On May 12, 3:44 am, 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.
So then the US never was Imperialist? Strange, the Phillipinos
seemed to think they were, and the Mexicans, and the Native Americans
and many of the people who have US military basis in their country of
which
there are 700 in 100 countries.
>
> > 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"
>
Yet strangely this "service" consists largely in telling other
people
what to do, rather than doing what you are told to do. When I see
one man wearing a gun and another a manicle I assume the man
with the gun is master, the other servant.
> > 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.
>
Pay no attention to the 130,000+ men behind the curtain.
> The Iraq quagmire only proves that fact.
>
Iraq proves the US is not an imperialist power? Really because sane
people think it's evidence for the opposite view.
> > 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.
Agreed, and? You are arguing that the US was never an imperialist
power, now you seem to have changed to "It's only an imperialist power
when it's taking corrupt notice of cor****ations". Since that's pretty
much
all the time you seem to have lost the argument.
> Not all gummints are screwed up. Just those where the corp. interests
> have dumbed down the public and no one has fought back.
>
I see, so Soviet Russia wasn't screwed up?
> 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.
>
The solution isn't to pretend any men are angels in the decadent
hope the government will not be vile and violent.
> And _no_ dodging issues does not enlighten the public.
>
Then why do you do it?
> > 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.
Or indeed any.
> If some
> rightard thinks there are a significant number of independent profs
> who disagree,
You made a claim about 95% of degreed anthropologists on the basis
of one such. This is hardly evidence.
> 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. 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."
>
You seem to be the one keen on shooting someone, or rather on
having someone else shoot them for you.
> > > > 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.
>
No it went from a claim by one anthropologist to a claim by you
that almost all of them agreed with him. Nobody mentioned single
family units IIRC.
> > > > 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?
>
> ? ? ?
>
> Bret Cahill
Whether they are or could become angels is. There is no
answer to this question which shows that the State is either
neccesary or helpful. If they can all become angels we do not
need the State and it doesn't help. If we can't then the State is
too dangerous in the hands of any of us and still doesn't help.
You are the one who claim that your moral claim backs up
your practical one. Prove it.
|
