> > > > > > > > Unless you believe all men are angels, then you'll agree
tha=
t there
> > > > > > > > will be gummint, if only by that one bad guy statist.
> > > > > > > > The only real question is the nature of that gummint.
> > > > > > > > Now we are right back to being politicos including those
try=
ing to
> > > > > > > > pretend otherwise.
> > > > > > > The argument that because some or all humans are evil,
> > > > > > > we need government, contains an obvious contradiction:
> > > > > > > the governors are just as likely to be evil as the governed,
> > > > > > > if indeed not moreso, as seems to be the case.
> > > > > > Merely saying gummint can be bad never challenges the
assertion =
above
> > > > > > that there will _always_ be gummint, if only by that one bad
guy=
> > > > > > statist. =EF=BF=BDThe only real question is the nature of that
g=
ummint. =EF=BF=BDNow
> > > > > > we are right back to being politicos including those trying to
p=
retend
> > > > > > otherwise.
> > > > > > Simply sticking your head into the sand and dodging the issue
an=
d
> > > > > > trying to ignore gummint or pretending to be too lofty for
gummi=
nt
> > > > > > doesn't make the gummint go away or become better.
> > > > > > To the contrary it makes things worse.
> > > > > > The OP is looneytarian.
> > > > > > Pre French and American Revolutions Montesquieu categorized
the =
three
> > > > > > types of gummint, Monarchical, Democratic-Republican, and
Despot=
ic.
> > > > > > Read _Spirit of Laws_ and you'll see "despotism" is a perfect
ma=
tch
> > > > > > for "libertaria."
> > > > > I think you're confused. =EF=BF=BD
> > > > But everyone now knows you keep dodging the issue:
> > > > Unless you believe all men are angels, then you'll agree that
there
> > > > will be gummint, if only by that one bad guy statist.
> > > > > First of all, you've switched from a
> > > > > moralistic argument
> > > > That led nowhere . . .
> > > > > to an anthropological one: =EF=BF=BDfrom "humans
> > > > > are so evil that they require government to restrain them"
> > > > Who posted that? =C2=A0And where?
> > > > > , to
> > > > > "all human communities exhibit a state".
> > > > Well?
> > > > Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs. =C2=A0Show us a
hu=
man
> > > > community were all men are angels and no gummint is necessary.
> > > Just open an anthropology textbook. =C2=A0You will find
> > > numerous descriptions of communities of humans
> > > that do not exhibit a state.
> > One anthropologist studying the inhabitants living 5,000 years ago in
> > what is now Montana wrote that the chances of dying a violent death
> > then were 50 times higher than now.
> > He concluded, "politization saves lives."
> > You don't even have to go back in time. =C2=A0You can just move to
BushC=
o
> > Iraq.
> > Anyway all this dodges the issue: =C2=A0a despotic state is _still_ a
> > state.
> > Whether you want to pretend it is or isn't does not change the fact
> > that until all men are angels, not some men, not most men, but _all_
> > men are angels, then there _will_ be gummint of some kind, if only by
> > that one bad guy statist.
> Bush's adventures in Iraq -- war, imperialism, theft -- are
Are a result of the political _vacuum_ left by Bill Clinton.
They are a result of the political slackerism of the American people.
> the
> very essence of state function. =C2=A0
Of a state _malfunction_ caused by political negligence.
> However, that's completely
> irrelevant to the point I was trying to get at. =C2=A0So is some lone
> unidentified anthropologist's guess that state organization
> increases the chances of its constituents' survival. =C2=A0
95% of degreed anthropologists will agree with him on that one.
> We were
> discussing whether the state was necessary,
And I assumed you meant for a _real_ country, not some Hollywood
scenario about the last family on earth.
> and I suggested
> you abandon your self-contradictory moralistic view
YOU are the one with the moralistic view. All I did was point out all
men aren't angels.
> and move
> on to the firmer ground of science, of observation of the world.
Find some anthropologists who will tell you a primitive society was
free in any modern sense of the word.
> We know that small groups of humans can survive without a
> state;
Not anymore and there's a real question if their "survival" in earlier
times was anything more than just that -- survival.
> the question is whether larger groups can, I think.
Not until _all_ men become angels.
> =C2=A0Do
> you have anything to say about that, or not?
Just answer one question:
Do you believe all men are or could become angels?
Bret Cahill
|
