I don't believe it's limited to governments. Any time you get together a group of people and put them in charge of other people, whether it's a government, advocacy group, corporation, or whatever, you tend to get this same sort of situation.
Obama Signs law giving him Lifetime Secret Service
- Thread starter dmnEPC
- Start date
I don't believe it's limited to governments. Any time you get together a group of people and put them in charge of other people, whether it's a government, advocacy group, corporation, or whatever, you tend to get this same sort of situation.
calls out for spouting off rhetoric, while spouting off rhetoric.
Is this what social engineering looks like?
The key difference is that Governments assume the legal monopoly on murder and theft.
AT&T won't throw me in prison if I don't pay my phone bill or blow me up if I decide to pay T-Mobile instead.
Rhetoric: (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
Explain how anything I said was rhetoric.
I'm pointing out that if both sides of this debate could simply agree that gun violence is a problem and work towards a solution that protects gun owner rights and also reduces gun violence, we can work together instead of butting heads.
Throwing out slogans, gross over-exaggerations, simplistic and unrealistic solutions, doesn't advance the conversation. It's not just gun owners either. As I've pointed out, many of the anti-gun folks sound just crazy to me.
But, part of the problem is that I fully believe in the right to bear arms, yet because I'm not rabid about the subject, I'm viewed as the enemy. Just like when I have this conversation with people who want to eliminate all guns, I seem to them like a insane gun nut.
The fact that my point of view seems offensive to some is the problem. The inability to recognize, appreciate, and rationally discuss my point of view - even if you believe I'm 100% wrong - is the problem in this debate.
The people who want to ban guns cannot be marginalized. If you want to protect your right to own guns you have to understand what motivates and scares people who want to get rid of guns. If all you do is call them jack-booted Nazis, you set the stage for a fight that can only have one winner.
However, if you actually try to understand where they're coming from and work towards solutions that address their concerns while not infringing on your rights, you might actually come up with some workable solutions that satisfy both camps.
I know what you're saying but my point is that in any sort of society or group of people, there's a need for leadership. We're hard-wired that way. Even in the animal world, there's always a pack leader.
And as they say, power corrupts. So even if you took a bunch of peace loving hippies on a commune, eventually someone will bubble to the top and declare a need for leadership. And given enough time, they will attempt to enforce their will at the expense of everyone else.
Government is simply a form of it. Getting rid of governments would only result in another form of control or hierarchy which would eventually manifest itself in the same manner.
Or, as in your example, if there was no government, T-Mobile just might throw you in a T-Mobile jail for not paying your phone bill. In this case, the government prevents that from happening since that's not in their interests. They want to throw you in jail for not paying your taxes
I know what you're saying but my point is that in any sort of society or group of people, there's a need for leadership. We're hard-wired that way. Even in the animal world, there's always a pack leader.
And as they say, power corrupts. So even if you took a bunch of peace loving hippies on a commune, eventually someone will bubble to the top and declare a need for leadership. And given enough time, they will attempt to enforce their will at the expense of everyone else.
Government is simply a form of it. Getting rid of governments would only result in another form of control or hierarchy which would eventually manifest itself in the same manner.
Or, as in your example, if there was no government, T-Mobile just might throw you in a T-Mobile jail for not paying your phone bill. In this case, the government prevents that from happening since that's not in their interests. They want to throw you in jail for not paying your taxes
You've got a lot to learn about Anarchy. Tons. Here are some good starting points for you:
http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf
http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx
Libertarianism has nothing to do with the point I was making in terms of human nature. Politically, I lean in the libertarian direction but you can't dismiss the fact that for thousands of years people have formed groups and eventually someone became the leader of the group. And, in most cases, that person then went about imposing their will on everyone in the group.
Whether you call it a government, a kingdom, a corporation, a collective, a communue, a religion, or whatever, the end result is someone on top who has the power to dictate their will on everyone else.
It's simply an observation of what has happened, not a political belief.
You jumped from the subject of libertarian over to Anarchy when you stated: "there's a need for leadership. We're hard-wired that way."
At this point you are making an assumption that our race as a whole can't accept anarchy, (a lack of rulers) no matter how well planned. This is wrong, and those free books I linked you to will show you the error in your assumption.
I wouldn't dream of it. But YOU can't dismiss the fact that there are things we haven't tried.
There is a first time for everything though. Just because it always has been so, doesn't mean that there can never be a better way.
And just because someone can write a book doesn't make what they say a fact. You act like linking to a book is evidence of something. I can write a book about how if you flap your arms fast enough you can fly. It doesn't mean that you can actually do it.
Communism had a book too. So did national-socialism.
You're correct in saying that you can't dismiss a possibility if it hasn't been tried. But until it has been tried and been shown to work, it's still a theory.
On the other hand, we do have about 200,000 years of human history to look at and 200,000 years of evidence suggests that human nature is to defer to authority.
Can we evolve? Sure. We've evolved our social and political systems to get where we are today. Democracy was an unheard of concept at one point.
But, I don't see us evolving to a new social structure in our lifetimes. It's way too ingrained to shift that rapidly. It's on par with religion. It would take multiple generations for religion to get worked out of society.