A Peaceful non-violent society is inevitable

There also seems to be nothing to stop a private militia from using force to occupy territory, enslave people, etc, etc. He seems to think that as soon as government is gone, everyone will get along and live together peacefully because.... well he hasn't actually explained this part, but, you know, liberalobamacommunists.

 

Oh, yeah, Right...

I NEVER said killing or sttealing someones property is wrong. You Liberal Obama commmunists need to stop assuming, and actually read a full post of mine..

I've said it's still illegal to cause harm. The ONLY difference is, we wouldn't have a gang of thugs specifically designed to cause crimes, kill people and maintain control over property that doesn't belong to them.


That's the funniest part about their garbage. You're endorsing a system of force, that pushes force every single day, due to fear of something that hasn't even happened.

 

Force upon others to gain what they want is the standard human condition. It's going on before our very eyes as we speak. The more things change, the more they remain the same. There can be NO argument to this. Past beaviour predicts future behavior. Doesn't matter who is ëlected"here. The game continues.

 

I hope that you missed a word here...

 

Oh, come on. I can't argue against Force on peaceful people with no valid reason, because itt is the "Human Condition??"

Well,I disagree. Government's had to lie to us, throughout history, calling themselves Gods etc. to get the people to allow them to maintain control.


My other problem, is a majority of what they do, hurt people far more than they help them. This goes for taxes, the Drug War.

I don't understand how you Liberals place no blame on Government, to the extent where you want only Government, and more Government..

Despite the argument that Government does some "good," I utterly disagree with the premise...

so now, you're using Human Nature as a defense?? Why not kill, steal and, rape people then? I mean, idiots have been doing it thousands of years. Doesn't that automatically make it Human Nature, and that automatically deems it ok???

 

I think that you're completely missing his argument. I believe that his point was that, in your libertarian 'utopia', there would be nothing to stop people from using force against peaceful people to get what they want. If you think that it is bad now, I think that it would be much worse without any sort of government or accountability (and before you snap on this, I'm not saying I think things in the US are good now, just that your ideas would make it even worse).

Could you point to where 'us Liberals' have stated that Government is not to blame for any of the problems that you're talking about? I don't think you'll find a single person on this forum that agrees with the war on drugs, yet you love to insinuate that we are all in favour of everything that the US government does.

You seem to think that, left alone, people would just automatically be peaceful and that the free market would take care of everything, but you have not, to my knowledge, explained how disputes about property or behaviour would be handled. What happens when someone sexually assaults someone else, or kills them? Is there a punishment? Who administers the punishment? Who makes sure that the punishment is fair?

If the US turned into your ideal society tomorrow, what makes you think that those who already have incredible amounts of wealth and power will not just use their wealth and power to take control of our society? The only way I can see your system having any chance of working is if there is an equal redistribution of wealth beforehand, so that everyone is able to enter the market from an equal starting point (something that I assume you would be against).

 

No, I know what you're saying. Butt, it's based on illogical assumptions and fear.

here would be ways of protection; However, all you liberals refuse o acknowledge anything except Government as being the solution.

I wasn't missing a word, I was being sarcastic,cause I have said specifically, you cant cause harm on anyone. Read back a little bit. I even explained how we'd have more protection, than under the current system of Government.


But, I wouldn't expect one of the Queens subjects to want freedom over a false sense of Goverenment "security"

You liberals, as much as you deny it, are saying people can't live together peacefully, without pointing guns at each other. and, to me, that's just fear mongering rhetoric...

 

If there are ways to ensure protection, can you please explain them to me? Or point me to a post where you have done so previously? You claim that we 'liberals' think that there is no solution other than government, yet you have yet to present an alternative outside of your vague idealogy of deregulation and privatization of every aspect of our lives. It seems to me that you're just trying to avoid answering my questions, but I'd like you to prove me wrong and answer them.

Are there any examples of societies that have been completely peaceful without any sort of organizing structure or governing body? I can't think of any. Much like I have been unable to find an example of a state/nation/group that has lived under a completely free market.

 

Because it still wouldn't be acceptable to kill people. I don't know what you Liberals think would happen. But, I specifically said you still can't hurt or kill anyone.

Now, Let's say for some reason a corporation exceeds their authority, and tries to hurt someone, or steal their property. They'd still be brought before a jury, like anyone else, and be tried. I said corporations who kill and steal, would be jailed.

These are things, many corporations are immune to get in trouble for today.Btw, everyone has moral authority over their property. You have to protect your property, because the Government doesn't do that anyway. Cops only show up after a crime is committed.

Besides, I don't see where you Liberals come off thinking the Government is protecting us now.

You talk about "private militias," but, what's the difference between a corporation running a small army,and, Corporations running Government, who own the ONLY army. (who are also the only citizens who are allowed to obtain automatic weapons.)

The problems we are witnessing, comes from corporations running the Government. But, it stems from having a lawless power structure they can abuse.

 

So you think we should continue to have a judicial system then?

Also, who will fund the prison system? Will we collect a tax for it?

 

Exactly what I was going to ask. You seem to think that these things will just exist, but they need to be paid for somehow.

From what I can tell, you want the benefits of government (a judicial system, laws/legislation, prisons, etc.) without having to pay for it, and without actually calling it 'government'.

 

No, this is a typical Liberal defense of saying that "some" force is mandatory, and I flatly disagree.


Even the things you think the Government should do for people (tthis is an assumption, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is 99% of Liberals)
Epa,fda, foodstamps, Cia, FBI, The Federal Reserve and the federal Government. This, is accepting a majority of the problems we have. For obne thing, you're support force on 313 million people by forcing payment and compliance. What happens if I don't want/need government services, and I stop paying taxes? Men come to my house, with guns and forcibly remove me from my life.

The Epa and fda are known to take bribes, and enforce policies with an agenda.

Foodstamps is theft. It is stealing money from everyone, to help people who in many states are unable to work or go to school, or they'll be cut off from their benefits. Charities and private corporations could do the same thing, without any force or coersion, and, with little-no embezzlement. (because that would be theft.)

The cia is very corrupt. They've attempted mind control techniques on the public. They've overthrown democratically elected leaders, and replaced them with Dictators. The FBI allows their agents to commit 19 CRIMES a day to allegedly "stop crime," and, have manufacture 20 out of the past 40 "terrorists." Going to mentally-ill muslims, and, telling them they are al qaeda, and to blow up buildings, even giving them bombs, JUST to arrest them for it.

The Federal Reserve is a private bank, who is allowed to print money at will. Their banker buddies, are allowed to multiply their money 10X, which would be a crime for anyone else.

accepting all this, and, the Federal Government, is simply not advocating any kind of change. I'm sorry, but all these things represent the force I oppose completely. and, I'm really not sorry, because I feel people have been so conditioned to accept the problem as the solution, no matter how much it fails...

But, you're saying a case to case basis, based on the Governments will alone.

I'm willing to admit there is some good things they do, but those things can all be taken over by private industries and, charities, who do not have power OVER people, they are only used to make life easier.

this is the essence of Liberal fallacies, you admit Government has a problem enforcing their own laws, but, instead of admitting they work with the Corporations, you claim the problem is not having enough Government.

That goes back to what Ron Paul said "The only way the Government could keep everyone safe, is having a surveillance camera and, cop in everyone's home, but then, the american people would be the real victim"

we pay 600 million dollars per year to OSHA, first of all. and, you're using one example of them punishing a company for not storing food properly. What was the problem? was it less than 9" from the ground?

Either way, it's obviously not the problem of the Corporation as a whole, but more the problem of a reckless franchise owner, and/or manager.

No, it didn't. You had other options, that you chose not to do. You could've called the News papers, posted your experience on the internet and/or protest their practices. You chose Government force. You didn't "need" it.

 

Well, it wouldn't be Government. and, when you understand the free market, you understand it will exist regardless. When there is an overwhelming need for something, corporations step up, and create it. We already have more then enough prisons to arrest only violent criminals. Today, america has the most overcrowded prisons in the world, and, it is not due to violence, as violent crimes have gone down a whopping 48% since 1993

But, rather, it is due to non-violent victimless crimes. Like Drugs.

 

The reason we have a government-run welfare state in capitalist countries is because, prior to this, voluntary associations were not able to provide sufficient relief, and people pressured their governments into providing relief programs in order to attempt to ensure that everyone had food to eat and a roof over their heads (particularly during the "bust" portion of a boom and bust capitalist economy). Why would voluntary groups of private citizens be more likely to meet the needs of everyone now, when they could not do it in the past?

Just because the American welfare state is broken (in my opinion, due to the neoliberal policies beginning in the 1980s and continuing to the present day), does not mean that it cannot be fixed. It has worked better in America in the past, and has worked even better than that in many other capitalist countries (my own, as an example - although ours has suffered from the same sorts of neoliberal policies).

The biggest myth of capitalism is that anyone who wants a job can find one. This has never truly been the case. The truth of a capitalist economy is that there will always be unemployment. The only time that we really have seen full employment has been during wartime, when the government controlled a lot of the means of production and many people were overseas fighting, which freed up jobs for those who stayed behind. Since we know that there will always be a segment of the population that will be unemployed in a capitalist system, it seems only fair to tax the capitalists and use that revenue to pay for relief programs for the significant amount of people who will not be able to find work.

 

So, who would make the laws? Who would choose a jury? Who would maintain the building in which the trial was to take place? Who would make sure the accused actually showed up to their trial? Who would determine that they had broken the law in the first place?

How would all of this be paid for? Please, answer this question, because I (and I suspect many others here) really don't understand how this would work in your society.

 

I am all for legalizing drugs for personal use. Let people do whatever they want to with, to and for "their own bodies". I don't give a shit....It is drunken drivers that kill innocent people sometimes....and I am against drug dealers selling to minors, so somehow that does have to be monitored.

 

Firstly, I'm an ex-libertarian. Today, I'm an anarchist. In a way yes, and, in a way no. Do we think cops should be patrolling the streets and harassing people for money? No. But we do believe in private security, so people can protect themselves and their property. If you kill or steal, you're giving up your Right to live freely.

In large cities, I think it would work perfectly. In smaller towns, I think volunteers and citizens could find a peaceful way to take care of it.

Well, with less taxes and burdens on the middle class/poor, they will be able to save their money, start a business, or invest their money. This would cause a boom in our economy, because everyone would have much more money to spend. There would also be more businesses, some of which is unconventional. (Drugs and prostitution) But, it is the Libertarian ideal that people own themselves, and it isn't within the Government's authority to tell them what they can and can't do with their body.

But, a middle class comes from Capitalism. The middle class wasn't struggling in the 50's, but since then,, Government has branched off into nearly every aspect of our life, and has printed massive amounts of fiat money. I think getting rid of the corrupt institutions, will allow the middle class to flourish again

 

With all the money we waste on Government, there would be plenty for everyone to eat and live. The thing Liberalism fails to realize, is that these people make their own choices.

Many bums and, poor people don't get ahead because they drink and use drugs, instead of working and gathering money. and, yes they should be free to do that, but, it shouldn't be forced on everyone, to pay for other peoples mistakes.It's not my responsibility to keep people from starving, anymore than it's the taxpayers responsibility to bailout the banks... you have a moral obligation to help someone, when you see someone in need.

I had a friend in NY, who made more from Foodstamps than a full-time job. Foodstamps encourage dependency, and they create a lack of work ethic in the society...

 

right, I agree....if people want to be drop out losers, I don't want to pay for it either any more than i want to pay for people having children they cannot afford.

 

and I am for heavier borders....Hell, other countries do not have a free for all....do they?.....so I guess that is not too liberal in my thinking, is it?