Browncoats... good guys or not?
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 12:07
VIEWED: 33379
PAGE 8 of 12
While I find the anarchistic or libertarian ideal persuasive to a large extent, I also realize that it is because folks are the way they are, that governments are around to begin with.
Sometimes it is simply better to leave things to some authority. And give that authority a monopoly on the use of force. Granted, there is a concern for abuse, but that exists regardless of who it is, or even how many have that ability.
There was an idea floated about private police forces. And have competing authorities enforce the law. But it is easy to see how that situation can quickly denigrate into a gang-like warfare (with serious weapons) amongst competing police agencies.
I don't think you can get away from a government, if you are surrounded by any kind of substantial population. In such a situation, the guy with the most guns and guts gets, and gets to do whatever he wants, regardless of the cost to others. And everyone else just has to suffer. Rance Burgess is a great example of what happens when you ain't got any government whatsoever.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
As far as the Civil War is concerned, slavery was NOT the issue.
Sigh. Sorry but this is not what the Southerners at the time of secession were saying. It is not what the South Carolina legislature said when they voted for the Declaration of Secession. For the South, slavery was the issue. Dressed up in the rubric "states rights" but still, its slavery.
It pains me to have to say this, but the assertion is simply not true. The first complaint South Carolina mentions in their declaration is the fact that northern states are not returning fugitive slaves, in violation of Article 4 of the Constitution. And the Federal government was not doing enough to compel northerners to returne escaped slaves.
If slavery were not the issue, then bringing this up, even tangentally, let alone as the first reason you give to seceed, does not make any sense.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LoadAndMakeReady:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Lord Acton
This is a common mischaracterization of Acton's quote. What he was referring to was NOT how much a bastard the historical figure was. He was referring to the tendancy, at the time, of historians to excuse terrible deeds, and attempt to explain it in terms of the political/social/whathaveyou context of the time.
Besides which, think for a moment. That would make God the biggest meanest thing in the universe. Even if it were true, ya really think ya want to say it out loud?
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Lysander Spooner, again. It might be true of some governments in our world, but why do some people keep believing that our government is runned with a programmed and specific determination towards malice - is it just me or the militant radicals in Montana?
There is more to it than that. You listen to some people, this entire UNIVERSE is supposed to be a trail of tears and misery. If you are happy and/or successful, that is taken as proof that you cheated.
If you start a business, and make a fortune, you are automatically a crook, did it through "connections" or some other such, well, manure. The very idea that someone can work their way up the ladder, or be a sucess without cheating, is anthema to them.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Aerrin:
I'm not sure you can state that governments created corporations - and I /certainly/ don't think that you can them blame the government entirely. I think the corporations ought to shoulder a bit of the blame for their own actions, here.
People form corporations, as well as governments. And that is the single problem with any of this talk. Unless you change people, complaining about what people do in large groups ain't gonna make any difference.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by TravelingTheBlack:
Without a government, you have Barons, thugs, tyrrants ruling. You have no healthcare, no streets, no nothing. I personally tolerate government because, well, without one worse people would be in charge than Bush or Paul Martin. What I realize, and some people might not realize, is that when you leave behind government, everything you have: freedoms, legal rights, etc. goes to. I accept that if i break the law, i goto jail. If I have no home, I cannot settle down. I see and accept. I just wonder if others see the same.
Mercy is the mark of a great man... *stab*
You ain't. The reason why libertarians can complain about the government here, is because they have rights and a government to enforce those rights (Well, at least punish violations that come to its attention)
I am sure Load can protect and defend himself. Against a small enough group. Unfortunately that does not give much incentive to folks really wanting what he's got to only bring a small group.
Anarchism and Libertarianism, in their pure forms, quickly deginerates into totalitarian dictatorships. Where rights are whatever the guy with the biggest guns says they are. You may not like democracy, but I see it as a better alternative than most, if not all other forms of government.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
People long ago found that binding together and *helping* each other made surviving and sustaining easier - not to mention maybe a little bit more enjoyable then hunt, eat, sleep, hunt, eat, sleep, etc... Sooner or later, any societal unit will attempt self-rule, self imposed rules. Every group goes through a norming stage. It's the basis of group dynamics. Even a group of individualists will *agree* to be individualists. It grows from there.
This is the heart and soul of the whole Libertarian/Communitarian debate right here. Rugged individualists only gets you so far. And either one bands together in a community, or one is left to his own when facing any kind of catastrophy, manmade or natural.
And there is the problem that things like corporations and businesses in general, are created by mutual consent. People banding together, pooling their resources and skills, and creating products that other folks want to buy. To get rid of corporations, one has to put limits of the free association of others. And those limits have to be enforced, with well, force. Which makes opposition to corporations under libertarian rules kinda messy.
The same goes for democratic governments as well. You want to get rid of it, you have to force people to not associate in ways you don't like. And again, that means force.
The rugged individualist is a great start, but hardly a finish.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I do not necessarily agree w/ the whole libretarian/anarchist arguement. I do agree that our government has many problems that need to be fixed, but I doubt they ever will be, as the Democrats and Republicans are too busy trying to stiffle one another to ever work together to better the government.
"No man is an island" has many meanings, and I think one of them applies here. I do not think any one man can stand alone indefinitely. Sure Load may be able to protect himself, for that matter I am a veteran and I know I can protect myself and my family, but the real issue lies in against what you are protecting. As was pointed out above, if you have something they really want, people will get real inventive on ways to get it.
Since the beginning of recorded history man has been banding together to form communities for protection and to pool resources. If there were no one to oversee the country, it would be everyman for themselves. Society would soon fall to the type of barbarism the world suffered from centuries ago, when men banded together to raid and still from the weaker, unorganized farms or homes. "There is strength in numbers" makes a lot of sense when viewed from this perspective.
I will say that without a government or some governing body to oversee things, we would not last long as a country. I do not think a federal government is the best option available, but unfortunately short of a revolution the federalist will remain in charge.
My personal problem w/ the government is that it is untouchable and not accountable for its actions. Our forefathers were anti-federalists for a reason. They had seen the powerful, centralized gov't of England abuse the colonies and did not want that in our country. Unfortunately, it has happened. Everyday you read or hear about corruption, special interest lobbying, and favoritism by one party or the other for business or some organization or another.
I also grow tired of all of the infighting in our government as both sides jockey for power. The Democrats are now questioning Bush's National Guard service in an effort to discredit him during this election year. Keep in mind this is the same Democratic party that told the Republican party that Clinton fleeing the country to avoid that draft during Vietnam had nothing to do with his ability to be president. 
With all this political fighting between the parties it is no surprise that nothing gets done on Capitol Hill. At least Congress is sure to vote themselves a handsome salary increase every year. Way to go guys!
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Loadandmakeready... you're my hero.
... That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. - Declaration of Independence
I feel the need to point out to people that a government is simply an alternative to aristocrasy. No one ever said it was better, just not the blue bloods. It is the creation of LAW that creates good government. The Magna Carta for example. And of course, the beloved Declaration of Independence which used it's second paragraph (above) to point out that it's the LAW that comes before the government.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh... the reason Corporations are so evil is that they are not bound by any law... at all! See all corporations have the rights of an individual under the law. The same rights as YOU!
Is that wrong? Yes, it is. It' just a silly loophole from 100 years ago but it is the basis of every legal scandel you've ever heard of. Erin Brockovitch is an example of a person fighting a corporation that is killing people. Entertaining movie, but under the law there was nothing Erin could do about it. The case, just as all cases against corporations, is settled. Then the settlement is settled and the people who get recompence are cheated out of that money too. trust me, it's just a laugh to CEOs as they know they pay armies of lawyers year in and year out to have fun with it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME