Its disgusting, it really is.

POSTED BY: Smartbutdumbblonde
UPDATED: Friday, August 4, 2006 05:13
VIEWED: 6387
PAGE 3 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ntlzyjstdntcare:
Well, the idea behind a country where everyone. isn't. armed. is that they don't have guns, and then you don't need a gun to fight them, and everyone is a lot safer.

The key word here is "everyone." Someone always ends up being armed, whether it is the police or the military or thugs who don't care about the law.
And they inevitably get paid by rich and powerful people to oppress poor people.

And if you have absolutely no one armed in your country, someone with arms will take it away from you--and there is nothing you can do about it.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NTLZYJSTDNTCARE

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 2:55 PM

Well, in Ireland the government is armed, the police are armed, and some criminals are armed. But I've only seen a gun once or twice, and nobody here walks around in fear of being shot.

I know there are different situations in different countries, but just so you know that you don't need guns

not lazy just don't care (about anything but Firefly)

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 3:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ntlzyjstdntcare:
but just so you know that you don't need guns

Respectfully, I think you do NEED guns if you don't want to be oppressed by the Irish government, Irish police, and Irish criminals.

The truth is, most people don't mind doing without a few freedoms if they have enough to eat and a place to live. It's not worth an armed revolution over. Moreover, most people prefer it this way--they don't want to bother with guns and protecting themselves. It is their right to choose.

Frem and I were talking about an ideal situation that *we* would prefer, if we could start from scratch (as opposed to taking over a current system).

Thomas Hobbes is famous for his secular justifications for monarchy/govt. He felt it is better for violence (weapons) to come from one concentrated source than for violence to come from a lot of tiny, different sources. I don't agree with his conclusion, but I think his definition of government is brilliant. In other words, govt is force in one big denomination and freedom is force in small denominations. You're gonna get violence either way.

I would rather deal with the occassional psycho with the gun than a government sending tens of thousands of young people to war.

So if I were to create a ideal country, I'd spread the force amongst everyone rather than have it centralized in one or two sources. It is just a lot harder to corrupt all individuals with weapons than it is corrupt one or two groups with weapons.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CITIZEN

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I consider myself a free market capitalist. (REAL free market capitalism, not this fake shit we have now where greed climbs in bed with the law and calls their dirty little deals deregulation.) And I don't argue that a true free market is a shitty way to live.

Do you mean you don't agree? Not sure because the sentence works either way but the sentiment changes dramatically. If you don't argue that a free market system is a shitty way to live you're saying it is, but to you that is more preferable to living in a society that curbs your freedoms somewhat for the good of the group.

If you have too many laws, too many regulations you've curbed freedom to much, if you have none at all you end up at the same point, but from a different path.

In your anarchistic scenario the 'Ranch Burgess' with the biggest gun and the meanest nastiest streak would rule, and in the real world they don't get beat by do gooders that then leave you to return to your own ends, they get beaten by a bigger meaner nastier 'war lord'.

And lest we forget Mal’s ethos of allowing a man to go his own way is in direct conflict to how he runs his ship, it’s a dictatorship pure and simple, because if everyone was able to go their own way on Serenity the ship would fall apart.

That sort of system is in direct contradiction to the strong defending the weak, one of the basic laws of Human behaviour without which we wouldn't have survived long enough to walk erect let alone come up with ideas like anarchy.

Like Communism has been shown to work exceedingly well in small groups, such a (lack of) governing mentality may work in small groups, like a commune of less than one hundred individuals who all share a similar outlook and goal. If however you have individuals that have different outlooks and different goals you'll find the ethos collapsing quite quickly into groups of like minded individuals literally warring for control I think.

And if you DO have every one of like mind and goals surely it would be more correct to call that system some kind of loosely governed socialism?

Edit:
Just too add:
The problem with the pretty much anarchistic system you speak of is (unless you control who takes part, in which case it isn't anarchy, it would be *almost* fascism) is that power *WILL* concentrate in to war lords, and there is little to nothing you can do about it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 4:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If you don't argue that a free market system is a shitty way to live you're saying it is, but to you that is more preferable to living in a society that curbs your freedoms somewhat for the good of the group.

Correct.

Quote:
In your anarchistic scenario the 'Ranch Burgess' with the biggest gun and the meanest nastiest streak would rule, ...they get beaten by a bigger meaner nastier 'war lord'.

Bullies with big guns are inevitable. In our society, that warlord is called govt. In an anarchy, that warlord is called, uh warlord. The difference is in my scenario is that everyone else will be armed enough to put up a reasonable fight against the Ranch Burgesses. Govt is a monopoly of force. Freedom is that force divided in smaller denominations. Sure, some of those smaller denominations will be bigger than others. But none of them will be as big as a monopoly, by definition.

Quote:
And lest we forget Mal’s ethos of allowing a man to go his own way is in direct conflict to how he runs his ship, it’s a dictatorship pure and simple, because if everyone was able to go their own way on Serenity the ship would fall apart.

First, Mal's ship is a voluntary dictatorship. People are free to leave his ship whenever they want. Second, Mal's dictatorship ends on the boundaries of Serenity. He means other ships are allowed to go their own way. One always has a dictatorship or sovereignty on one's own property. That is why we all need our own sovereign ground to be truly free.

Quote:
power *WILL* concentrate in to war lords, and there is little to nothing you can do about it.

The businesses in Heart of Gold apparently thought so. Then someone decided she COULD do something about it, and did. But she couldn't have done anything about it had she not been armed. Again, there is a huge difference between monopoly of force and having somewhat bigger force than others.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NTLZYJSTDNTCARE

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 5:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Bullies with big guns are inevitable. In our society, that warlord is called govt. In an anarchy, that warlord is called, uh warlord. The difference is in my scenario is that everyone else will be armed enough to put up a reasonable fight against the Ranch Burgesses. Govt is a monopoly of force. Freedom is that force divided in smaller denominations. Sure, some of those smaller denominations will be bigger than others. But none of them will be as big as a monopoly, by definition.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

C'mon, you can't compare a democratically elected government with a warlord. Sure, they will take liberties with their power, but in an anarchy whoever gains power has absolute carte blanche. And if you take him down, you better become the new warlord or another will be more than happy to take all that power. There's a reason the system of government we have evolved the way it did.

It's a nice idea that you have, but it's not remotely realistic.

not lazy just don't care (about anything but Firefly)

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ntlzyjstdntcare:
C'mon, you can't compare a democratically elected government with a warlord.

I can and I do. A democratic govt is simply a warlord that the majority has chosen to all their guns to. Hopefully, they made a good choice and the warlord won't abuse that power. A normal warlord buys his own guns, but that doesn't mean he will necessarily abuse that power either. A wise warlord would act with enough judgment as to not make others turn against him.

Quote:
in an anarchy whoever gains power has absolute carte blanche.

I don't think you fully grasp the "everyone else is armed" concept.

Quote:
It's a nice idea that you have, but it's not remotely realistic.

You're welcome to disagree. That's why I want to start my own country--people who don't like it or believe in it don't have to be there, right?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CITIZEN

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Bullies with big guns are inevitable. In our society, that warlord is called govt. In an anarchy, that warlord is called, uh warlord. The difference is in my scenario, the difference in weaponry between Ranch Burgess and the others would not be as drastic as the difference in weaponry between govt and its citizens. Govt is a monopoly of force. Freedom is that force divided in smaller denominations. Sure, some of those smaller denominations will be bigger than others. But none of them will be as big as a monopoly, by definition.

I find the comparision between a democratic government, though flawed, and a warlord as favourable as somewhat strange. A warlord of the type that appears in a power vacuum is very much worse than a government. Standing alone against an organisation with a million guns is no different to standing before one with one hundred and fifty. In fact if the larger group has a vested interest in at least appearing even handed, where as the smaller just doesn't care you'd be somewhat worse off opposing the one hundred and fifty bargain assault rifles.

My point is realistically the odds of a million to one are no 'harder' than odds of one hundred and fifty to one.

But seriously by necessity having groups of warlords at each others throats instead of a monopolistic government is not going to make anyone freer, it will, however, make everyone’s chances of getting shot a hell of a lot higher.

Your freedoms will still be curbed, probably to the same degree.

Quote:
First, Mal's ship is a voluntary dictatorship. People are free to leave his ship whenever they want.

Are you implying that you are not free to leave the country in which you live? Point is Serenity could not and would not survive if everyone could just go their own way whenever they wanted, which is why an anarchy won't and can't exist. Within hours of it being formed everyone will either leave or it will begin to concentrate, at which point it is no longer an anarchy.

Quote:
Second, Mal's dictatorship ends on the boundaries of Serenity. He means other ships are allowed to go their own way. One always has a dictatorship or sovereignty on one's own property. That is why we all need our own sovereign ground to be truly free.

Although I won't argue with the concept of personal land ownership there really isn't enough to go around. But I fail to see how Mal's dictatorship ending at the boundaries of Serenity sets it apart from any government? I mean Mal is dictator over Serenity because he is able to enforce that, and ostensibly his dictatorship ends past Serenity because other people enforce theirs. The reasons Mal's dictatorship does not extend beyond his 'borders' are identical to the reasons a government's powers don't extend beyond theirs.

Quote:
The businesses in Heart of Gold apparently thought so. Then someone decided she COULD do something about it, and did. But she couldn't have done anything about it had she not been armed. Again, there is a huge difference between monopoly of force and having somewhat bigger force than others.

Except the balance of force there was much more even than the balance of force that would naturally occur within an anarchistic society. Anarchy works directly against the ideal of the strong defending the weak, a government doesn't. Thus you are far more likely to find exploitation of the weak in anarchy than in any other system, anarchy actually promotes it.

I'm going to try and sum up my thoughts a little more succinctly. Basically I don't see that anarchy is going to provide more freedom. Our freedoms today are curbed for the good of the group, or more succinctly to prevent our freedoms from trampling others. We can't all be completely free, because some of our freedoms will inevitably curb the freedoms of others.

With a government the ideal (though I recognise rarely, if ever the practice) is to curb everyone's freedoms by an equal amount, this requires an entity that is stronger than the individual in or

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Are you implying that you are not free to leave the country in which you live?

No... uh... I am saying I want to leave my country and start my own?

Look, I could go on, addressing everything you said point by point. But what's the point? I've said mine, and you've said yours. Let's skip to the end and agree to disagree?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

CITIZEN

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 6:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
No... uh... I am saying I want to leave my country and start my own?

My point was whether people are free to leave Serenity is a non-issue.

Quote:
Look, I could go on, addressing everything you said point by point. But what's the point? I've said mine, and you've said yours. Let's skip to the end and agree to disagree?

The point is that otherwise this isn't a discussion and there is no point in having these posts, this thread or these boards

.

But if thats what you want I can handle that.

Okay just reread the above and it sounds snipy which isn't the intent, what I mean is if you want to agree to disagree then okay, but the point of a discussion is the discussion itself.

(Not "if you don't want these boards..." which is kind of how it might sound.)

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE