> > > > > > > > > > Unless you believe all men are angels, then you'll
agree=
that 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=
trying 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
governe=
d,
> > > > > > > > > if indeed not moreso, as seems to be the case.
> > > > > > > > Merely saying gummint can be bad never challenges the
assert=
ion 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
th=
at 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
issu=
e and
> > > > > > > > trying to ignore gummint or pretending to be too lofty for
g=
ummint
> > > > > > > > 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
De=
spotic.
> > > > > > > > Read _Spirit of Laws_ and you'll see "despotism" is a
perfec=
t 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
th=
ere
> > > > > > 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
i=
n
> > > > 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
B=
ushCo
> > > > 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
b=
y
> > > > 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.
> > > =C2=A0the
> > > very essence of state function.
> > Of a state _malfunction_ caused by political negligence.
> Imperialism follows the logic of the state,
Only despotic states, not democratic-republics.
> which is that
> some people are more fit to rule than others,
Depends on the gummint.
In a democracy it's "some are more fit to _serve_ the public 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. =C2=A0If
> some people should rule others, analogously some
> states should rule other states. =C2=A0The occupation of Iraq
> was unusual only in its incompetence;
Except for "acquiring" large chunks of Mexico -- we've been dormant
for over a century in that regard --, the U. S. has _never_ been and
will _never_ be an imperial power.
The Iraq quagmire only proves that fact.
> the U.S. has
> engaged in military operations dozens of times since
> World War II,
All of them caused by monied interests either directly or indirectly.
Not all gummints are screwed up. Just those where the corp. interests
have dumbed down the public and no one has fought back.
The solution isn't to pretend all men are angels in a decadent hope
gummint will go away but to take action and enlighten the people.
And _no_ dodging issues does not enlighten the public.
> 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. =C2=A0So 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.
I don't need to enlighten all the ignorant on every matter. If some
rightard thinks there are a significant number of independent profs
who disagree, he can post a list just like the AGW deniers post their
list of Exxon ****lls.
> > > 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. =C2=A0All I did was point
out =
all
> > men aren't angels.
> That is a moralistic view.
Looneytarians are the ones whining about "statists" and fantacizing
about shooting "them evil feds."
> > > 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.
The discussion went from civil society of real nations to isolated
family units that would only appear in a Hollywood B movie.
> > > 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.
> > > =C2=A0the 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?
> Irrelevant.
Human nature is irrelevant to political science?
? ? ?
Bret Cahill
|
