You know, about all this "Europe is weak" stuff...

[Guest]

RE: Ahem !

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !
HA !
ha.....
I don't believe you've read the (I believe it was "Plotehole observation"), but in that thread Xotor proves himself not very pro-communist.
Apart from that, I don't see why you draw the conclusion Xotor is a communist. There's a huge difference between socialists and communists.

[div align=left]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]

"Don't worry men, they can't hit us here"

 

[Guest]

RE: Ahem !

>You are a communist.

I am not. Communism doesn't work, and every real-world implementation of communism is really very bad capitalism.

What you are describing is what "anarachists" want to believe, that you can form a society where everyone's way of life is upheld. Unfortunately they don't realize that man is a social beast, and will always cluster together. When that happens there is an authority, and then there are the followers, and there's your government. Anarchy does not exist.

There are no fundamental freedoms, and what may be fundamental to you, say the right to sleep with any girl any time, is not fundamental to the society. People think they have the freedom of speech, yeah, but they have the privilege of speaking because the government allows it.

An ideal government seeks to give you the best quality of life which favors the most people it can. Unfortunately, it is *impossible* to please everyone all the time, so you make sacrifices. All governments do it.

I love a republic/democratic government, I love capitalism (for its good things), and I wouldn't want to live under a "communist" government. However I don't like it when people think that humans are born with fundamental rights, because they're not, it's like those morons who march onto this board, do something wrong, get told off, and then say that we are surpressing their "right" to free speech. Little do they realize that their "rights" end where ours begin, and that the only place you're going to be allowed to freely speak your mind is either in your own head, or where someone allows you to.

So please don't call me a communist unless you know what you're accusing me of.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

---

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]

 

[crazy_vasey]

England's been a democracy for a long time. The power of the monarchy has been decreasing since the revolution a few hundred years ago before the discovery of America I think.

 

[Guest]

RE: You sound American...

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Dec-11-00 AT 01:58PM (GMT)[p]You cripple the army funding and start selling your oil

Edit: Oh, and you can also set up the gas taxes

It works in Norway... well, kinda

 

[Guest]

RE: Ahem !

>The Nazis, not thinking about their
>attrocities, actually did a bang-up
>job on the nation.
>A police state is actually
>a very efficient governing system.
> Musolini also made Italy
>work really well, so well
>that even the trains were
>said to arrive on time.

That's right. I bet if Hitler didn't get so megalomanic and tried to conquer the world, he'd be honored as one of the greatest politicians of all time today.

 

[Guest]

No quite.

The monarchy is effectively powerless, the Queen speaks every now and then but seeing as it is written by the government, it seems pointless.

As for America (not the USA but America), it was originally discovered by Irish monks (RA!) in the 5th century. There are actually records from when the Vikings found America of ancient Celtic rituals being performed.

So screw Colombus, he was the 3rd European race to reach America.

But I am basically saying that America was discovered a good milenia before the English Civil War and the decline in the power of the monarchy. But better the monarchy than the Lord Protecotor!

M

 

[Guest]

RE: Ahem !

<<But who will be there when some entity wishes to impose *their* law upon you? Who will defend you?>>

I would think that the police force under a minimalist government would be far better able to defend me than the cops in a society where they have the additional duties of making sure that everyone wears seat belts while driving, that people can't have sex how they wish, that people don't destroy themselves with drugs, and otherwise in general making sure that everyone's noses and posteriors get wiped for them. And a military whose sole duty is to protect me and my country against outside agression will be far better able to defend me and mine than a military that is forced to engage in morale-sapping and readiness-deteriorating activities such as peace-keeping missions in countries where people are dead-set on killing each other (and have been, and will be, for centuries), futile nation building for corrupt foreign despots, and garrison duties in nations that otherwise have the wherewithal to defend themselves, all the while trying to function under suicidal rules of engagement. Because the missions of the police and the military would be more focused, and their training and equipment appropriately specialized to specific functions, they would be far better at defending me when some entity wishes to impose their law upon me. Merely because a government is small doesn't mean that the police force and military won't be large enough to protect me. Probably just the opposite. And just because a society is inefficient (that is, everyone isn't being forced to walk lockstep in unison toward some social theorist's impossible utopia), that doesn't mean that a police force and a military with specific missions can't be efficient at their jobs.

<<It is a reason why people who are so-called "Anarchists" have no clue as to what they're talking about. >>


Not quite sure why you equate minimal government/maximum freedom with anarchy. Perhaps you misunderstand me, or else I haven't made myself clear. In any case, when anarchists are forced into the real world they always "wobble" (Political science in-joke.) and compromise the purity of their ideals, whether it's Proudhon's Mutualists or the Spanish and Italian Syndicalists. Indeed the anarchist enclaves that came to power in various regions of Spain during the 30s quickly abandoned all their rhetoric and simply got down to forming "temporary" governments so they could execute all their enemies. If you have a different definition of anarchy (Godwin's? Bakunin's?), I would be interested in hearing it. I would define anarchy as the absence of government, though if you want to stir up an argument amongst anarchists, you can also define it as an absence of state.


<<You cannot have people existing in perfect harmony with each other, it's like FOOL, you can't assume a system will work based on perfect conditions.>>


Precisely! Every engineer knows that any system will not always work, that what's perfect in theory probably will not work perfectly in practice. To deal with that reality a competent engineer will make sure that the system has as few moving parts as possible. The less parts you have, the less chance of failure. (And the easier to repair it.) A minimalist government, whose primary duties involve a police force for protection of life and property, a military for security against foreign agression, and a judical system for redress of disputes, is far more likely to function as required than a bloated government that tries to be all things to all people, that tries to make society perfect and efficient when both society and government are composed of imperfect and inefficient humans.


<<Your "freedoms" are privileges enforced by the government.>>


I would take it that you're an adherent of Hobbes rather than Locke, except that one of your other threads indicate you may be influenced more by Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics". Correct? If either is true we can't help but eventually have a philosophical deadlock. But to continue: Locke views freedom and rights as natural to the human condition, but due to the fact that humans have found it necessary (or instinctual, if you would prefer) to band together, a social contract (government) must be formed. In the social contract members of society voluntarily give up some of their natural freedom and rights so as to live together in harmony. I'd rather the social contract be one or two sheets of paper rather than umpteen dozen volumes which includes one whole book mandating how citizens shall brush their teeth and clip their toenails.


<<The government *protects* your rights, and the only way it can do that is by being strong.>>


A minimal government can be strong in the functions it is designed to do. All it would have to do would be to protect me from others seeking to impose their will upon me, take my life, or steal my property (and of course keep me from doing the same to others), and keep the foreign hordes at bay. Indeed, I would think that the piling on of additional functions would make the government weaker, especially if those functions are thought up by social theorists seeking to make everything "better" and "safer". The law of unintended consequences would just about guarantee it.


<<Therefore your government would take a great part in your daily life.>>


Ugh! Why must it destroy my freedom in order to save it? In a society with minimal government it could be possible for a citizen to spend his/her entire life with little interaction with the government. A government should only protect me from others, not my own folly.


Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Guest]

<<A travesty, I tell you, a travesty of original democracy that you stole of us (remember, us Europeans thought up democracy, the Americans just changed it into the rediculous not-working system they have now)>>


Englishman John Locke could probably be said to be the father of modern democracy. (The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are cribbed from Locke's works.) Since the original "Founding Fathers" thought of themselves as British, and would have thought you crazy if you had called them "Americans" (the Americans were the red savages), I would maintain that the concept of modern democracy was hardly stolen. Originally it belonged to the "Founding Fathers" as much as any other Briton, and moreso than any mainland European.

 

[Guest]

RE: Ahem !

<<Let me ask you something: What if someone way of living goes against yours? What if someone thinks it is within his rights to rape your wife? What then?>>

Don't quite see this. If everyone has the right to live as they want without hurting others, how can someone have the right to hurt others? In any case, in a society having a police force with the primary duty of protecting the citizenry against violence and theft, I would think the wife would have a far better chance of not getting raped, as opposed to a society where the police have the additional duties of enforcing fanciful social engineering and Judeo-Christian morality. And with minimal laws dear wifey, hubby, the kiddies, grampa, gramma, and all the neighbors will have the rights to be armed and defend themselves without having to wait for the police to get off their doughnut break. All the police will have to do is pick up the guy's body.

<<And then you'll say that everyone has their right to live as they choose as long as it doesn't violate someone else's right, correct? But what if my right to live the way I choose involves nobody living within ten thousand square miles? What if I want my homestead to be the middle of New York City? What then?>>

If that's what you wanted to do, why not? Why shouldn't you be able to buy umpteen hundred square miles of wilderness and squirrel yourself away as a hermit? As for the New York thing, I still don't see where you think that if everyone has the right to live as they want with the stipulation that they cannot hurt others, then someone can validly claim the right to hurt others. Please explain. In any case, why shouldn't you be able to get a job, earn money, build capital, start a business, make billions, then buy up all Manhattan Island and evict the inhabitants? It would be your property. Of course, you could do that under today's US government, probably much cheaper, and additionally nobody would have the right to refuse your offer to buy. Just slip some graft to the right City and State officials, the government then forcibly claims the land under the right of eminent domain and evicts all the inhabitants, and finally you buy the land back cheap from the government with appropriate kickbacks. That's how the railroads got built in the late 1800s, and how land for most government contruction is acquired today.

<<The fact is that you *need* government,>>

The point of dispute is how much.

<<and if your way of life is imposed upon, well that's just too bad isn't it?>>

Depends on how much imposition. If the government refuses to allow me to murder or rape my fellow citizens, that's understandable. If it insists on taxation without representation, there's precedents for correcting that.

<<Humans don't have fundamental rights>>

Whether or not humans have fundamental rights is a larger question of political theory. I go with John Locke on this one. Sorry.

<<they're granted by the people in charge.>>

Who is in charge in a representative democracy? The citizens. They can have as much freedom as they wish, and be as safe as they wish, but people who desire security at the expense of feedom are not going to get either one.


<<If you're forced to live in a certain way, that's just too bad.>>

Again, it depends what certain way I am being forced to live. Some loss of liberty is understandable and acceptable as result of the social contract. In cases of too much loss, the 2nd amendment provides an annoyed citizenry with a remedy against a government that thinks it has "the" right way to live.

<<Yes, but when you do have to use them you're grateful for them.>>

Social services don't tend to be sociable or provide services. I prefer private schools to public, a personal doctor to those at veterans' hospitals, and private charities to government handouts. And I've found privately maintained buildings superior to government buildings.

<<It spreads their usage out among the populace>>

That's what you do with manure, and it still stinks.

<<and that is the whole purpose of taxes.>>

The purpose of most taxes is to provide salaries for bureaucrats, and opportunities for politicians to say "look what I done for you!" (with your money, you poor sap, minus graft, corruption, kickbacks, waste, jobs for my friends and family, etc., etc.)

<<And there are some things that must be paid for by the individual. The utilities for example.>>

Which are government supported institutions, no matter how private they claim to be.

<<But basic society needs like education,>>


Why should I have to pay for the warehousing of children for 12 years to no effect when I'm spending money sending my own to a private school that's actually teaching something?

<<road service>>

In general I find privately financed toll roads superior. Try the public highways in Arkansas. I'll never drive through there again if I can help it.

<< and sewers>>

Again, privately owned wastewater treatment plants tend to be better run by higher paid professionals.


<<The Nazis, not thinking about their attrocities, actually did a bang-up job on the nation.>>


Mainly due to to the genius of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, Minister of Economics, and the oddly generous terms at which creditor nations, particularly Great Britain, settled Germany's international debts. As a rule, though, Hitler preferred his underlings at odds with each other, so as to keep his own position secure. There was much bureaucratic infighting all through his reign, and the war might well have been won if Germany's resources had not been subject to the rivalries of competing ministries, and the inefficiency of duplicated effort.

<<A police state is actually a very efficient governing system.>>

Depends on what you're trying to do. It's good at maintaining a status quo, but the inherent terror stifles innovation and initiative. And the morale of the citizenry must be constantly pumped up.

<<Musolini also made Italy work really well, so well that even the trains were said to arrive on time.>>

A myth. Basically, Mussolini practiced corporate fascism, allowing protected businesses to have an overwhelming influence in government production, with the attendant graft, corruption, and inefficiency of protected government contracts seen in the US military-industrial complex today, but with more dire consequences. The corruption of the entire system was seen first in the Ethiopian campaign, where his tanks had a bit of trouble against loincloth-clad tribesmen with spears due to very bad logistics, and eventually the entire financial infrastructure collapsed. Italy had to be propped up by Germany. He did do well in excavating Roman ruins, though, (just in time for them to be obliterated by allied bombing) and was successful with the film industry.

<<If you're catering to everyone and their dog's conception of an ideal life, you're going to have a very defective society, and a society that will do even a worse job of bringing up everyone's standard of living.>>

Definitely! Which is why government should not cater to any sort of conception of the ideal, and instead should just let people live their own lives with the minimum of interference.

 

[Guest]

<<I would maintain Aristotle's definition of a country, that it is not just a cluster of people living near each other, causing no harms to each other, and doing business, the purpose of a state is to "live well" and for citizens to take part in their state, whereby the state improves the quality of life for the citizen.>>

But later in that same passage: "...the first care of him who would found a city, truly deserving that name, and not nominally so, must be to have his citizens virtuous." The thought of taking lessons on virtue from Clinton and Gingrich, or from Bush and Gore, is nauseating in the extreme. And again, who defines what is a virtue and will be mandated? And what is a vice and must be exturpated? I should be able to cultivate whatever virtue I think best. And I should be able to indulge whatever vice I so wish, as long as I do not harm anyone or their property.


<< If you aren't trying to improve the quality of life, you are basically describing how nations work: They exist on this planet, they trade, and they're usually at peace.>>

I take it you don't believe Clauswitz: Peace is merely the period of preparation for the next war?

<<A constitutional monarchy in today's terms is more of a figurehead "king" or "emperor" and a parliment who makes the real decisions, with the Prime Minister as the real king-like authority.

In the USA government, which is not a democracy, but rather a republic which borrows some aspects from democracy, the President actually has a *say* in what goes on in the country.

Do you think the Queen of England has any real power? She's just mooching off the kingdom and paying no taxes.

No, I don't think a constitutional monarchy does anything extra>>

The Queen's function is Head of State (Do ceremonies, use the bully pulpit to try to influence public opinion, etc.), as opposed to the Prime Minister's function of Head of Government (Do the nitty-gritty dirty deeds of politics). In the US these functions are combined in the President, which is sometimes unfortunate. A President who has lost moral capital usually has that failure bleed over into his political agenda, and vice-versa. The Queen, as a ceremonial symbol of the nation, can hopefully remain untainted by any political scandals. Whether a figurehead is necessary for a nation is debatable, but in times of great crisis they can be a very effective rallying point for the populance. Look at the various Kings in exile in England during the Second World War and how they were able, for the most part, to keep hope alive for their subjugated peoples. In any case, I'm still a bit hazy on how Asterisk_'s monarch would be selected, or how he/she would function.

 

[Guest]

RE: Ahem !

And where will the government get money from? taxes? But if you are not molested by anyone (and own a gun if somewone should mess with you), always solve all disputes with people personally, and live in a country that is never invaded, then why bother? Since you seem to think that you should not have to pay for things you dont need or use, then why would you pay the government money for a police force wich you will never need, a court that you will never need and a military that you will never need. Oh, and are policemen exempt from the law? Since arresting people and shooting people is most definitely "imposing their will on other humans". And when can they and when can they not impose their will on you? What is a crime in this society? If you smoke, can your neighbor call the police and say that he is troubled by your smoking and they should make you stop? Can they arrest you for this? What are punishments going to be? Will we pay taxes for jails or will we simply shoot any offender. If you never go to jail you should not have to pay for it right? Will the punishments be of an economic nature? What if i cant pay, do you squeeze all the money you can from me then? Wouldnt it be better for you to hire a private firm of policemen if you should ever need one? What if someone walks into court and says "I dont like the guy living next door to me so he should be removed"? Will the government come to your house and drag you away because your neighbor said you disturbed him in his life? What if your neighbor hates music and you play the violin? Will you have to let it rest in its case untill you move out of that area?

 

[crazy_vasey]

finally someone who understands the monarchy has no power! There are actually people on the net who think the queen has ultimate power in England.

Yeah well I didn't know that about America I meant columbus. Cromwell was an idiot but at least he started democracy in England his tactics are debatable but the results are good.

 

[Guest]

RE: Ahem !

Hi, raniE! How ya doing? Remember me from DAC? Been lurking around NMA for a bit and finally decided to join in and probably get my head handed to me on a platter. So, onward, thru the fog:

<<And where will the government get money from?>>

Any government must be financed. Large governments need a
lot of money. Consider in Canada that "Tax Freedom Day" is
June 30th. That is, it took until June 30th, 2000 for
Canadians to pay off the total 2000 tax bill imposed upon
them by all levels of government. A minimalist government
would require a very small outlay of public funds.

<< taxes?>>

Possibly taxes. Or perhaps wholly from "duties, imposts, and
excises" as per the US Constitution. Some studies I've seen indicate that, for the US,
a nationwide sales tax of 1 percent would be more than
enough for a minimalist government. And that would be
excluding food, clothing, shelter, and utilities. A sales
tax would have the benefit of not penalizing people who
save.

<<But if you are not molested by anyone (and own a gun if somewone should mess with you), always solve all disputes with people personally, and live in a country that is never invaded, then why bother?>>

For the deterrent effect necessary just so I won't need them.


<<Since you seem to think that you should not have to pay for things you dont need or use, then why would you pay the government money for a police force wich you will never need, a court that you will never need and a military that you will never need.>>

Same reason I pay for insurance, for protection in the event
that I do need them. And these three events (molestation,
invasion, and disputes), are the ones I wish the protection
against in the social contract.

<<Oh, and are policemen exempt from the law?>>

Aren't they now? Kill a regular citizen, your crime will be
assigned to a homicide detective. Kill a cop, and every law
enforcement officer in every jurisdiction for hundreds of
miles around will be searching ready to shoot you on sight.
You'll be lucky if you live long enough to bleed to death.
But actually, under a minimal government I would think the
police would have enormously higher morale and would be much
more efficient and less likely to go rogue. They'd
definitely know who the bad guys were. They wouldn't be
subject to being frustrated by the futile, never-ending tail chasing
of trying to fight victimless crimes like drugs and
prostitution.


<<Since arresting people and shooting people is most definitely "imposing their will on other humans".>>

People who break the laws of society are properly considered
outside the laws of society ("outlaws"). By seeking to
unlawfully impose their will on others, of course they are
now subject to being arrested and shot. (Well, arrested or
shot.) Lawbreakers lose their freedom of immunity, same as
now.

<<And when can they and when can they not impose their will on you?>>

Same as now. If you break the law, you're under arrest. If
you're law abiding, nothing; they just touch the bill of
their cap and say, "Good morning, citizen." (Well, okay,
maybe they don't do that last part now.)


<<What is a crime in this society?>>

Murder, rape, theft, all the basics most people agree are
crimes. What wouldn't be crimes would be such things as
prostitution, recreational drug use, homosexuality, suicide,
being different, or looking strange. "Do as thou wilt, but
first, harm none."

<<If you smoke, can your neighbor call the police and say that he is troubled by your smoking and they should make you stop?>>

Exactly how is that harming me? I've seen the Framlingham
study on second hand smoke and it just doesn't wash. One
age group out of a dozen studied shows some correlation if
you use just the right statistical analysis. Bad science. I
think I could use portions of the same data to prove second
hand smoke is good for you.

He's troubled, but is he harmed? In many societies today
yeah, if somebody is doing something that doesn't harm
anybody else (sunbathing in the nude in their backyard,
riding a motorcycle without a helmet, sawing the barrel off
a shotgun, taking a trip on LSD in the privacy of their own
home), people are troubled by it and have them arrested.


<<Can they arrest you for this?>>

No, they would not because you haven't actually harmed anyone.

I have to admit, though, that for those people that live
in perpetual fear that somewhere, somehow, someone is
actually having a good time, this form of
government would be a nightmare.

<<What are punishments going to be?>>

What are the punishments now? Fine and/or imprisonment.
Death in capital cases.

Or exile is one time-honored possibility. To save money, we
could just strap a parachute on them and dump them off over
Sweden.

<<Will we pay taxes for jails>>

Depends. I've seen government institutions where in the
past the work of the inmates actual paid for their own keep,
even made money. Forced inmate labor, however, was ruled
cruel and unusual. One institution I remember in particular
still had the old barns where cows were once kept and milked
and the coops where chickens were kept for their eggs, and
you could even see the places where the old pig pens were.
I understand they made push brooms, wooden pallets, coffins,
and, of course, license plates. They had an on-site
laundry, made their own clothes, and ran their own kitchen.
The last time I visited it seemed total anarchy, with
inmates just lounging around in groups all day, and sexual
activity taking place in just about every nook and cranny.


<<or will we simply shoot any offender.>>

True, you could save a bit more in taxes by eliminating the
judicial system, but, heck, let's give 'em all a nice fair
trial before we take 'em out and shoot 'em.

<<If you never go to jail you should not have to pay for it right?>>

Incorrect. The jails would be part of the law enforcement
and judicial system of a minimalist government, which I would
support as part of the minimal social contract since their
existence is necessary for the full practice of my own
freedom. But if prisons can be all or partially self-supporting, that's all to the good.


<<Will the punishments be of an economic nature?>>

Same as today, 90 days or $90. Take your pick.

<<What if i cant pay, do you squeeze all the money you can from me then?>>

If you can't pay your court fine in today's society what
happens? You go to jail. Used to be a day for every dollar
of fine.

<<Wouldnt it be better for you to hire a private firm of policemen if you should ever need one?>>

A lot of people obviously feel that it would be better already.
Businesses are protected by corporate security, the richest
have walls and bodyguards, the middle class buy home
security systems, and even the poorest can move into an
apartment complex with a security guard. (I note from
today's "Dallas Morning News" that a security guard at a
northeast Dallas apartment complex was killed yesterday
morning. Sad.) But perhaps people would feel safer if the
police weren't having to run around making sure that women
can't make monetary use of their sexual skills (You can do
it for free, girls. Just don't accept anything except cab
fare home.), or making sure people don't burn an ounce of
dried vegetation wrapped in a piece of paper (You can fill
the air with enough perfume, aftershave, air freshener, or
incense to make people's eyes water, just don't burn tobacco
or cannibis.)


<<What if someone walks into court and says "I dont like the guy living next door to me so he should be removed"?>>

Well, the judge says "There's no merit to this case," and
has them pay court costs.

<<Will the government come to your house and drag you away because your neighbor said you disturbed him in his life?>>

Of course not. Freedom to do as you wish (as long as you
don't harm others) doesn't mean you're free from being
disturbed by Joe's picking his teeth in public, or Jill's
irritating laugh, or Mike's stupid knock-knock jokes, or
Bill's just being a jerk. Of course, the way legislation is
being promulgated in today's society, Joe, Jill, and Mike
may find themselves in prison for that anyway. Bill,
however, would find a great future in government. Remember,
Locke's ideal emodied in the Declaration of
Independence is the right to pursue happiness, not the right
of happiness itself.


<<What if your neighbor hates music and you play the violin?>>

He can't do anything, just as if he couldn't do anything if
he hated blacks or whites, Jews or gentiles, Catholics or
Protestants, Christians or Pagans, etc. or etc., and you
were black, white, Jewish, gentile, etc., etc.


<<Will you have to let it rest in its case untill you move out of that area?>>

You are free to do as you wish as long as you do not harm
others. I could pop my bubble gum and drive you up the walls as long
as I wished (or as long as you hung around me), and you
could scratch yourself in inappropriate places and offend my
sensibilities to your heart's content. But if you stole my
saxophone or I tried to kill you for playing a tuba, well that's different.

Nice talking with you again. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Guest]

RE: Ahem !

Yeah i remember you CMCD, nice seeing you here. But lets get back to the discussion. Who draws the line between crime and not crime? If you live nextdoor to a guy who is very sensitive to high pitched sounds, can you still play high pitched sounds? If you did not know his ears would get hurt, is it still a crime? And what about the poor people, and the uneducated guy who cant get a job? Will they have any social security? And i am also for legalizing all drugs.

And about dropping people in Sweden, us swedes would just say:
-Need pass get inside, you no got pass, you no get inside. Understand?

 

[Guest]

>
>No quite.
>
>The monarchy is effectively powerless, the
>Queen speaks every now and
>then but seeing as it
>is written by the government,
>it seems pointless.
>
>As for America (not the USA
>but America), it was originally
>discovered by Irish monks (RA!)
>in the 5th century. There
>are actually records from when
>the Vikings found America of
>ancient Celtic rituals being performed.
>
>
>So screw Colombus, he was the
>3rd European race to reach
>America.

I can't remember when but didn't the Polynesians make it to America too? They were known for being able to make extremely long voyages (>1000 miles) because of extreme endurance capabilities.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

---

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]

 

[Guest]

>finally someone who understands the monarchy
>has no power! There
>are actually people on the
>net who think the queen
>has ultimate power in England.

That shrivled old prune with a flower-pot for a hat?

The Queen Mother's a bit nicer..

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

---

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]

 

[Guest]

><<I would maintain Aristotle's definition of a country, that it is not just a cluster of people living near each other, causing no harms to each other, and doing business, the purpose of a state is to "live well" and for citizens to take part in their state, whereby the state improves the quality of life for the citizen.>>
>
>But later in that same passage:
>"...the first care of him
>who would found a city,
>truly deserving that name, and
>not nominally so, must be
>to have his citizens virtuous."
> The thought of taking
>lessons on virtue from Clinton
>and Gingrich, or from Bush
>and Gore, is nauseating in
>the extreme. And again,
>who defines what is a
>virtue and will be mandated?
> And what is a
>vice and must be exturpated?

That's a problem with a lot of those Greek philosophers.. they never really define virtue.

However if I remember right, Aristotle stated that a virtuous leader is one who works for the good of the state, not for his own gain.

> I should be able
>to cultivate whatever virtue I
>think best. And I
>should be able to indulge
>whatever vice I so wish,
>as long as I do
>not harm anyone or their
>property.

From Fallout 2 (not exactly quoted): "70% of the populace doesn't care if the president is having extra-marital affairs and a whopping 60% of the populace said that if having extra-marital affairs helps him keep the country running, he should keep having them."

>
><< If you aren't trying to improve the quality of life, you are basically describing how nations work: They exist on this planet, they trade, and they're usually at peace.>>
>
>I take it you don't believe
>Clauswitz: Peace is merely
>the period of preparation for
>the next war?

1984: War is Peace.

It is pretty correct, it generates income for the country, it unites a nation for one cause, and prevents people from thinking about rebellion.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

---

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]

 

[Guest]

RE: Ahem !

<<Who draws the line between crime and not crime?>>

The original social contract (the constitution, whatever) would define the
self-evident crimes: murder, assault, theft, etc. The police would investigate,
and probably do a good deal better job than normal since they weren't chasing down
kids experimenting with junk like kids always do, or harassing some girls dancing
nekkid in front of some guys with testosterone poisoning. For stuff not covered
by the contract, the judiciary would have to come in and determine whether
some of the more weird and ambiguous cases were crimes based on the
question "Was harm done by this action?" Guilt by "Would a reasonable person
have realized that harm would be done by this action?" Then the punishment
would be determined by "How much harm was done by this action?"

<<If you live nextdoor to a guy who is very sensitive to high pitched sounds, can
you still play high pitched sounds? If you did not know his ears would get hurt, is
it still a crime?>>


Oh, that's a good one! That's pretty dicey even in most societies. You always
hear about this poor kid dying because he was allergic to peanuts and some
friend gave him a cookie made with peanut oil, or some lady dying because of a
bad reaction to cosmetics, or an old farmer dying cause his neighbor keeps
bees. With the lack of proof of malicious intent, I see no crime. Otherwise this
seems like one of those weird cases where you have to prove assault with a
piccolo, or a cookie, or a powder puff. I'm tempted to give the point to you on
this one, except it's hard to think of a society where a case like this wouldn't give
the authorities fits. Obviously, like the kid with the peanut allergy, the guy with
the sensitive ears is obligated to take special precautions in his life and living
arrangements. He'll have to do so all his life. To a large extent it would be his
responsibility to find an apartment house where leases forbid high-pitched
sounds, or a private gated neighborhood with rules about decibel levels. And
then wear ear plug filters when he went out. After all, if he lives in a city
with 999,999 other people, he can't reasonably expect everyone to know and/or
take special precautions just for him. But, yeah, if a neighbor knows he's
sensitive, and runs up on the sidewalk and blows a whistle in his ear with intent
to harm, that's a crime, same as if he grabbed a kid he knew was allergic to
peanuts and stuffed a peanut butter cookie down his throat. I know in today's
US society such a thing would be lawsuit time, with lawyers suing the
maufacturer of the whistle for selling the thing to the guy in the first place. Ugh!

<<And what about the poor people, and the uneducated guy who cant get a
job?>>

Someone said the poor will always be with us. The large bureaucratic structure that a bloated government produces sucks up much of a society's wealth. Even worse, the experiments social
engineers love to try on helpless citizens sap production as well. The slashing
of government would free up capital for investment as well as increase
production, generating more wealth, and more jobs. I note that Alan Greenspan,
architect of the booming economy of the US that has produced record levels of
employment, is an Objectivist. (Objectivism is a philosophy that advocates
minimal government.) He is so successful that previous unemployables, ex-cons
and even convicts still in jail, are readily snapped up by industry.

<<Will they have any social security?>>

Government run social security would be a thing of the past. The US system is a
con job anyway. If the pay-ins of the previous generations had been salted
away in long term investments, the system would be awash in money. Instead,
it's merely a pay as you go affair, with what you pay now being used to pay off
retirees. That's what happens when you let politicians get control of your
money. It just kinda vanishes into their pockets while they tell you how much
they're looking out for you. If you cut government taxes and social security,
suddenly everyone would have their paychecks almost double. (And also consider that employers in the US pay almost the same amount in employment taxes, etc., for each employee as the employee's salary itself.) They would be able to invest in insurance, pension funds, or make other provisions for
retirement on their own. Even with a simple savings account they'd make more
in interest than social security.

<<And i am also for legalizing all drugs.>>

Me too, obviously. Not that I partake myself, but hey, as long as they don't
bother me, why not? And they're far less likely to bother me by burgling my
house or stripping my car if a lid is a dollar and change rather than a hundred
bucks or so. No skin off my nose whether someone needs the occasional puff to
make it through the week, or else just wishes to commit suicide by inches.

<<And about dropping people in Sweden, us swedes would just say:
-Need pass get inside, you no got pass, you no get inside. Understand? >>

Hmmm... Obviously we'd have to insert them into Sweden a bit more discretely
than I thought. Perhaps send them in without the parachutes and hope they don't bounce too loudly...?


Thank you for the discussion.

 

[Guest]

<<I can't remember when but didn't the Polynesians make it to America too? They were known for being able to make extremely long voyages (>1000 miles) because of extreme endurance capabilities.>>

Yeah, Thor Heyerdahl proved that the journey could be made with ancient Polynesian boats. I liked his book about it, "Kon-Tiki", which pointed out similarities between Polynesian and pre-Columbian culture. Then he went and proved that an ancient Egyptian boat of papyrus reeds could make it as well. And wrote another book about it, "Ra" I think. And I also remember a black studies book that made the case (as well as any other such) that ancient African civilizations regularly made trade voyages between the narrow part of west Africa and South America. Then the Mormons' book of Moroni says that America is where one or two of the lost tribes of Israel ended up. The continent seems to have been a popular place for ancient tourists.

 

[Guest]

RE: Ahem !

>I would think that the police
>force under a minimalist government
>would be far better able
>to defend me than the
>cops in a society where
>they have the additional duties
>of making sure that everyone
>wears seat belts while driving,
>that people can't have sex
>how they wish, that people
>don't destroy themselves with drugs,
>and otherwise in general making
>sure that everyone's noses and
>posteriors get wiped for them.

If you eliminate oppression to drugs you've solved about 70% of the policing problems. The "war" on drugs is what makes policing forces so bloated, not preventing people from having sex on your street or forcing people to wear seat belts.

Laws are not developed by a machine, they are devised by the public opinion of what laws should be put into place. Ideally laws are made to give the most people the most satisfactory life possible. Without laws you are left to the whims of mob rule, because that is the only regulating factor left.

You speak of laws as if they're an extreme damper on your life. Let me ask you something, would you be happy if there were no laws regulating speed limits in residential zones? How would you like some punks speeding down your street every night at a hundred miles per hour?

How about seat belts as you used in your example? They're not designed to inconvinience you, they're meant to save lives. In the 1950s cars had no seat belts, and it resulted in lots of fatalities, later seatbelts were added and more lives were saved. Now we have airbags.

Seatbelt laws aren't so much to protect the person driving the car, but more to protect the passengers, especially children riding in a vehicle. Everyone knows that a child will not wear a seatbelt if they don't have to, what happens when the car collides with another and the children are thrown out?

Is it a "right" to allow your children to die?

How about people using drugs? I agree that drugs should be permitted in safe isolated rooms inside a drug building, it would cut crime to essentially zero (compared to pre-anti-drug law) and let the druggies concentrate on other things instead of their next high. However I do not believe people should be allowed to wander around high on something like PCP or LSD. Drugs should be controlled, not banned.

In fact that is how government should be, full *control*, no banning or deregulation. Either of those leave it to the mob to decide what happens.

><<It is a reason why people who are so-called "Anarchists" have no clue as to what they're talking about. >>
>
>
>Not quite sure why you equate
>minimal government/maximum freedom with anarchy.
> Perhaps you misunderstand me,
>or else I haven't made
>myself clear. In any
>case, when anarchists are forced
>into the real world they
>always "wobble" (Political science in-joke.)
>and compromise the purity of
>their ideals, whether it's Proudhon's
>Mutualists or the Spanish and
>Italian Syndicalists. Indeed the
>anarchist enclaves that came to
>power in various regions of
>Spain during the 30s quickly
>abandoned all their rhetoric and
>simply got down to forming
>"temporary" governments so they could
>execute all their enemies.
>If you have a different
>definition of anarchy (Godwin's?
>Bakunin's?), I would be interested
>in hearing it. I
>would define anarchy as the
>absence of government, though if
>you want to stir up
>an argument amongst anarchists, you
>can also define it as
>an absence of state.

I follow that definition. I maintain that anarchy can't exist in any form, that these "anarchist" who promote "anarchy now" and other such crap are just trendy individuals who don't even know what their "new order" would actually be, or could not be.

>Precisely! Every engineer knows that
>any system will not always
>work, that what's perfect in
>theory probably will not work
>perfectly in practice. To
>deal with that reality a
>competent engineer will make sure
>that the system has as
>few moving parts as possible.
> The less parts you
>have, the less chance of
>failure. (And the easier
>to repair it.) A
>minimalist government, whose primary duties
>involve a police force for
>protection of life and property,
>a military for security against
>foreign agression, and a judical
>system for redress of disputes,
>is far more likely to
>function as required than a
>bloated government that tries to
>be all things to all
>people, that tries to make
>society perfect and efficient when
>both society and government are
>composed of imperfect and inefficient
>humans.

But you're describing a system much like the United States at the turn of the 20th century. There were two major classes: the super rich and the poor laborer.

In those times there was child labor, an 80 hour week for some people, no healthcare, no industry worker standards, and no market regulations. It was only with the creation of government programs and standards that the quality of life for the average individual changed.

So are you saying you want old-style government where the average citizen is subjected the the whims of the market society? Do you want an unregulated economy where there are a few rich people and a huge mass of perpetually poor people? What good are your freedoms if your life is so miserable you can't enjoy them?

>I would take it that you're
>an adherent of Hobbes rather
>than Locke, except that one
>of your other threads indicate
>you may be influenced more
>by Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics".
>Correct? If either
>is true we can't help
>but eventually have a philosophical
>deadlock. But to continue:
> Locke views freedom and
>rights as natural to the
>human condition, but due to
>the fact that humans have
>found it necessary (or instinctual,
>if you would prefer) to
>band together, a social contract
>(government) must be formed.
>In the social contract members
>of society voluntarily give up
>some of their natural freedom
>and rights so as to
>live together in harmony.
>I'd rather the social contract
>be one or two sheets
>of paper rather than umpteen
>dozen volumes which includes one
>whole book mandating how citizens
>shall brush their teeth and
>clip their toenails.

The less regulated a society is, the greater the extremes. In an unregulated society you don't have average citizens who are living well, you have extremely well off people, and those who are suffering at the expense of those well off people. Regulations stabilize a society.

Do you think Americans would be paying a standard $20/month for phone bills if the US Government didn't break up the Bell monopoly? Do you think you'd even have healthcare if the standard wasn't imposed by the government? How about the required car insurance for the guy who crashed into your car?

><<The government *protects* your rights, and the only way it can do that is by being strong.>>
>
>
>A minimal government can be strong
>in the functions it is
>designed to do. All
>it would have to do
>would be to protect me
>from others seeking to impose
>their will upon me, take
>my life, or steal my
>property (and of course keep
>me from doing the same
>to others), and keep the
>foreign hordes at bay.
>Indeed, I would think that
>the piling on of additional
>functions would make the government
>weaker, especially if those functions
>are thought up by social
>theorists seeking to make everything
>"better" and "safer". The
>law of unintended consequences would
>just about guarantee it.

The government does make life a lot safer. Under your system, what is to prevent your neighbor from dumping car oil into the gutter system? How about if the person in the house next to you decides to build a meth lab? "Theoretically" that house could explode at any minute taking yours down with it, but who's to say whether that will happen or not?

What if some pimp decides to solicit his prostitutes in your child's school yard? How about in front of your house but technically on the street?

And how about when there's a huge blizzard but since you've elected to leave the state out of clearing the streets, and while you've hired a plow to clear out your section of the street, the rest of the roads are plugged up because these people telecommute? What then? Are you to spend your money to clear their roads also?

><<Therefore your government would take a great part in your daily life.>>
>
>
>Ugh! Why must it destroy
>my freedom in order to
>save it? In a
>society with minimal government it
>could be possible for a
>citizen to spend his/her entire
>life with little interaction with
>the government.

What was meant by that is that the government takes a part in your life because it has to enforce all the rights granted to you. The government prevents a gang from forcing you to pay tribute, it ensures that even the Ku Klux Klan can speak its mind, it ensures that your streets are safe.

>A government
>should only protect me from
>others, not my own folly.

But that's what laws do anyway. The laws were written to protect the individuals who voted for the law, from what the law prohibits. People don't want to see druggies on the street, they don't want people having sex on a park bench, they don't want prostitutes roaming their neighborhood. Not wearing a seat belt and dying because of it affects your children. The government is doing exactly what you are describing, it's protecting others from what you think is perfectly fine to do.

>Thank you for the discussion.

No thank you, because you proved my point.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

---

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]