ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[InkL0sed]

In the immortal words of Richard Rorty, we are "going to make your views seem silly rather than discussable."

Yeah, except he wasn't advocating trolling; he was talking about intolerance.

[saxitoxin]

In the immortal words of Richard Rorty, we are "going to make your views seem silly rather than discussable."

Yeah, except he wasn't advocating trolling; he was talking about intolerance.

Part of tolerance is tolerance of different ideas. May I suggest you seek-out opportunities to have your views challenged and stimulated rather than gulping down what is spoon-fed to you without blinking; responding with knee-jerk reactionary buzzwords when presented with new, more liberal, egalitarian and enlightened worldviews? Just a thought. You may feel free to accept it or respond with more buzzwords, book burnings and calls for the death of Julian Assange as you see fit.

[Metsfanmax]

That's no answer at all, unless you think that, in the absence of a state, murder will be punished by little garden gnomes who are horrified when actions are committed that are inherently evil.

Like all organizations, a State is first concerned with its own existence. You were instructed by agents of the State - teachers - that law cannot exist outside of the State; that the two are inseparably entangled. That is your frame of reference, one so efficiently ingrained that you cannot imagine anything different in the same way one could not describe space to someone who had never looked up at the sky.

Religious fundamentalism is not dependent on the supernatural. You engage in State-Worship, a form of religious fundamentalism.

I can't deprogram someone unwilling to be deprogrammed. By your words and the way you carry yourself you've indicated you are content with a State-Worship centered life. We should all be happy about something. I'm glad you have found something.

My argument is more simple than that. The argument is that by definition, if a body has sovereign authority to act in response to a crime (or not act at all), then by definition it is a State. Law can only exist within the state, because law may only exist when we grant other human beings the right to decide for us whether certain human behavior is acceptable or not. That is the purpose of being part of the social contract. So yes, I am content with a life that exists because of the existence of the State - because I find it to be far preferable to the alternative. I'm happy to give up my right to respond to the acts of murderers so that a different organization can handle that, one with actual experience and knowledge in the area of how to, say, catch murderers.

This doesn't mean I'm blind to it. None of us here have grown up in a country without a State (although where you come from, perhaps the state was slightly less organized at some points in time). If you can claim to be able to free yourself from the paradigm of a state-centered life, then so can anybody else. If you think that people are not choosing to, that's one thing. But all of us have been "ingrained" with the idea that a government is inherently part of modern life.

[InkL0sed]

In the immortal words of Richard Rorty, we are "going to make your views seem silly rather than discussable."

Yeah, except he wasn't advocating trolling; he was talking about intolerance.

Part of tolerance is tolerance of different ideas. May I suggest you seek-out opportunities to have your views challenged and stimulated rather than gulping down what is spoon-fed to you without blinking; responding with knee-jerk reactionary buzzwords when presented with new, more liberal, egalitarian and enlightened worldviews? Just a thought. You may feel free to accept it or respond with more buzzwords, book burnings and calls for the death of Julian Assange as you see fit.

Wait, are you talking to me? For a second I thought you were talking to yourself.

[saxitoxin]

That's no answer at all, unless you think that, in the absence of a state, murder will be punished by little garden gnomes who are horrified when actions are committed that are inherently evil.

Like all organizations, a State is first concerned with its own existence. You were instructed by agents of the State - teachers - that law cannot exist outside of the State; that the two are inseparably entangled. That is your frame of reference, one so efficiently ingrained that you cannot imagine anything different in the same way one could not describe space to someone who had never looked up at the sky.

Religious fundamentalism is not dependent on the supernatural. You engage in State-Worship, a form of religious fundamentalism.

I can't deprogram someone unwilling to be deprogrammed. By your words and the way you carry yourself you've indicated you are content with a State-Worship centered life. We should all be happy about something. I'm glad you have found something.

My argument is more simple than that. The argument is that by definition, if a body has sovereign authority to act in response to a crime (or not act at all), then by definition it is a State. Law can only exist within the state, because law may only exist when we grant other human beings the right to decide for us whether certain human behavior is acceptable or not. That is the purpose of being part of the social contract. So yes, I am content with a life that exists because of the existence of the State - because I find it to be far preferable to the alternative. I'm happy to give up my right to respond to the acts of murderers so that a different organization can handle that, one with actual experience and knowledge in the area of how to, say, catch murderers.

This doesn't mean I'm blind to it. None of us here have grown up in a country without a State (although where you come from, perhaps the state was slightly less organized at some points in time). If you can claim to be able to free yourself from the paradigm of a state-centered life, then so can anybody else. If you think that people are not choosing to, that's one thing. But all of us have been "ingrained" with the idea that a government is inherently part of modern life.

whatev' poindexter

Wait, are you talking to me? For a second I thought you were talking to yourself.

bra, don't be such a douche

[Juan_Bottom]

Saxi has a point, people everywhere on the planet have the same basic morals. We don't kill each other, we don't steal... ect. When we do these things, a body eventually rises against us. The state just organizes this in exchange for money and control.

[john9blue]

so where are you saying those morals come from?

[Phatscotty]

so where are you saying those morals come from?

the same place our rights come from...

[BigBallinStalin]

That's no answer at all, unless you think that, in the absence of a state, murder will be punished by little garden gnomes who are horrified when actions are committed that are inherently evil.

Like all organizations, a State is first concerned with its own existence. You were instructed by agents of the State - teachers - that law cannot exist outside of the State; that the two are inseparably entangled. That is your frame of reference, one so efficiently ingrained that you cannot imagine anything different in the same way one could not describe space to someone who had never looked up at the sky.

Religious fundamentalism is not dependent on the supernatural. You engage in State-Worship, a form of religious fundamentalism.

I can't deprogram someone unwilling to be deprogrammed. By your words and the way you carry yourself you've indicated you are content with a State-Worship centered life. We should all be happy about something. I'm glad you have found something.

My argument is more simple than that. The argument is that by definition, if a body has sovereign authority to act in response to a crime (or not act at all), then by definition it is a State. Law can only exist within the state, because law may only exist when we grant other human beings the right to decide for us whether certain human behavior is acceptable or not. That is the purpose of being part of the social contract. So yes, I am content with a life that exists because of the existence of the State - because I find it to be far preferable to the alternative. I'm happy to give up my right to respond to the acts of murderers so that a different organization can handle that, one with actual experience and knowledge in the area of how to, say, catch murderers.

This doesn't mean I'm blind to it. None of us here have grown up in a country without a State (although where you come from, perhaps the state was slightly less organized at some points in time). If you can claim to be able to free yourself from the paradigm of a state-centered life, then so can anybody else. If you think that people are not choosing to, that's one thing. But all of us have been "ingrained" with the idea that a government is inherently part of modern life.

You have been ingrained with that idea. No argument there.


For centuries, nomadic societies have lived without the need of a State, yet they themselves have developed their own legal systems. They themselves enforce the law and change it over time. This is all done without the State; therefore, legal systems do not require a State in order to exist. (however, things can become more complicated with international law---which already has a legal system that exists beyond just one State (the ICJ--which actually gets trampled on by certain States, but that's another matter).


States just monopolize the legal system, police forces, and other public goods that they deem shouldn't be privatized--and shouldn't even be experimented with, then they force involuntary contributions (like taxation or arbitrarily set fees set for your brake tag, driver's license, etc.)

[BigBallinStalin]

SAXITOXIN, HOW DARE YOU LIFT THE MORATORIUM ON TICKLE ATTACKS!

Prepare to face severe sanctions...

[InkL0sed]

Stalin, comparing nomadic societies to modern societies doesn't work. Nomads (I'm assuming you mean hunter-gatherers, which still exist by the way) aren't even post-Agricultural Revolution. The very nature of human existence changed once people settled and produced more food. Anarchy is no longer possible post-Agricultural Revolution.

[Juan_Bottom]

so where are you saying those morals come from?

Here you go buddy:

I don't believe any of our Modern Morals come from Religion. At least, none of those that we follow do. They all come from a time when we were all a part of small, roaming or stationary communities. You'd see the same people repeatedly in your life, so a system of mutual cooperation evolved from that. Cooperating with your neighbors would get you further than hoarding food, killing babies, and stealing their women for a laugh. At least one study* has shown that my morals that I "learned" while growing up in the trailer park are the same as the morals that Native tribesmen learn growing up isolated in the Jungles of Brazil. That says volumes about religious influence.

After the basic morals principles that we all follow, even the religions don't follow the morals laid down in their own religious texts. Ever seen someone stoned to death for working on a Saturday?



*Marc Hauser's Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong and his morality test placed on the KUNA people of SA.

[john9blue]

it wasn't a loaded question. i know full well that religion isn't necessary for universal morals.

[BigBallinStalin]

Stalin, comparing nomadic societies to modern societies doesn't work. Nomads (I'm assuming you mean hunter-gatherers, which still exist by the way) aren't even post-Agricultural Revolution. The very nature of human existence changed once people settled and produced more food. Anarchy is no longer possible post-Agricultural Revolution.

Somalia is actually doing relatively fine (and in some areas better than other sub-saharan african countries) ever since there's been a large absence of government there--except for the southern most part which actually sports a larger government presence.

By lack of a state there, I mean that there is no state that has a monopoly on any services--not even a geographic monopoly. The only taxes are 5% on income for local security, who let things do whatever. There's plenty more I can write about this...

[InkL0sed]

Stalin, comparing nomadic societies to modern societies doesn't work. Nomads (I'm assuming you mean hunter-gatherers, which still exist by the way) aren't even post-Agricultural Revolution. The very nature of human existence changed once people settled and produced more food. Anarchy is no longer possible post-Agricultural Revolution.

Somalia is actually doing relatively fine (and in some areas better than other sub-saharan african countries) ever since there's been a large absence of government there--except for the southern most part which actually sports a larger government presence.

By lack of a state there, I mean that there is no state that has a monopoly on any services--not even a geographic monopoly. The only taxes are 5% on income for local security, who let things do whatever. There's plenty more I can write about this...

Somalia is doing fine? That's news to me. I don't know many details about that though. Would you live there?

[BigBallinStalin]

Stalin, comparing nomadic societies to modern societies doesn't work. Nomads (I'm assuming you mean hunter-gatherers, which still exist by the way) aren't even post-Agricultural Revolution. The very nature of human existence changed once people settled and produced more food. Anarchy is no longer possible post-Agricultural Revolution.

Somalia is actually doing relatively fine (and in some areas better than other sub-saharan african countries) ever since there's been a large absence of government there--except for the southern most part which actually sports a larger government presence.

By lack of a state there, I mean that there is no state that has a monopoly on any services--not even a geographic monopoly. The only taxes are 5% on income for local security, who let things do whatever. There's plenty more I can write about this...

Somalia is doing fine? That's news to me. I don't know many details about that though. Would you live there?

Relatively is the key word. They're doing better and are on the up compared to most sub-saharan African countries, who have "functional" governments.

[InkL0sed]

Stalin, comparing nomadic societies to modern societies doesn't work. Nomads (I'm assuming you mean hunter-gatherers, which still exist by the way) aren't even post-Agricultural Revolution. The very nature of human existence changed once people settled and produced more food. Anarchy is no longer possible post-Agricultural Revolution.

Somalia is actually doing relatively fine (and in some areas better than other sub-saharan african countries) ever since there's been a large absence of government there--except for the southern most part which actually sports a larger government presence.

By lack of a state there, I mean that there is no state that has a monopoly on any services--not even a geographic monopoly. The only taxes are 5% on income for local security, who let things do whatever. There's plenty more I can write about this...

Somalia is doing fine? That's news to me. I don't know many details about that though. Would you live there?

Relatively is the key word. They're doing better and are on the up compared to most sub-saharan African countries, who have "functional" governments.

Since when is anything about Africa functional?

[GabonX]

Saxi has a point, people everywhere on the planet have the same basic morals. We don't kill each other, we don't steal... ect. When we do these things, a body eventually rises against us.

Do you live under a rock?

The state just organizes this in exchange for money and control.

And in many, many cases does all of the things you mentioned above...

[BigBallinStalin]

Stalin, comparing nomadic societies to modern societies doesn't work. Nomads (I'm assuming you mean hunter-gatherers, which still exist by the way) aren't even post-Agricultural Revolution. The very nature of human existence changed once people settled and produced more food. Anarchy is no longer possible post-Agricultural Revolution.

Somalia is actually doing relatively fine (and in some areas better than other sub-saharan african countries) ever since there's been a large absence of government there--except for the southern most part which actually sports a larger government presence.

By lack of a state there, I mean that there is no state that has a monopoly on any services--not even a geographic monopoly. The only taxes are 5% on income for local security, who let things do whatever. There's plenty more I can write about this...

Somalia is doing fine? That's news to me. I don't know many details about that though. Would you live there?

Relatively is the key word. They're doing better and are on the up compared to most sub-saharan African countries, who have "functional" governments.

Since when is anything about Africa functional?

Oh lawd! Now you've gone and said it!

[saxitoxin]

Anarchy is no longer possible post-Agricultural Revolution.

Tell that to Sub-Commander Marcos.



You are entering the Zapatista Rebel Territory!

[Aradhus]

All groups of people have different methods on how to run things. How are decisions made within nomadic tribes.

What you guys are advocating is impractical and just fundamentally unworkable within the societal structures we exist in.

We have governments. Quit whining.

[spurgistan]

Anarchy is no longer possible post-Agricultural Revolution.

You are entering the Zapatista Rebel Territory!

To the best of my reasonable amount of knowledge on EZLN, they have an organized central authority that governs their decisions (the "Buen Gobierno" referred to in the sign above) Does the fact that no other government recognizes this authority make it anarchy? I don't think that Zapatistas would call it that.

/edited for rogue quotation mark

[Phatscotty]

All groups of people have different methods on how to run things. How are decisions made within nomadic tribes.

What you guys are advocating is impractical and just fundamentally unworkable within the societal structures we exist in.

We have governments. Quit whining.

Freedom and Liberty are worth fighting for, no matter your attempt to minimize or demean our positions....

[Aradhus]

Ya got me, I hate freedom and would prefer total and utter government control.
Sometimes though, I hate freedom cause I want total an utter religious control.
Other times, when I hate freedom its cause I want total and utter corporate control.

PS, next time I demean the conservative or libertarian position I will try weally weally hard not to demagogue as much as you do.

[Phatscotty]

Ya got me, I hate freedom and would prefer total and utter government control.
Sometimes though, I hate freedom cause I want total an utter religious control.
Other times, when I hate freedom its cause I want total and utter corporate control.

PS, next time I demean the conservative or libertarian position I will try weally weally hard not to demagogue as much as you do.

just pointing out you use of the word "whining". That usually only works with children