On May 9, 4:07 pm, 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? And where?
> > > > > > , to
> > > > > > "all human communities exhibit a state".
> > > > > Well?
> > > > > Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs. Show us a
human=
> > > > > community were all men are angels and no gummint is necessary.
> > > > Just open an anthropology textbook. You 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. You can just move to BushCo
> > > Iraq.
> > > Anyway all this dodges the issue: a 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.
>
> Of a state _malfunction_ caused by political negligence.
Imperialism follows the logic of the state, which is that
some people are more fit to rule than others, and should
rule the others, and that it is proper to have a permanent
organization of coercion to enable them to do so. If
some people should rule others, analogously some
states should rule other states. The occupation of Iraq
was unusual only in its incompetence; the U.S. has
engaged in military operations dozens of times since
World War II, and according to one count, about a
hundred times since it embarked on a serious
project of imperialism around 1900.
> > However, that's completely
> > irrelevant to the point I was trying to get at. So is some lone
> > unidentified anthropologist's guess that state organization
> > increases the chances of its constituents' survival.
>
> 95% of degreed anthropologists will agree with him on that one.
If you're going to cite authorities, you had better
name them.
> > 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.
That is a moralistic view.
> > 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.
I am talking about observation of the facts under
discussion.
> > 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.
>
> > Do
> > you have anything to say about that, or not?
>
> Just answer one question:
>
> Do you believe all men are or could become angels?
Irrelevant.
|
