Moxie

They're not real if you go by the dictionary definition of "contract."

Genocides, slavery, denying people the right vote, and many other things have all been part of "social contracts." So saying one is in place does not automatically equate with morality or voluntary agreement.

According to your line of thinking, Native Americans who had grown up in one type of society, ended up completely accepting the new government - all because the natives couldn't snap their fingers and magically be transported to another planet.

People can't escape "social contracts", even on the moon.

Your post I replied to was not talking about government being necessary and inevitable :

What is the point in saying those things, if not to use them for justification for having governments?

__________________

guerilla

Thank you. This is so hard sometimes to get people to understand.

No Treason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

guerilla

I thought we never had anarchy.

Can you specifically cite which grand scale atrocities were committed prior to government?

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

Host.co.in

There should be different committees supervising each other. Unity between these committees would kill the proper development.

Moxie

An agreement among the members of an organized society...
(Philosophy) (in the theories of...
an implicit agreement among people

It's a theoretical, implied concept, in which everyone has agreed to something. Has such a thing ever really existed in a state above a certain population?

That's true, but you were first theorizing about violence under anarchy. A natural counterpoint to that is to bring up actual examples of violence under government.

What you haven't really addressed is what is the value of government? I'm talking about the overall concept. There are mafia groups that donate to charities and do other good things, but most would agree that the mafia overall provides a net loss to society.

The question would be what is the government of Switzerland creating that the people there could not create on their own?

__________________

lukep

Sung to the tune of "Song that never ends:"


This is the thread that never ends,
Keeps going on and on my friends...
Some noobie challenged Guerilla cause he didn't know who G was,
But he'll continue taking shit forever just because...


Couldn't resist

guerilla

Ok, so good argument against government!

But really, all human action is profit driven. That's basic economics, rational individualism, etc. Man acts for profit, whether it is love, or comfort or whatever. Opportunity costs, tradeoffs etcand so on, all relate to profit.

Profit is a psychological, not monetary phenomenon.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

JakeStratham

Yep. War is very expensive. It costs money. It costs lives. And it makes us miss Survivor. There's no profit motive for normal folks.

Those who do profit (like this guy) do so because they're part of the state. As they say, membership has its privileges. That includes private contractors, who would be unlikely to make war if they had to do it without the state lavishing cash on them.

__________________
.
"I consider electoral politics the milquetoast equivalent of terrorism." - Wendy McElroy

Read. Learn. Prosper.

"You see, but you do not observe." - Sherlock Holmes

JarredLv

With all these demands for proof, I would swear we're debating on the existence of a god. As far as I know, no one here has stated that the theories and ideas presented by the pro-anarchy side have actually been implemented. We are simply stating that all those grand things that people have been indoctrinated to believe can only come from the government can actually be provided by private enterprise equally well, if not better.

__________________
"The possibility of human evil is exactly why we can't have a state."

"I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success ... Such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything." - Tesla

Moxie

If it did not get created, the only reason would be because they choose not to. They're the same exact people with the same exact capabilities and resources. They can still create it if they want. If they would rather spend the money on beer and video games, then that would be their choice, and they would reap what they sow.

__________________

Wicked Ice

Listen to this till the end. Wynn makes more sense than those stupid govt officials.

__________________
"I work 80 hours a week for myself just so I do not have to work 40 for someone else" -- Erik Kimel

Kelsy Scott

As annoying as government can be I do appreciate it at the same time. It keeps order and keeps our county looking respectable and functional. For example, our roads and building codes and many more. So I do feel that in the end we are better off with government than without.

JakeStratham

Come now. Don't be disingenuous. You know you just want to get the last word. That's the nature of forum debate. lol

__________________
.
"I consider electoral politics the milquetoast equivalent of terrorism." - Wendy McElroy

Read. Learn. Prosper.

"You see, but you do not observe." - Sherlock Holmes

guerilla

Then why do I need to be governed? I don't commit atrocities.

It is possible, but the reason why we want a free society is so that there can be competition. Competition is a check on waste and corruption.

To argue against competition is to argue against evolution.

Then you need to make the case of which, and why they are different.

Society is an abstraction, a group. Only individuals take risks. To claim that individuals can't take a certain risk, implies that you think you know what is best for everyone. In that case, shouldn't you be President, or God or Fuhrer or something?

Why do you show so much disdain ("wet dream") for the personal peaceful choices of others? And why does the rest of civilization have to buy into anything, whether it is anarchy or the state? Why can't individuals choose for themselves how best to run their own lives? Oh yeah, because THAT would be anarchism.

Essentially the argument goes, we can't have anarchy because we can't have anarchy.

Let them choose that if they wish. Only individuals can determine what is practical for themselves. You cannot.

So what you're essentially saying is that humans can't be free, because the best way to live is to enslave ourselves to one another.

I assume you support democracy, right? How can people vote for their rulers, if they are incompetent to rule themselves? What possible good judgment could humans exercise when choosing government, if your argument is that they lack the ability to govern themselves?

No such luck.

__________________
-
Great content HERE

Quod non apparet non est

Dumbass

interesting....