On May 10, 6:07=C2=A0am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Unless you believe all men are angels, then you'll agree
t=
hat 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
t=
rying 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
assertio=
n above
> > > > > > > that there will _always_ be gummint, if only by that one bad
g=
uy
> > > > > > > statist. =EF=BF=BDThe only real question is the nature of
that=
gummint. =EF=BF=BDNow
> > > > > > > we are right back to being politicos including those trying
to=
pretend
> > > > > > > otherwise.
> > > > > > > Simply sticking your head into the sand and dodging the
issue =
and
> > > > > > > trying to ignore gummint or pretending to be too lofty for
gum=
mint
> > > > > > > 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
th=
e three
> > > > > > > types of gummint, Monarchical, Democratic-Republican, and
Desp=
otic.
> > > > > > > Read _Spirit of Laws_ and you'll see "despotism" is a
perfect =
match
> > > > > > > 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
ther=
e
> > > > > 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 =
human
> > > > > 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
Bus=
hCo
> > > 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.
>
They are the result of the State behaving as it always does. Of
course you know no
history so you don't realise this.
> > =C2=A0the very essence of state function. =C2=A0
>
> Of a state _malfunction_ caused by political negligence.
>
No, this is how the State is supposed to function, it's supposed to
use force for the
benefit of it's friends. It always has.
> > 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.
>
On what evidence?
> > 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.
>
If you think that BushCo's adventures are the result of a lack of
political
power then you're the one who's inventing scenarios not even
Hollywood
would believe.
> > and I suggested
> > you abandon your self-contradictory moralistic view
>
> YOU are the one with the moralistic view. =C2=A0All I did was point out
al=
l
> men aren't angels.
>
Nobody disputes this.
> > 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.
>
So the first cities weren't free? Based on what?
> > We know that small groups of humans can survive without a
> > state;
>
> Not anymore
Bull****.
> and there's a real question if their "survival" in earlier
> times was anything more than just that -- survival.
>
But the survival in States was paradise?
> > =C2=A0the question is whether larger groups can, I think.
>
> Not until _all_ men become angels.
>
No evidence for this view at all.
> > =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
What has that got to do with it?
|
