| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Top 50 Atheism Quotes | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 30 2009, 09:46 PM (1,027 Views) | |
| ngc1514 | Jun 4 2009, 09:32 PM Post #31 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Chris, perhaps I'm missing something here (probably am), but I've yet to see any real benefit of your system over what we have now. Such a system might be possible in a nation moving from totalitarianism towards, for lack of a better word, freedom, but the fact that such a system has not evolved over the history of man makes me wonder why not. I don't see many people willing to give up protection by law and community sponsored enforcement over the private enforcement you visualize. How do you see unions fitting into this scheme? |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jun 4 2009, 10:07 PM Post #32 |
|
Deleted User
|
If you're missing something it's all me. As I pointed out, I've never had to argue or explain all this, piecemeal, yes, here and there, but not all in one place. I doubt I'm adequate to the job, though I enjoy the challenge. One benefit would be savings. We pay for protection and enforcement now. We pay government, which is one of the most inefficient means of accomplishing anything--just observe a crew working on a highway, did I say working, most are supervising, one or two are shoveling. Private protection and enforcement will be more efficient for the simple reason they will have to compete, and one way companies compete is by increasing efficiency to reduce costs. I doubt even many libertarians would actually, if given the choice, choose anarcho-capitialism over what we have. A majority right now seem happy dependent on coercive government, and wish to see it grow even more. So the point of arguing for anarcho-capitalism is not so much to transform society but to reform it in the direction of less government and more liberty. Still, we do have anarcho-capitalism operating Internationally. And there are better arguments for adopting such a system, perhaps, for third world nations with predatory governments. |
|
|
| ngc1514 | Jun 6 2009, 01:54 AM Post #33 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Political theory makes my head hurt, Chris and I've not been as attentive to your postings as I might have been.
Coercive government can be changed *IF* the will is there to do so. I think the Libertarians have a good idea, but need to start working from the ground up and stop wasting money on national elections. Liberty - true liberty - is a scary thing and most Americans believe in the freedom to do what they wish to do, but not necessarily extend that right to what the neighbor wants to do. As soon as you impose rule of law you lessen the freedom of a people. Every law marks the reduction of a freedom to act or do. From the biggies in the Ten Commandments to the aggravation of a homeowners association... each takes liberty away from each of us. The problem is finding a happy balance between what individuals can do and what the law allows them to do. Government is, as far as I've seen, the best tool to accomplish that task. I would expect the corporate structure - which in most major corporations looks a lot like governmental structure - in your anarcho-capitalist society would look as it does today. There may be a lesson in that conjecture.... |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Jun 6 2009, 10:02 PM Post #34 |
|
Deleted User
|
That's libertarian, not Libertarian. I joined the party when they were a loose knot collection of local parties, but quit when they went national. I think they should run nationally, just to get the message out, but otherwise think you're right, it has to be working locally, from just talking to people, to getting involved in local politics. It's sort of contradictory to be libertarian and seek office. Liberty must be limited to be possessed, argued Edmund Burke. It has to be viewed as a responsibility. And you must have law, but you don't need government to enforce it, at least not "public" government when "private" will do. And don't apologize, you challenged me to the point I struggled to come up with answers, and admit my answers weren't adequate. I don't view forum discussion as winning or losing. It's an exchange where, just like in the market, everyone who contributes ought to get something out of it. What bothers me about breeze is not so much his believes as his unwillingness to engage in discussion. Mike is a drive by discusser, willing to say what he thinks but unwilling to really look at what others say. Over on the regular "political" forum there are too many like that, and you get too many dissembling and playing gotcha. It's getting old, especially when try to engage is discussion, presenting knowledge, actually arguing are made into negatives. |
|
|
| Deleted User | Jun 6 2009, 10:44 PM Post #35 |
|
Deleted User
|
Just a thought: An anarchist is to government what an atheist is to religion. |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic » |






![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



12:40 AM Jul 14
