On May 11, 1:44 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Unless you believe all men are angels, then you'll
agr=
ee 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
tho=
se 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
gover=
ned,
> > > > > > > > > > if indeed not moreso, as seems to be the case.
> > > > > > > > > Merely saying gummint can be bad never challenges the
asse=
rtion above
> > > > > > > > > that there will _always_ be gummint, if only by that one
b=
ad guy
> > > > > > > > > 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
tryin=
g to pretend
> > > > > > > > > otherwise.
> > > > > > > > > Simply sticking your head into the sand and dodging the
is=
sue and
> > > > > > > > > trying to ignore gummint or pretending to be too lofty
for=
gummint
> > > > > > > > > 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
categorize=
d the three
> > > > > > > > > types of gummint, Monarchical, Democratic-Republican,
and =
Despotic.
> > > > > > > > > Read _Spirit of Laws_ and you'll see "despotism" is a
perf=
ect 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 =
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? And where?
> > > > > > > > , to
> > > > > > > > "all human communities exhibit a state".
> > > > > > > Well?
> > > > > > > Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs. Show us a
h=
uman
> > > > > > > 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
deat=
h
> > > > > 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
Bush=
Co
> > > > > 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
fac=
t
> > > > > that until all men are angels, not some men, not most men, but
_al=
l_
> > > > > 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,
>
> 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. If
> > some people should rule others, analogously some
> > states should rule other states. The 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. 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.
>
> 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.
If you refer to unnamed authorities, yet decline to
name, cite and quote them, you will not succeed in
convincing those who are skeptical of your
argument.
> > > > 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.
>
> 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.
Apparently your readings in athropology are somewhat
sparse.
> > > > 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.
>
> Human nature is irrelevant to political science?
I have already pointed out the contradiction in
the argument that, because people are evil, they
must have a government. You did not answer the
objection, so that argument has canceled itself out,
and is no longer relevant to this discussion.
|
