade mine for it. Besides that, Lyndon Johnson eventually admitted he lied about Vietnam, so there's no reason to even question my judgment about that.. --Jackney Sneeb

Mar 8, 2004, 09:02 am	#79 (permalink) (top)
gecko Molten Ash Posts: 70	yes but do you really believe that your BASIS in flawed logic is so easily removed? no matter how delicious the apple, a tree on loose soil is still on loose soil you cliam you know better now, because back then you were given false propaganda by the "man" well whats to say that your current deductive abilty isnt still flawed? do you think there is 1 right and 1 wrong ?? maybe what they told you was wrong and maybe what you believe now is wrong

Mar 8, 2004, 09:03 am	#80 (permalink) (top)
gecko Molten Ash Posts: 70	state-worshippers and chaos-worshippers is so much more realisitc designations