Right, and we would be equal why? Because nobody would have anything ... am i right? I guess you would rather have nothing at all ( once everything is destroyed) than bear the thought of anyone having more than you. You realize that the everyday person is guilty of giving these "rich twats" the opportunity to take what they want? Through ignoring of the end result of their actions, people are giving up their rights/wealth/and resources. So when we destroy everything ... how are we going to advance towards not using fossil fuels? Are we just going to have to do without heat/transportation/electricity/plastics etc. etc. so that we can skip the fossil fuel stage to the completely solar/fuel cell/nuclear age? Why do we need a "second time around?" What makes you think the people will be any better suited to live harmoniously once they have nothing? Sending us back to stone age is not going to make us do it right. Why don't we instead move towards harmonious living through knowledge and a true revolution of the INDIVIDUALS that make up the collective? I'm all for moving towards anarchy as a goal for societal evolution, but I'd rather skip the apocalyptic event that brings us back to zero. Have to disagree with you on this one. Government participation makes nothing more effective.
There are basic fundamental functions of government........................................... Almost every single thing you can list as examples of the government doing something wrong, I will be able to accurately say it's because they are acting outside of their basic fundamental purpose. When you shrink government (see: lower taxes/lower their funding) down to the size where it's still capable of performing it's fundamental functions, yet not too enormous where it steps out of its bounds you have a good balance. Our government is so far outside of its bounds right now it's not even funny anymore..
Impressive ... except there is no shortage of people here who can explain to me how government is acting outside of its basic fundamental purpose ... What i would rather you to argue against, is the fact that no matter what function you are describing, it could be done better in a society of individuals whom are free to interact with each other without intervention of the state.
At the time I posted that I was laughing my ass off. Never disappointed in a good laugh if I do say so myself.
Well I mean there are plenty of tribes and cave people that enjoy no government whatsoever. They're indeed extremely affluent societies. I read about them when I was taking Anthropology.
Well, governments basically force people to participate, what if there were just "competing governments" that didn't force anyone to participate (so technically not a government, a business) that provided services that governments provide now.
I am a far right fiscal conservative. I am, but at some point I have to draw the line. You know, I have a heart, I expect others to carry their own weight but at the end of the day I'm a bleeding heart. I am not going to just let our mentally and physically handicapped citizens off on the streets to fend for themselves. The whole purpose of every business is to make money and there is no money in looking out for our disadvantaged brothers and sisters. Ever since I stepped foot on this earth mankind has provided me no evidence that without checks and balances, they wouldn't just ride out on Darwin's law and let the weakest links go the way nature intended.
So, because they might not get cared for, we should force people to care for them? In no way am I saying they shouldn't be cared for, because I think they should, and it isn't necessary for a government with a monopoly on force to exist for their care to be provided for. I just think we can do better with anarchy than we can with governments. CAN. I'm not saying we should destroy our current government and basically force anarchy on everyone. I think the best way for anarchy to arise is because that's how people want it to be. So, we have to educate people (I believe).
Government is violence. Disagree. Without gov, people have to be more royalty and show respect around customers otherwise they'll decease into nothingness. After all, it's the survival of fitness. With gov, people tend to be more slacker and rely on them instead of themselves.
If we take down the government who is going to force the "big business" police to help poor (yes I mean financially), helpless victims (children, women, elderly, weak men) of violent, criminal sociopaths and psychopaths? After all, these people hurt profits. Which hurting profits, by the way, is what every MBA and PHD in Business went to years of schooling learning how to prevent. But I digress. I could easily see corporate police and fireman blowing off citizens in danger because they don't have money to transfer to them. It's pure anarchy just because humans have evolved enough to speak fancy languages, and produce products and services doesn't mean we're to the point where we wouldn't leave a fallen comrade behind. Because humans will, believe it or not, leave you and I behind. Whether these humans are individuals or wearing fancy suits and all belong to a private sector organization.... Human is human.
No one is going to force businesses to help the poor. It will just look bad if they don't and they will probably lose money. In a market economy, the consumers rule. If consumers want businesses to help the poor, they will only buy from businesses that help the poor. In that kind of society (where the consumers decide that they want businesses to help the poor), the businesses that don't help the poor will go out of business or be "forced" to help the poor in order to survive. Profits aren't only measured in dollars. One can "profit" when they volunteer their time to help someone who is less fortunate. One can "profit" when they give money to a charitable cause. You won't be able to measure these profits in dollars, but I would say that there are very few people who care solely about profits. Except that a business that did this would be quickly swept out of existence by their competition that didn't do this... Huh? This isn't some war we're fighting. People die. Accidents happen. People get fucked over. Anarchy isn't going to make the world perfect, it is simply a step in the right direction. A step away from authoritarian regimes that hold monopolies on violence, force, regulation, etc. These Hobbessian type arguments aren't going to sway anarchists. Anyone who considers themselves an anarchist has encountered this argument multiple times. Anarchists believe we don't need government to provide basic services. People working together voluntarily can do it better than the government can. If you like, I can provide further reading on anarchism.
not convinced this a bad thing really. you are wrong though...there is a ton of money in helping out the less fortunate. in a free society where there are competing versions of this service the cost should go down to the point where a persons family can afford to pay to have them taken care of (or, here is a revolutionary idea take care of them, themselves). and if their family doesn't care enough to provide for them then that is their problem. i should not be forced to pay or care.... even by proxy. you seem invested in the idea of social welfare which is great, i would never try to make you stop,that would be wrong. but it is just wrong for the system to force me to care and pay for people that i don't care about...or in fact even know. this may sound heartless, but meh...you can't care about everything.
IMO natural selection is important, and I would like to see it back in effect. But humans cannot accurately create this selection, because it is, after all, natural selection.
I've toyed with the idea of Anarchy, the thought of this country going through a 2nd revolution, but not setting up any form of government afterwards is appealing to me. However, I don't believe it would work unless the world itself was plunged into a state of everlasting Anarchy, otherwise Russia, China or insert Imperialistic Nation here would be eyeballing us and taking us over for easy pickings.