Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: MB
« Last post by Dale Eastman on October 23, 2021, 08:51:41 PM »
Quote from: 10:13 23 Oct 21
Dale Eastman I’d prefer to keep it here. Primarily because I mostly use my phone for posting, so it’s easier for me. But also, I’d like it in this public forum just in case this subject comes up again. I’m not saying you are the type of person that would continue to make that claim again after we’ve both agreed it is false… but we don’t really know each other so I can’t be certain. so I prefer the public reference location.
Quote
Fecalbook is glitching for me. In this group and in another. It's not presenting all the comments in a comment thread. Thus I can't review this thread to make sure my archive is accurate. I can't see most of my, and your, comments in this thread.
2
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: SH
« Last post by Dale Eastman on October 22, 2021, 01:05:22 PM »
Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=V1sX1qkngSg&feature=youtu.be
Quote
What are taxes?
How does calling it taxation make it NOT extortion?

What happens to your home if you don’t pay or get behind paying that tax?
3
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: MB
« Last post by Dale Eastman on October 22, 2021, 09:35:47 AM »
This post shows in my Fecalbook /allactivity log, but does not show when I click the link to the original comment thread. I call it Fecalbook because its User Interface is shit. Half hour later and the comment doesn't show.

Quote
I've commandeered my wife's computer. I was half way through composing my reply to your last comment when family and fate interrupted our discussion.
4
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: SH
« Last post by Dale Eastman on October 14, 2021, 10:22:35 AM »
Quote
and round and round we go...

It's all been said, it's all been done.

I think you need to let go of the idea that there is one perfect way of doing things. One of the disappointments of living in a free society is that pretty much no one agrees with you all of the time. Right? That's the whole idea of freedom, right? Freedom of speech, freedom of thought? So you'll need to get used to people saying IDGAF about your natural law nonsense, and yes I'm going to do whatever I want to do, even if it hurts you.

Other disappointments occur when you realize that life really isn't fair, nature doesn't care about you, rights don't actually exist, and nearly no one will behave the way you think they should, given equal opportunity.

STILL waiting to hear how this revolution is going to occur with no human deaths. I'm all ears.
Quote
I never said it was a perfect way of doing things. I seem to be both repeating myself with things I never said and you understanding things I never said.

And yes, natural law will not be merciful and IDGAF (It Doesn't Give AF) if you or anyone else doesn't discover it, know it or align themselves with it.

"STILL waiting to hear how this revolution is going to occur with no human deaths. I'm all ears."

I've already tried to tell you.

You implied we couldn't achieve such a society without violence.

If you had taken the time to understand natural law, you would not need to ask how.

But since you refuse to acknowledge, or even consider the concepts that I have presented, I doubt you could ever imagine, nor understand any societal concept outside of "rule by the sword." Because that is exactly what you have to believe in, in order to believe in and live under government (rulers).
Quote
question: how would you achieve a natural law society if the citizens in the society don't "discover, know, or align  themselves with it"?

"I've question: how would you achieve a natural law society if the citizens in the society don't "discover, know, or align themselves with it"?

"I've already tried to tell you". No, you haven't. You simply skated around the question each time it was posed.

If natural law is not merciful, doesn't that mean violence is an option?

I didn't "imply" such a society couldn't be achieved without violence. I flat out stated it. When you force people into a way of life they don't want, that usually causes violence, right? Most Americans don't want to tear down their government. Most Americans are pretty patriotic and love the constitution, even to the point it's annoying. And most of those people have lots of guns. I guarantee it would become violent. tried to tell you". No, you haven't. You simply skated around the question each time it was posed.

If natural law is not merciful, doesn't that mean violence is an option?

I didn't "imply" such a society couldn't be achieved without violence. I flat out stated it. When you force people into a way of life they don't want, that usually causes violence, right? Most Americans don't want to tear down their government. Most Americans are pretty patriotic and love the constitution, even to the point it's annoying. And most of those people have lots of guns. I guarantee it would become violent. 
Quote
"question: how would you achieve a natural law society if the citizens in the society don't "discover, know, or align themselves with it"?"

I would think that would be self evident. If a body of individuals doesn’t discover, know and align their selves with gravity, they’re probably not going to have a successful time.

"You simply skated around the question each time it was posed.

Again, if you had not ignored the basic concepts, the answer to this would be self evident. You ignore all the basic concepts, and so you can not understand the answer.

If natural law is not merciful, doesn't that mean violence is an option?

Is gravity violent? No. But you probably don’t want your kid to tie a cape around his neck and think he can fly off the edge of a roof, because gravity will not be merciful of his ignorance.

I didn't "imply" such a society couldn't be achieved without violence. I flat out stated it. When you force people into a way of life they don't want, that usually causes violence, right?

Government is the one who violates human rights to live the way they want, or those who use government in such a way.

Most Americans don't want to tear down their government. Most Americans are pretty patriotic and love the constitution, even to the point it's annoying. And most of those people have lots of guns. I guarantee it would become violent.

Guns are a tool, not an action. “Violence” is an immoral action and is the initiation of force. Root of violence is violate. Violence is only committed by the initiator, not the defender. When anyone, including the government, becomes violent, yes, humans have every right to defend themselves. Guns are only a tool and can be used for different means in the hands that wield them. In Government hands, they are used exclusively to violate human rights.

The basic concepts that you keep missing or denying completely are 1. you don’t own me, and no one owns you, no one has a legitimate claim on anyone or their property 2. moral rights are simply actions that stem from the basic concept of self ownership that do not result in harm to another human or their property, and 3. rights are inherent, immutable and universal.
4. Government is an inversion of all the above basic concepts.
5
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: MB
« Last post by Dale Eastman on October 11, 2021, 07:41:34 AM »
Quote
Dale Eastman You write, "Your claim is that something is not criminal if there is no law against it."

Correct. By definition, that is objectively true.

You write, "Unless I am missing something:
Very clearly you are claiming extortionists are not criminals;"

Yes, you missed something. I was saying that _if_ you use the word "criminal" in a slang manner, then _legal_ extortion cannot be concluded. I was saying the opposite of what you interpreted. The word extortion has a very clear legal meaning, as well. However, it can be used in a non-legal way. That is why my stance was not an argument against your use of the word extortion, but the use of the word criminal.

"Running with your logic, government can never be criminal unless it writes laws making its own actions criminal. "

Close, but not exactly. The law may already exist. A member of government doesn't need to write a law in order to make it a law. But _some member_ of government must have written the law, and it must still be an active law or the action is not legally criminal... yes, that is true. Also, it is not my logic, it is an objective fact. In order for something to be illegal, it must break a law written or maintained by a controlling authority.

You write, "And for this situation, I am calling this (alleged) authority..."

This is where your logic seems to be butting up against your ideals. We need to separate the two. Everything said in that paragraph is your ideal. It's how you thing things _should_ be.

Please truly consider my next sentence because it is probably the most important thing I've said in our entire interaction...

Just because we think something should be... does not make it true; not for us, and certainly not for anyone else.

You have a belief. You have a moral stance against how the government works. Your entire argument is trying to posit a true fact out of an ideal. That's the logic you need to separate.

I'm going to re-write your last part but I'm going to insert the word SHOULD, in bold, where it is your ideal, and not a fact.
"All humans SHOULD BE created with an equal lack of ownership over any other humans.
Therefore: All humans SHOULD BE created with an equal lack of authority over any other humans.
Which means, no humans SHOULD BE born with rights and authorities that override my self ownership and rights therefrom.
And as a point of logic, no human SHOULD BE ABLE TO delegate rights and authorities that human does not have.
Elected politicians (professional liars) are not born with ownership of me.
No voters SHOULD BE ABLE TO give my ownership and rights thereof to any professional liar."

The truth is, authority has the power whether you like it or not. That's a fact, not an ideal. A parent has authority over their child, whether or not the kid thinks it _should_ be that way. The government of a people have authority over all those people, whether or not they think it _should_ be that way.

Does this make sense? Can you separate what you think should be, from what is?
6
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: SH
« Last post by Dale Eastman on October 07, 2021, 12:18:45 PM »
Quote
we don't need to go back to basics, these concepts are not that hard to understand.
You still haven't told me what you think will happen if government is abolished. 100% it would cause anarchy and death. You say you don't have a crystal ball, but you don't need one, because we have history to look at, logic, and reason.

I also don't know HOW you think government will be abolished? It's going to be either by pen or by sword (guns), there is no other way. One way acknowledges the power of the human vote, and it will never happen because nobody wants that. The other way will result in lots and lots of death.

All members of society are able to participate in government by voting. They are also able to participate in government simply by choosing to. They are also free to not participate at all, bitch about everybody else, and still reap the benefits of everyone else participating in their community. Yay freedom.

"Without natural law and natural rights, the USA would not exist" NO SHIT!!! That's my entire point!!! You already have a society based on the ideals you hold dear, and you want to tear it down and replace it with, what, a belief that everyone will just take to your ideals because they just will?

That will never happen, it has never happened, humans cannot survive in complex societies without organized leadership. They simply can't. It's like asking fish to change how they school, bees to change their hive structure, wildebeest to stop migrating. Once your population grows above several hundred people, and you have complex corporations and infrastructure and such to worry about, some type of regulation needs to be in place in order to prevent one group of people from metaphorically, and possibly literally, RAPING the rest of the people.

Most people want to live out their lives and raise their families in peace. This is why the United States exists. This is why it became a beacon of possibility and freedom to the rest of the world. You need to take a trip to New York, go to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty, take the tour and hear the stories. The absolute horror those people who fought for freedom would have, if they knew people wanted to tear it all down.
Quote
"you know, people who are passionate about human rights have a place in government. Maybe you should run for mayor?"

Government is the top violator of human rights, by a mile.

"we don't need to go back to basics, these concepts are not that hard to understand."

Apparently we do. Because you don't understand my concepts. Unless you just don't want to.

"You still haven't told me what you think will happen if government is abolished. 100% it would cause anarchy and death"

That's your opinion. And what do you mean by the word 'anarchy.' Plus government is the leading cause of unnatural death in the 20th century. It's called democide.

And I haven't told you because it would be projecting and assuming.

"You say you don't have a crystal ball"

Not what I said, I implied that YOU don't have a crystal ball.

"I also don't know HOW you think government will be abolished? It's going to be either by pen or by sword (guns), there is no other way."

That just shows you have no imagination.

"One way acknowledges the power of the human vote,"

Yeah, voting. That is another topic I need to address... Voting is an act that the voters believe gives them control over some aspect of their lives. This is only true for the voters in the majority. When the voters are in the minority, those voters are being controlled by the majority.
If your locality has a funding referendum to increase funding for the local schools, those with children in that school will likely vote FOR the tax increase. Those who do not want their taxes increased will likely vote AGAINST the tax increase. If, for sake of example, the voting splits along parental and non-parental lines, one of two situations will result...

Either the referendum fails and taxes are not increased with the result that the school does not get increased funding; The parents do not get what they want; More money spent on their children. Or conversely, the referendum passes and taxes are increased with the result that the school gets increased funding; The non-parents do not get what they want; They are then forced to pay more for something they don't need or use.

If the referendum passes and the non-parents refuse to pay the tax, government people with guns come and make them pay or take their homes away from them.

This proves that voters want the criminals called government to rob their neighbors so that they can get the benefits of the robbery. In this case, their neighbor's money spent on the parent's children.

Therefore voting is where a collective of individual humans perform an act that allows the majority of those individuals to control the minority of those individuals. Voters have somehow become convinced that it is their duty to be controlled by what the majority has chosen for them.

This is proven by observing minority voters honoring and obeying the result of the majority vote; whether it is to pay extra taxes or to be represented by an elected alleged Representative who provably does not represent the minority.

Since natural law means none of the majority has any authority over the minority, what the majority wishes and votes for creates no legitimate demand on any of the minority.

Which means that voting will always be the majority controlling the minority until people awake to the fact that none of the majority was born with authority over them or anybody else.

"it will never happen because nobody wants that."

Then you are apparently unaware of the number of people waking up to the fact that if you have government, you have extortionists making up rules that is none of their business.

"All members of society are able to participate in government by voting. They are also able to participate in government simply by choosing to. They are also free to not participate at all, bitch about everybody else, and still reap the benefits of everyone else participating in their community."

You don't own me.

And likewise, I don't own you.
Now if I don't own you, I have no authority to tell you that you what to do or what not to do, provided your free will choices do not harm me or mine.

But then you already know this, no?

Now let us pretend and assume I just won an election and hold the office of Legislator.

Elected Legislators have the job of making rules, called laws, to tell you what you are allowed and not allowed to do. Elected Legislators have the job of making rules to set how you shall be punished if you get caught not obeying my Legislator rules. The LEO's (Law Enforcement Officers) have the job of arresting you if they catch you breaking my Legislator rules. This includes using escalating force, up to and including killing you if you resist being arrested.

In other, and less words, I have just described how "government" works: comply or die.

Now tell me, how did I get authority over you by being elected as a Legislator?

If none of the people that voted for me own you, then they do not have authority over you. How could they delegate an authority to me that they do not have over you?

"Without natural law and natural rights, the USA would not exist" NO SHIT!!! That's my entire point!!! You already have a society based on the ideals you hold dear"

No, I don't. Natural law means, "You Don't Own Me." The government does not refrain from fining, forcing, coercing, caging and escalating it to death if you don't follow their arbitrary demands, legislation or rules that they call "law." On top of that, they lay claim to any earnings I acquire through *my* labor, leading to more fining, forcing, coercing, caging and escalating to death if I want to keep the "store of my labor."
In short, government has layed a claim of ownership on the humans within it's claimed territory.

"and you want to tear it down and replace it with, what, a belief that everyone will just take to your ideals because they just will?"

How about *You Don't Own Me*
Nobody owns me. Government and it's members, don't own me either.

"That will never happen, it has never happened, humans cannot survive in complex societies without organized leadership."

You are confused about the difference between leaders and rulers. Leaders don't need men with guns (cops) to make sure their edicts are being obeyed. I was just pointing out this difference to the kids today watching a movie about a bunch of shipwrecked people on an island. Two individuals are looked up to as leaders because of their wisdom and knowledge. But one gets angry and tries to demand and force people to follow his decisions. The other doesn't mind giving direction, but doesn't force his directions if somebody, or all of them, doesn't want to follow it.
The first is a ruler, the second is a leader.

"some type of regulation needs to be in place in order to prevent one group of people from metaphorically, and possibly literally, RAPING the rest of the people."

You mean like government does with extorting money from people and calling it taxation? You mean like government stealing people's homes for getting behind, or gasp! deliberately not paying on their assessed (demanded) tribute to the criminal gang called government?

"Most people want to live out their lives and raise their families in peace."

How can people " live out their lives and raise their families in peace" when government can just take their homes? Or stop you and cage you for arbitrary reasons?
7
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: SH
« Last post by Dale Eastman on October 05, 2021, 09:55:42 PM »
Quote
saying we don't have an inherent right to life isn't the same as saying we shouldn't try to stay alive. Two totally separate issues. Don't try to link them, that's a straw man fight. The gazelle doesn't live or die based on the cheetah's perceived rights. It's literally just whichever one has the ability to outsmart or out- maneuver the other. This is one of those points we have discussed over and over again, and yet you still revert back to using the same faulty logic. It didn't work on me the first 10 times, pretty sure it never will.

Nature observes no rights. All of nature is a power play. Nothing more. The fittest survive, the rest die. Period, end of.

And again, your belief that humans in government will somehow conduct themselves in some shady evil way, while the rest of humanity is good, is viewing general people through rose colored glasses, and our elected official through, what, charcoal ones? At least we ELECT government in the USA. They are not just appointed by a king.. The entire reason the USA government exists is to protect the interests of YOU. The citizen. If someone hurts you, you have legal recourse. The thing about government, or at least the government as was dreamt up for the USA, is that we get to elect them and then kick them out if we don't like them. Can't do that with your neighbors, can you?

We are not living in tyranny. You're incredibly privileged and naive to belive that the USA is living in tyranny. The USA is an effective free society government. I think you should go live in India or Nigeria for a while, so you can understand what real oppression and real struggle looks like, feels like. Or, less expensive, read the history of those countries and then compare to the history of the USA. Or read some books by Khaled Hosseini, if you want to understand true tyrannical horror. You need to stop pretending that "government" and "king" are the same. You use the words "government" and "ruler" interchangeably, when I know you understand that they are not the same. The division of power in the USA is how our founding fathers ensured that no one person would have too much power. And like I said before, the people within government are not above their own laws, like a king. Really, if you want to be mad at someone for having too much power, stop looking at US politicians. Be mad at the billionaires of the world, because those are the people who really are above the law and can do pretty much whatever they want. In this world we have created, money is the real power. But I'm getting off topic.

Corrupt humans are everywhere. I would posit that every single human, including you, is corrupted in some way. Each and every one of us, to at least some degree, is motivated by selfish desires. It sounds to me that you would risk the lives of millions of people in order to have the kind of country that you want. To have the dog-eat-dog, natural law, anarchy world you for some crazy reason desire. Who cares if literally only 5% of the population wants it? You want it, and that's all that matters to you, right? One of your own sisters (if you haven't figured out that is the random, "imaginary" widow I referenced above) would be immediately destitute and probably succumb, along with her daughter, to the world, if we were to enter anarchy. But you would like it better, so let's do that. To hell with majority rule. They don't know what's good for them. But you do, right? You know what's best for everyone, right? Do I have that about figured out? That sounds like hell on earth to me, but sure, let's go ahead and do that.

You forget that it's not about you, and what only you want. Most Americans bitch about our country, but most Americans would never want to live anywhere else in the world. Think about why.

Oh and btw, I don't give anyone authority to dictate what I do. Know why? Because I live in the USA! I have never been told what to do, outside laws that I shouldn't hurt other people. Which doesn't affect me, because I don't want to hurt other people, accidentally or otherwise. I am free to say whatever I want, go wherever I want, have whatever career I want, and can even (gasp) outrank men in my career. I can choose not to have children. I can choose not to circumcise my son. And my daughter, for that matter. I can choose not to vaccinate my kids. Or, conversely, I have access and the right to vaccinate my children free of charge (if I'm low income), a right that much of the rest of the world wishes they had for their babies. The level of freedom we have in the USA is, I feel, completely lost on you.
Quote
you know, people who are passionate about human rights have a place in government. Maybe you should run for mayor? 😘
Quote
And you know where government gets the money to pay for these things, it's through taxes."

What are taxes? What happens if someone refuses to pay taxes?

"You know what a system of government is"

I know what I think a system of government is. I don't know what you think a system of government is. And I'm sure that we don't actually agree as to what it is. So let us start with the basics. Government is people. Just like Walmart is people.

"in some more lucky societies, like ours, The People also tell the government what to do"

How do the ruled (under penalty of death) tell the rulers what to do?

"The founding fathers were quite clever in their design."

You mean the design based upon the rights of people to life, liberty and property?

The Declaration of Independence used Locke's Natural Law as a reason to kill the king's military men in defense of the lives, liberties, and properties. Without Natural Law and Natural Rights, this nation, the USA would NOT exist. You know that, right?

"The "we" is us, our society, our community."

There is no "we". There is you and I. There is you and I and like, 7 or 8 billion other INDIVIDUALS
You jump on me about using artificial constructs, mental ideas, then you turn around and do the exact same thing. You are referring to an abstract as if it is a single entity. And you are assuming to speak for the abstract. Plus, you assume I am a part of the "we" you are purporting to speak for, speaking things exactly in opposition of my intent and conclusions.

"we have our representatives set up in the complex way"

Are you claiming you and I personally set up our alleged representatives in a complex way?

"Our members of government are ALSO members of our society, our community"

All the members of government are members of the society. The inverse is NOT true. All the members of society are NOT members of government. Do I need to draw a Venn Diagram?

"and they have to deal with the consequences of their decisions, too."

Yeah... 4 to six years later if the individuals remember the decisions. That is subject to the main stream media being honest in their reporting.

"If you want to eliminate an entire governing body, shouldn't you A) have a good reason why, and 😎 understand the consequences?"

If you want to keep a governing body, shouldn't you A) have a good reason why, and 😎 understand the consequences?

"An appeal to emotion isn't a fallacy if it is a true statement,"

But you didn't make a true statement. You made a projection. You made an assumption.

"that was a factual exploration of what would happen to a real individual if government disappeared."

Your "factual exploration" is a projection, an assumption. What's tomorrow's winning lottery numbers. I'll split the pot with you 50-50. :3

"It is a reasonable conclusion that government assistance would disappear in the absence of government, is it not?"

Taxes and victimless "crimes" also disappear.

"Millions of government employees would be suddenly without a job, and not providing that service to others who need it."

If I open a business supplying services at gunpoint, threatening you with harm for not buying my services, would you consider me a criminal? Because that is exactly how government gets clients for its services. I can attest to that personally.
8
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: SH
« Last post by Dale Eastman on October 05, 2021, 10:18:10 AM »
Quote from: 1118 3 Oct 21
I keep saying it, because it simply isn't. Natural law isn't provable. If it is, please prove it to me and show me how I'm wrong. But we've been talking about it for weeks and I haven't seen anything resembling "proof". Philosophy can be useful and good, but it isn't a hard science which can be proven. Now, if you wanted to prove a specific fact about natural law, such as "societies which exist under the philosophy of natural law guidelines provide a better quality of life to its citizens" then you could set up an experiment to see if that's true. But that still wouldn't prove that natural law is universal and ubiquitous.

Do I have a right to life? No, I don't. No one has an inherent "right" to be alive. In the USA, I have a societal and legal right to life. In Afghanistan, I would have absolutely no right to life. In fact, I would probably be executed immediately.

You know what a system of government is. It's, of course, much more complex than "some group of people". And your description ignores the fact that in some more lucky societies, like ours, The People also tell the government what to do. That's the entire point of why we have our representatives set up in the complex way we have in the USA. The founding fathers were quite clever in their design.

The "we" is us, our society, our community. Our members of government are ALSO members of our society, our community, and they have to deal with the consequences of their decisions, too.

No, I have repeatedly personally addressed the flaws in your argument. You just seem to ignore those responses, for some reason. The book I mentioned is a history book, and has a fascinating way of explaining the development of society. In particular, it has a fascinating way of explaining all those things which humans have created, which actually don't exist, but which are now essential to sustaining human life (money, corporations, laws, rights, etc). I think you'd find the book to be interesting.

How is my asking you to think about what would happen if the government disappeared a "logical fallacy"? It wasn't a claim, it was a request for you to think about it. If you want to eliminate an entire governing body, shouldn't you A) have a good reason why, and 😎 understand the consequences?

An appeal to emotion isn't a fallacy if it is a true statement, or put another way, it is a fallacy if in the absence of a logical argument, one appeals to your emotions instead. That wasn't an appeal to emotion, that was a factual exploration of what would happen to a real individual if government disappeared. If it made you feel emotional, that's probably a good thing. It is a reasonable conclusion that government assistance would disappear in the absence of government, is it not? It is a reasonable conclusion that employers, who have been complaining about the increase in minimum wage, would lower wages again. It is a reasonable conclusion that government funded jobs, such as teachers, would disappear, and schools would shut down. None of what I said was far-fetched. And you know where government gets the money to pay for these things, it's through taxes. I don't think that the rich are going to, out of the goodness of their hearts, come swooping in like batman and save all the poor people once they are not taxed anymore. We only have to look at history to see how that situation has worked out in the past.

Yes, absolutely removing government would result in a breakdown of society. Of course it will. How could it not? It would be complete chaos. So much of our day-to-day living is caught up in government services. Millions of government employees would be suddenly without a job, and not providing that service to others who need it.

John Locke was pretty clear on why he felt a government was necessary. He was afraid that the stronger and smarter people might try to take away other people's lives, liberty, or property. Conversely, weaker people might band together and take away the rights of the stronger and smarter people. People in general would be unprotected and insecure. These were Locke's fears, and he was right to be afraid. As history has shown us, time and time again.
Quote from: 1055 5 Oct 21
Are you saying humans should conduct themselves as if they don't have a right to life? What would you do if you were attacked? How about your kids?

Rights ARE the social contract, i.e., you don't hurt me, I don't hurt you. This is observable in nature, even.

"Humans will not just suddenly, with no government, no laws, accept natural law as the way everyone should conduct themselves."

Curious, what is government made of? Humans?

"...when we know that human nature is self serving, bigoted, and violent even in the best of times."

You do know these are the very same humans that are the government, right?

"...people are willing to revolt and die for a cause if they can see what is possible, and there is a chance their children can have a better life."

Do you mean like not living in tyranny? (tyranny definition - oppressive power; especially: oppressive power exerted by government)
I could get behind you on that one 😉

"...impervious to corruption and all the other base behaviors of man, because that will never happen"

If this can never happen, then it is NOT happening right now. Which means corrupt officials (humans) in government are the ones with the alleged "right" to rule.

"...effective free society government"

Non sensical. Those four words contradict themselves. To govern is to rule. The ruled are not free.
Overwhelmingly, your point for government is because of the horrible side of humans; humans are violent, humans are corrupt, humans are self serving.
Humans, and all their base behaviors, are what's government. Ruled by the very thing you despise. If humans are so corrupt, why are you giving authority to them to dictate what everyone can do?
9
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: SH
« Last post by Dale Eastman on October 03, 2021, 09:00:33 PM »
Quote from: 1711 3 Oct 21

[sibling] ok, now, natural law. Natural law is, to my observations, a great working template with which to create many ethical and moral customs and laws. That's about it. At least, in the westernized world. However, it is not how we all "naturally" believe or behave. Humans will not just suddenly, with no government, no laws, accept natural law as the way everyone should conduct themselves. I mean, have you even met a human? 🤣 It's simply ludicrous to expect that, when we know that human nature is self serving, bigoted, and violent even in the best of times.

I think we need to let go of the idea that there is some way to create a perfect, "moral" ("moral" being a variable concept depending on where you live) society impervious to corruption and all the other base behaviors of man, because that will never happen. We are incredibly different and imperfect compared to the ideals of pretty much any culture. And we are all far too different to ever accept one "perfect" way of doing things. To expect everyone to change their way of belief and life in order to move into a new type of society...well, that sounds very cult-like and authoritarian to me.

As we've already established, rights are 100% dreamt up and created by man. 100%. That doesn't mean that it isn't much better to be born into a Society with more human rights. Of course it is. But rights do not just exist out of nowhere. We created the concept. And we created the laws which defend our rights. Nature has no obligation to be good to us. Nature doesn't care if we exist.

I do feel that, with time, and with the ability to look at effective free society government models around the world, more of the world will move towards westernized governments and cultural beliefs. Why? Because people are willing to revolt and die for a cause if they can see what is possible, and there is a chance their children can have a better life. I do hope that, within my lifetime, more of the world will be at peace. We are, right now, living in the most peaceful time in human history. I do hope that that trend bodes well for the future of our species. Maybe we can teach old hominids new tricks after all.
Quote
You keep saying natural law is not provable. But you ignored my question, So now... Do you have a right to life?
What is a "system of government"? Isn't it some group of people who claim to have a right to tell people what to do?
You said without engaged constituents, we are not truly representing the people. Who is the 'we' that are not representing the people?
And you, *personally*, have not addressed any "flaws" in my argument, you only defer to a book you've read about how we have no rights.

Your statement above, "I want YOU to think about what would happen if the US government disappeared tomorrow," is a logical fallacy.
You also used an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

You mentioned: A widow, living off Social Security, free government schools, government subsidized child care, government subsidized low cost housing.

Where does government get the money to pay for these things?

And you think eliminating government may result in a break down in our society in ways I never considered (I "considered" all sorts of ways and dismissed it for years, remember?). My question to you is, what do you mean by "society" and how do you believe it will break down?
10
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: SH
« Last post by Dale Eastman on October 02, 2021, 11:54:51 PM »
Quote
Sara Hiller You mentioned It's ok to recognize that a system is flawed, and not then decide to throw away the entire system.

What are the flaws in the system that you see?
How do you propose to fix those flaws in the system?

You claim that you have read my reasoning over and over again.
Do you think you can articulate what you think are the errors in my reasoning?
I'm not convinced you actually have taken any time to understand what my reasoning has shown me.

You say natural law is not provable. Do you not own yourself?
Quote
Dale Eastman I never thought about the QR codes being able to get around the censorship. Duh! Why didn't I think of that, LOL. I'm going to have to learn to get use to using them 😉
Quote
[Sibling] I could go on all night about what I think should be done, but I'm certainly not an expert and I am sure there are those with much better ideas than I have. And there are probably those who would see an immediate issue with those things I propose. I have only a little time to share those thoughts, since I have to get kiddos in bed, but I'll share a few items.

To start, controlling the money (dissolving super PACs, cracking down on special interest campaign contributions, legally enforceable transparency, etc) is important. Electable term limits for all members of government, even SCJs. Oh and we need to eliminate the two party system. I feel like it creates and reinforces extremes, while solidifying division. An "us vs them" mentality, when I believe that most people's beliefs systems live somewhere in the middle. I think that one plausible way to bring in viable candidates from other parties is to introduce ranked choice voting. This is the only way I feel like the majority of people in a democracy can feel at least satisfied about their elected officials. And a lot of the rest is reliant on civics education and getting Americans engaged in politics and exercising their voting rights. Without engaged constituents, we are not truly representing The People.

I think I've already shared what I see as flaws in your reasoning, many times over. I want YOU to think about what would happen if the US government disappeared tomorrow. What do you think would happen? Really think about it. And let's not even consider a hostile foreign takeover situation or anything like that, let's just think about boring things like a day in the life of some random American. Someone who is already barely surviving on what they make right now. A widow, for example, trying to survive off the Social Security (boom, no more social security payments) from their deceased spouse, combined with minimum wage, (boom, no more minimum wage since there is no one to tell employers they have to pay a certain amount), while also trying to home school their kiddo because BOOM there are no free schools anymore. And there's no government subsidized child care anymore either. But mom has to leave and go to work anyway, she can't school her kids, because otherwise she can't pay the rent, which is higher now because BOOM there are no government mandated rent caps, no government subsidized low cost housing, and no legal avenues with which to prosecute a slum lord.

That's all the time I have for now but I'll answer the rest of your question tomorrow. My main point is, eliminating government would very likely result in a break down in our society in ways you may have never even considered. And, most likely, the eventual deaths of the less fortunate through starvation or exposure or violence after being forced into unsafe conditions. Even if by some miracle another government didn't swoop in and violently take over, which would almost certainly happen, there would be mass casualties. Do you think those deaths would be acceptable so that we can change society so drastically?
Humans organize their societies with systems of government. Always have, always will.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10