Posted: 6/25/2010 11:57:14 PM EDT
|
lets say we never decided that government enforces laws. each man protects his own property and deals with his own problems in his own way. when someone is stealing you can kill them. when someone robs you on an investment you can kill them. when someone talks shit you can kill them. what would the crime rate be like? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Homicides would go up?  would you be more or less likely commit a crime knowing that every person was packing heat since that was your defense rather than police and knowing that you are fair game to get fucking killed for your crime no matter how small. unless they are quicker I belive they call what you describe anarchy. Sheep need shepards. If someone robs your granny is she gonna blast em? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Homicides would go up? would you be more or less likely commit a crime knowing that every person was packing heat since that was your defense rather than police and knowing that you are fair game to get fucking killed for your crime no matter how small. unless they are quicker I belive they call what you describe anarchy. Sheep need shepards. If someone robs your granny is she gonna blast em? Governments would be established among groups of people. It may not be what most people think of when they hear "government" but human beings are social creatures and need rules to interact and survive. Those rules are government. That is why anarchy is only transitional. Groups survive much better than individuals, after all. |
|
Quoted:
lets say we never decided that government enforces laws. each man protects his own property and deals with his own problems in his own way. when someone is stealing you can kill them. when someone robs you on an investment you can kill them. when someone talks shit you can kill them. what would the crime rate be like? Things are already this way, to a certain degree. Laws don't change natural consequences. Taken to it's most extreme? Brief period of blood frenzy followed by a VERY polite society with the occasional multi-generational feud to give life some spice. |
|
Quoted: without government law though when said person blast defenseless granny wont neighbors team up an hang him from a street light? Knowing that will be the result would you be more or less likely to take advantage of a person?Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Homicides would go up? would you be more or less likely commit a crime knowing that every person was packing heat since that was your defense rather than police and knowing that you are fair game to get fucking killed for your crime no matter how small. unless they are quicker I belive they call what you describe anarchy. Sheep need shepards. If someone robs your granny is she gonna blast em? Governments would be established among groups of people. It may not be what most people think of when they hear "government" but human beings are social creatures and need rules to interact and survive. Those rules are government. Groups survive much better than individuals. Does the law protect criminals from men more or less than men from criminals? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Homicides would go up? would you be more or less likely commit a crime knowing that every person was packing heat since that was your defense rather than police and knowing that you are fair game to get fucking killed for your crime no matter how small. unless they are quicker I belive they call what you describe anarchy. Sheep need shepards. If someone robs your granny is she gonna blast em? Governments would be established among groups of people. It may not be what most people think of when they hear "government" but human beings are social creatures and need rules to interact and survive. Those rules are government. Groups survive much better than individuals. This. Life in the jungle is Solitary, Nasty, Brutish, and Short. ––-Thomas Hobbs of Malmsbury Anarchy sucks as bad as tyranny, because at the end of the day, they are the same thing. Strong will prey upon the weak. |
|
Quoted: but the existance of government is proof of mans majority of good nature so wouldn't that same nature shine through but with more efficiency withouth the government enforcing it? When your family member is the weak one and you bring down raining hellfire on someone who would harm them wouldthe lesson not be more of a deterrent to others who would prey on the weak?Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Homicides would go up? would you be more or less likely commit a crime knowing that every person was packing heat since that was your defense rather than police and knowing that you are fair game to get fucking killed for your crime no matter how small. unless they are quicker I belive they call what you describe anarchy. Sheep need shepards. If someone robs your granny is she gonna blast em? Governments would be established among groups of people. It may not be what most people think of when they hear "government" but human beings are social creatures and need rules to interact and survive. Those rules are government. Groups survive much better than individuals. This. Life in the jungle is Solitary, Nasty, Brutish, and Short. ––-Thomas Hobbs of Malmsbury Anarchy sucks as bad as tyranny, because at the end of the day, they are the same thing. Strong will prey upon the weak. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
but the existance of government is proof of mans majority of good nature so wouldn't that same nature shine through but with more efficiency withouth the government enforcing it? When your family member is the weak one and you bring down raining hellfire on someone who would harm them wouldthe lesson not be more of a deterrent to others who would prey on the weak?
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Homicides would go up? would you be more or less likely commit a crime knowing that every person was packing heat since that was your defense rather than police and knowing that you are fair game to get fucking killed for your crime no matter how small. unless they are quicker I belive they call what you describe anarchy. Sheep need shepards. If someone robs your granny is she gonna blast em? Governments would be established among groups of people. It may not be what most people think of when they hear "government" but human beings are social creatures and need rules to interact and survive. Those rules are government. Groups survive much better than individuals. This. Life in the jungle is Solitary, Nasty, Brutish, and Short. ––-Thomas Hobbs of Malmsbury Anarchy sucks as bad as tyranny, because at the end of the day, they are the same thing. Strong will prey upon the weak. Sometimes it would shine through, but the danger from when it didn't would be pretty compelling, not to mention pretty lethal. The situation wouldn't last long anyway. People would band together for safety and voila! Tribal .gov is born. It'd take maybe a week or two. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: but the existance of government is proof of mans majority of good nature so wouldn't that same nature shine through but with more efficiency withouth the government enforcing it? When your family member is the weak one and you bring down raining hellfire on someone who would harm them wouldthe lesson not be more of a deterrent to others who would prey on the weak?Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Homicides would go up? would you be more or less likely commit a crime knowing that every person was packing heat since that was your defense rather than police and knowing that you are fair game to get fucking killed for your crime no matter how small. unless they are quicker I belive they call what you describe anarchy. Sheep need shepards. If someone robs your granny is she gonna blast em? Governments would be established among groups of people. It may not be what most people think of when they hear "government" but human beings are social creatures and need rules to interact and survive. Those rules are government. Groups survive much better than individuals. This. Life in the jungle is Solitary, Nasty, Brutish, and Short. ––-Thomas Hobbs of Malmsbury Anarchy sucks as bad as tyranny, because at the end of the day, they are the same thing. Strong will prey upon the weak. Sometimes it would shine through, but the danger from when it didn't would be pretty compelling, not to mention pretty lethal. The situation wouldn't last long anyway. People would band together for safety and voila! Tribal .gov is born. It'd take maybe a week or two. so oppression is a natural course then. as is the watering of the tree |
|
Quoted:
lets say we never decided that government enforces laws. each man protects his own property and deals with his own problems in his own way. when someone is stealing you can kill them. when someone robs you on an investment you can kill them. when someone talks shit you can kill them. what would the crime rate be like? Ask the people of Somalia how well that system works. |
|
Quoted:
lets say we never decided that government enforces laws. each man protects his own property and deals with his own problems in his own way. when someone is stealing you can kill them. when someone robs you on an investment you can kill them. when someone talks shit you can kill them. what would the crime rate be like? That would be a thug-life gangster's wet dream. You would be forced to band together with other good people in order to survive and protect your family. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
but the existance of government is proof of mans majority of good nature so wouldn't that same nature shine through but with more efficiency withouth the government enforcing it? When your family member is the weak one and you bring down raining hellfire on someone who would harm them wouldthe lesson not be more of a deterrent to others who would prey on the weak?
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Homicides would go up? would you be more or less likely commit a crime knowing that every person was packing heat since that was your defense rather than police and knowing that you are fair game to get fucking killed for your crime no matter how small. unless they are quicker I belive they call what you describe anarchy. Sheep need shepards. If someone robs your granny is she gonna blast em? Governments would be established among groups of people. It may not be what most people think of when they hear "government" but human beings are social creatures and need rules to interact and survive. Those rules are government. Groups survive much better than individuals. This. Life in the jungle is Solitary, Nasty, Brutish, and Short. ––-Thomas Hobbs of Malmsbury Anarchy sucks as bad as tyranny, because at the end of the day, they are the same thing. Strong will prey upon the weak. Sometimes it would shine through, but the danger from when it didn't would be pretty compelling, not to mention pretty lethal. The situation wouldn't last long anyway. People would band together for safety and voila! Tribal .gov is born. It'd take maybe a week or two. so oppression is a natural course then. as is the watering of the tree I think of it as balancing competing threats. You build your .gov until it's a bigger predatory threat than the predatory threats it's supposed to protect you against, and then you shrink it. There's a sweet spot (and a little .gov goes a long way) where you get the least predatory behavior. You'll always have some of it though, so you'll always need something as a countermeasure. |
|
im beginning to understand why Jefferson didn't take as much of a leading role in our founding as many of us would wish. hi writings and this thread lead me to understand that it is mans destiny to not stand up to evil but create government to do so which then corrupts and oppresses man leading to revolutions of freedom restarting the clock. A cycle which we can observe happening over and over again yet we keep repeating it. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: but the existance of government is proof of mans majority of good nature so wouldn't that same nature shine through but with more efficiency withouth the government enforcing it? When your family member is the weak one and you bring down raining hellfire on someone who would harm them wouldthe lesson not be more of a deterrent to others who would prey on the weak?Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Homicides would go up? would you be more or less likely commit a crime knowing that every person was packing heat since that was your defense rather than police and knowing that you are fair game to get fucking killed for your crime no matter how small. unless they are quicker I belive they call what you describe anarchy. Sheep need shepards. If someone robs your granny is she gonna blast em? Governments would be established among groups of people. It may not be what most people think of when they hear "government" but human beings are social creatures and need rules to interact and survive. Those rules are government. Groups survive much better than individuals. This. Life in the jungle is Solitary, Nasty, Brutish, and Short. ––-Thomas Hobbs of Malmsbury Anarchy sucks as bad as tyranny, because at the end of the day, they are the same thing. Strong will prey upon the weak. wrong. governments demonstrate that people want security for themselves above all else. all social animals, from wolves to dolphins to primates, develop a social order and rules. human beings are social animals––it's hard coded into homo sapiens DNA. K-strategy reproduction and neoteny demand it. we do these things because a social order better enables us to pass along our genetic information. you're conflating government and mutually agreed mutual coercion. in the liberal era, hobbes and locke both argued that the legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the governed. this is political theory, and is subject to serious and credible challenge. furthermore, they diverged wildly on what form that government should take. so you've got some persuppositions working that have to be demonstrated before they can be admitted to the argument. |
|
The veil of civilized society is very thin. We need not look too far in the past to see it is so. Not every person is going to think or act like you do or think they should. Not every person can possibly defend themselves or thier families from these ill thinking people . Who will do it? Human beings need structure and part of that is a central government to make and enforce laws. Some may say that what we have now is exactly that, but gone out of control. They may be right. But what do I know? I'm just a tooth on a cog in the machine of life
|
|
Quoted: Quoted: but the existance of government is proof of mans majority of good nature so wouldn't that same nature shine through but with more efficiency withouth the government enforcing it? When your family member is the weak one and you bring down raining hellfire on someone who would harm them wouldthe lesson not be more of a deterrent to others who would prey on the weak?Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Homicides would go up? would you be more or less likely commit a crime knowing that every person was packing heat since that was your defense rather than police and knowing that you are fair game to get fucking killed for your crime no matter how small. unless they are quicker I belive they call what you describe anarchy. Sheep need shepards. If someone robs your granny is she gonna blast em? Governments would be established among groups of people. It may not be what most people think of when they hear "government" but human beings are social creatures and need rules to interact and survive. Those rules are government. Groups survive much better than individuals. This. Life in the jungle is Solitary, Nasty, Brutish, and Short. ––-Thomas Hobbs of Malmsbury Anarchy sucks as bad as tyranny, because at the end of the day, they are the same thing. Strong will prey upon the weak. I would much rather live in the old west, when there few laws, and much more common sense. |
|
Quoted: im beginning to understand why Jefferson didn't take as much of a leading role in our founding as many of us would wish. hi writings and this thread lead me to understand that it is mans destiny to not stand up to evil but create government to do so which then corrupts and oppresses man leading to revolutions of freedom restarting the clock. A cycle which we can observe happening over and over again yet we keep repeating it. vlad the impaler ran an extremely effective government––it was said that a child could walk alone across all of wallachia during his reign. t'ang china was also effectively governed. but do those even remotely resemble governments under which you would want to live? of course not. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
im beginning to understand why Jefferson didn't take as much of a leading role in our founding as many of us would wish. hi writings and this thread lead me to understand that it is mans destiny to not stand up to evil but create government to do so which then corrupts and oppresses man leading to revolutions of freedom restarting the clock. A cycle which we can observe happening over and over again yet we keep repeating it. vlad the impaler ran an extremely effective government––it was said that a child could walk alone across all of wallachia during his reign. t'ang china was also effectively governed. but do those even remotely resemble governments under which you would want to live? of course not. Depends. Some folks here would love that. Not naming names. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
lets say we never decided that government enforces laws. each man protects his own property and deals with his own problems in his own way. when someone is stealing you can kill them. when someone robs you on an investment you can kill them. when someone talks shit you can kill them. what would the crime rate be like? That would be a thug-life gangster's wet dream. You would be forced to band together with other good people in order to survive and protect your family. Which would be extremely difficult for good people, as our communities are not set up to be small cells of protection. Think drug-run Mexico but much worse. I don't care how tough you are or how good of a shot you are, you gotta sleep sometime. |