Socialism and the purpose of government

[bripat9643]

Being a resident of the Untied States is entirely voluntary.

No...REMAINING a resident is "voluntary". Being a resident happened without regard to our free will.

I think that is the main hang up between you two.

.

Fair point. Odd though as much as these people seem to think it sucks here under such an oppressive government that they do not leave for somewhere better...it is almost as if there is not somewhere better.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Even if there is nowhere better, that doesn't make our government just or fair. 1000 years ago there was nowhere better than Medieval Europe. Do you believe we should go back to that?

 

[bripat9643]

Again, anarchy is the absence of government, which if the organized monopoly on the use of force. According to your definition, a boy scout troop is a government.

Wrong. Geronimo was not the head of government. No one had to do what he said.

A boy scout troop is a form government, there are leaders and there are rules to be followed if you wish to remain in the troop.

The same conditions existed under Geronimo.

wrong. Being a member of a scout troop is entirely voluntary. It's not government in the formal sense.

Being a resident of the Untied States is entirely voluntary.

Wrong.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Government is the organized monopoly on the use of force. Anything else is not government.

I don't agree with this definition, but let's run with it.

A horde of raiders is a group with the organized monopoly on the use of force, right?

Chiefs did not have the power to force anyone to do anything. Their directions were followed out of respect for their wisdom.

No, but the tribe did. They followed directions out of respect, but also out of social pressure, which is really what? The threat of the use of force.

EACH individual has the power of force against all others. There can NEVER be a monopoly on the use of force. Thus, there can never be government. That is why your definition fails.

.

 

[bripat9643]

Being a resident of the Untied States is entirely voluntary.

No...REMAINING a resident is "voluntary". Being a resident happened without regard to our free will.

I think that is the main hang up between you two.

.

The hangup is that GG is a douche who wants to use a thug's definition of the term "voluntary."

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Right. it's "voluntary" in the same sense that handing your wallet over to a mugger is "voluntary" and paying protection money to Guido the leg breaker is "voluntary." We've already discussed your criminal's definition of the term.

Not the same at all. If you choose not to give your wallet you face the chance of violence being used against you. If you choose to not be a resident of the United States and leave the country ,nobody will care, nobody will try and stop you and hell I might even buy your plane ticket for you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Fair point. Odd though as much as these people seem to think it sucks here under such an oppressive government that they do not leave for somewhere better...it is almost as if there is not somewhere better.

So, what you are really arguing is that we should be happy with what we have, and never try to improve it? Just accept the shit we eat or go eat shit elsewhere because America's shit doesn't taste as bad?

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Again, anarchy is the absence of government, which if the organized monopoly on the use of force. According to your definition, a boy scout troop is a government.

Wrong. Geronimo was not the head of government. No one had to do what he said.

A boy scout troop is a form government, there are leaders and there are rules to be followed if you wish to remain in the troop.

The same conditions existed under Geronimo.

wrong. Being a member of a scout troop is entirely voluntary. It's not government in the formal sense.

Being a resident of the Untied States is entirely voluntary.

Wrong.

who is keeping you here?

Who is stopping you from leaving?

 

[bripat9643]

Government is the organized monopoly on the use of force. Anything else is not government.

I don't agree with this definition, but let's run with it.

A horde of raiders is a group with the organized monopoly on the use of force, right?

No.

Chiefs did not have the power to force anyone to do anything. Their directions were followed out of respect for their wisdom.

No, but the tribe did. They followed directions out of respect, but also out of social pressure, which is really what? The threat of the use of force.

High school kids follow directions out of social pressure. A highschool clique is not government.

EACH individual has the power of force against all others. There can NEVER be a monopoly on the use of force. Thus, there can never be government. That is why your definition fails.

.

Wrong.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So, what you are really arguing is that we should be happy with what we have, and never try to improve it? Just accept the shit we eat or go eat shit elsewhere because America's shit doesn't taste as bad?

.

No, what I am arguing is that shit is not as bad as you all want to make it out to be.

But in reality, what are any of you doing about it other than bitching on an internet forum?

 

[Oddball]

 

[bripat9643]

Again, anarchy is the absence of government, which if the organized monopoly on the use of force. According to your definition, a boy scout troop is a government.

Wrong. Geronimo was not the head of government. No one had to do what he said.

A boy scout troop is a form government, there are leaders and there are rules to be followed if you wish to remain in the troop.

The same conditions existed under Geronimo.

wrong. Being a member of a scout troop is entirely voluntary. It's not government in the formal sense.

Being a resident of the Untied States is entirely voluntary.

Wrong.

who is keeping you here?

Who is stopping you from leaving?

Someone is taking my money if I decline to leave. How is that any different than a mugging?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Somalia is the current example of a nation with no central government.

If not having a central government is the solution too all our problems, why is Somalia such a shithole?

You are mistakenly assuming that Somalia's problems are cause by a lack of a central government. That is high unfounded assumption.

Somalia is a shit hole because the people there are uneducated as fuck and have no concept of self-government or liberty. They have lived for thousands of years being ruled by thug war lords. They have little or no frame of reference and most see no value in education. Somalia is simply living out its past. That place has never changed.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Someone is taking my money if I decline to leave. How is that any different than a mugging?

nobody will take your money if you choose to leave, you are welcome to take it all with you. Hell, you could go a few years without paying a dime in income tax, saving all that money and then leave with even more money.

Trust me, nobody really wants you here

 

[dblack]

Being a resident of the Untied States is entirely voluntary.

This perspective, when offered up as an excuse or authoritarian government, makes as much sense as telling the victim of a mugging that their decision to hand over their wallet was entirely voluntary.

Again, anarchy is the absence of government, which if the organized monopoly on the use of force. According to your definition, a boy scout troop is a government.

Wrong. Geronimo was not the head of government. No one had to do what he said.

A boy scout troop is a form government, there are leaders and there are rules to be followed if you wish to remain in the troop.

The same conditions existed under Geronimo.

wrong. Being a member of a scout troop is entirely voluntary. It's not government in the formal sense.

Being a resident of the Untied States is entirely voluntary.

Submitting to the authority of government is not voluntary. It's not a club you join. It's a claim of power over you. You can choose to accept, fight it or flee - but you can't just ignore it.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You are mistakenly assuming that Somalia's problems are cause by a lack of a central government. That is high unfounded assumption.

I did not make that assumption, I just pointed out the facts.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The debate over whether we should have more, or less, socialism in US government is largely a debate over the purpose of government. Socialists "believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically". That might sound relatively innocuous. But it's a radical claim, one we should consider seriously before indulging a more socialistic government.

The libertarian roots of the United States contradict this belief. In the US, neither society, nor the economy, is run democratically. Each is run collaboratively, voluntarily, by the individuals who make up society. Government merely serves as a "referee". Socialists want government to be the "coach".

The Purpose of our Federal Government:

"in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Limited socialism can be justified as a method of establishing economic Justice, and promoting the general welfare. It can also be justified as securing Liberty, since capitalism leads to defacto slavery.

Any other dumb questions?

When you put a qualifier in front of the word "justice," it changes the meaning to "injustice."

Note, the Founding Fathers said "justice," not "economic justice."

The rest of your post is even more absurd.

'Justice' is a very general word. There is no reason to believe that it should be limited to just one category of Justice.

Economic justice is just one of many categories of justice that should be protected by the federal government.

Are you against economic justice?

 

[bripat9643]

Right. it's "voluntary" in the same sense that handing your wallet over to a mugger is "voluntary" and paying protection money to Guido the leg breaker is "voluntary." We've already discussed your criminal's definition of the term.

Not the same at all. If you choose not to give your wallet you face the chance of violence being used against you. If you choose to not be a resident of the United States and leave the country ,nobody will care, nobody will try and stop you and hell I might even buy your plane ticket for you.

If I choose to stay, then some thugs will use guns to take my property. That isn't voluntary. You're arguing that limiting my choices to the two you want to impose on me means it's voluntary. That's the same choice mugger gives you, exactly. Voluntary is where you can choose to leave and take your wallet with you. Only a colossal dumbass would fail to understand that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Not the same at all. If you choose not to give your wallet you face the chance of violence being used against you.

That would be armed robbery, right?

If you choose to not be a resident of the United States and leave the country ,nobody will care, nobody will try and stop you and hell I might even buy your plane ticket for you.

And, nobody will be forcing you to stay here when we put down this 80+ year communist revolution and 150+ year usurpation of power over state sovereignty.

That is the weakest argument you have mead.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This perspective, when offered up as an excuse or authoritarian government, makes as much sense as telling the victim of a mugging that their decision to hand over their wallet was entirely voluntary.

I went over this with someone else, if you choose to leave, nobody will stop you. nobody will give a rats ass.

That is the difference between choosing to be a resident of the country and a mugging