Debunked: Debunkers Trust the Government and Think Everything is Fine

Bill said:
Well that's not an answer. The history is written by the victors argument only goes so far. It's a feeble excuse for rewriting history to support or deny events that are inconvenient for the the fringe belief. Historians argue about the details of history and the biases that come from different cultural views, not whether major events actually occurred. That is the millieu of the fringe believer. Historians argue about the events leading to the holocaust. Fringe believers argue that it didn't happen. Sure science can be biased but it is also operates in an extremely cutthroat environment and the process contains a number of checks and balances designed to weed out bias and misinformation from studies. Other things in science simply aren't up for debate. The Bernoulli principle and Boyles Laws show that when you take a compressed gas and rapidly expand it's volume you get a drop in temperature and can produce ice crystals. The people that want to call every contrail they see a "chemtrail" seem to want to ignore some of the basic principles of thermodynamics.

If the believers feel like they are being treated this way then they need to accept some of the blame. The tendency to ignore science and the failure to adhere to any consistent standards of evidence makes it difficult to engage some believers on level ground. When you are dealing with someone that claims the ancient Indians had nuclear weapons because they saw it on a TV show and the guy at the local UFO convention backed it up, but has never bothered to read the actual passages in the Mahabharata the claim is based on, it is hard to take them seriously. When that same person then accuses you of being and academic shill because you point out this inconsistency and suggest they read the original before making up their minds, it's hard not to want to grab them by shoulders and yell "hey stupid, pay attention".
Click to expand...
Extreme positions in any endeavor are difficult to defend . . . and are generally easy targets to debunk if the debate is on neutral ground . . . me thinks; however, being logical with irrational individuals is a waste of one's effort . . . the best strategy is to assess an advocates motivation and proceed with caution . . . if an advocate is making money, fame or publicity from their positions they are not likely to debate without being extremely defensive and unwilling to concede any point that challenges their positions . . .
 
Mick West said:
I think it's reasonable to suspect that some conspiracies exist. The problem is looking at specifics. How do you know which conspiracy theories to believe? Why pick something like chemtrails? If there's no evidence for a particular theory, then why go with that theory?
Click to expand...


Nice thread Mick. I was suspect of you a bit myself. I still believe there may be chemtrails as things I have seen over the years but I can see now you are genuine for sure.

I think the solution, so to speak, ultimately will be a universal law global constitution.

Not that I am a minarchist because I think it should be more like voluntary guidelines than something enforced.

There are so many silly statute laws and regulation that obfuscate real crimes like violence.

I think a lot of the challenges stem from voting people that essentially have not signed a contract to keep their promises.

Humans will usually try to preserve power granted to them.
 
Last edited:
I would think debunkers are more likely to support (Trust) the government and most likely going to accept the standard process, the status quo, the accepted experts, and the existing social structure . . . it is their anchor or base from which they launch their debate . . . since any challenge to said base is a fight against inertia . . . they (debunkers) start with an advantage over most if not all new, unusual or fringe arguments . . . and where almost by definition conspiracies and less popular positions are born or are forced to reside . . .
 
George B said:
I would think debunkers are more likely to support the givernment and most likely going to accept the standard process, the status quo, the accepted experts, and the existing social structure . . . it is their anchor or base from which they launch their debate . . . since any challenge to said base is a fight against inertia . . . they (debunkers) start with an advantage over most if not all new, unusual or fringe arguments . . . and where almost by definition conspiracies and less popular positions are born or are forced to reside . . .
Click to expand...

Well, we all are different of course.

I have met genuine debunkers and obviously biased statist types that have a vested interest in the status quo.

Some for "conspiracy theorists" most are rational but some are bonkers or attention seekers etc.

The only people I do not really like are sadists and elitists.

PS: Why are taxes not optional? As per your sig.
 
George B said:
I would think debunkers are more likely to support (Trust) the government and most likely going to accept the standard process, the status quo, the accepted experts, and the existing social structure . . . it is their anchor or base from which they launch their debate . . . since any challenge to said base is a fight against inertia . . . .
Click to expand...

That does not seem like an accurate description of what a "debunker" is- at least as its been elucidated on this site.
 
George B said:
I would think debunkers are more likely to support (Trust) the government and most likely going to accept the standard process, the status quo, the accepted experts, and the existing social structure . . . it is their anchor or base from which they launch their debate . . . since any challenge to said base is a fight against inertia . . . they (debunkers) start with an advantage over most if not all new, unusual or fringe arguments . . . and where almost by definition conspiracies and less popular positions are born or are forced to reside . . .
Click to expand...
I don't really support the status quo or the existing social structure and from what I've read on this thread most debunkers don't. I just have a low tolerance for BS. The world is complicated enough without political ideologues, special interest groups, medical quacks, and fringe theorist spreading misinformation. If I examine their claims and the facts don't back them up I'm more than willing to call them out. If the standard process you are talking about is the scientific process then yes, I support it wholeheartedly over the innuendo and speculation that passes for evidence on the fringe.
 
Bill said:
I don't really support the status quo or the existing social structure and from what I've read on this thread most debunkers don't. I just have a low tolerance for BS. The world is complicated enough without political ideologues, special interest groups, medical quacks, and fringe theorist spreading misinformation. If I examine their claims and the facts don't back them up I'm more than willing to call them out. If the standard process you are talking about is the scientific process then yes, I support it wholeheartedly over the innuendo and speculation that passes for evidence on the fringe.
Click to expand...

No offence but you didnt even mention people or organisations that actually hurt people. Governments for example.
 
Gary Cook said:
No offence but you didnt even mention people or organisations that actually hurt people. Governments for example.
Click to expand...
I don't automatically support the government either nor do I automatically condemn them because they are the government. I had hoped it was a given that the government and the politicians would be among the political ideologues (they seem to have taken over the United States government). As for injuring people, fringe ideas can be as damaging as the government. The rise in infectious disease outbreaks (mumps, measles, pertussis) in the United States and the United Kingdom due to the misinformation spread by the antivax groups is a good example the damage caused by the misinformation spread about AIDS in Africa is another.
 
George B said:
I would think debunkers are more likely to support (Trust) the government and most likely going to accept the standard process, the status quo, the accepted experts, and the existing social structure . . . it is their anchor or base from which they launch their debate . . . since any challenge to said base is a fight against inertia . . . they (debunkers) start with an advantage over most if not all new, unusual or fringe arguments . . . and where almost by definition conspiracies and less popular positions are born or are forced to reside . . .
Click to expand...
well im not a debunker but I certainly don't believe in the big/mainstream conspiracies like 9/11, contrails, the moonlanding hoax etc because personally I cant give government that much credit. The conspiracy theorists are the ones that are putting excessive faith in the capabilities of government.

maybe the Illuminati, or whatever the elite secret society du jour is, could pull it off. But even then, they are men. men brag, act impulsively etc etc. Those big conspiracies that require hundreds of people to keep quiet only work if you completely dismiss the human factor.
 
Bill said:
I don't really support the status quo or the existing social structure and from what I've read on this thread most debunkers don't. I just have a low tolerance for BS. The world is complicated enough without political ideologues, special interest groups, medical quacks, and fringe theorist spreading misinformation. If I examine their claims and the facts don't back them up I'm more than willing to call them out. If the standard process you are talking about is the scientific process then yes, I support it wholeheartedly over the innuendo and speculation that passes for evidence on the fringe.
Click to expand...
What I was saying . . . the "scientific" experts for example are usually from the status quo . . . they are many times supported and funded directly or indirectly by government or big corporate establishments and schooled by and through acceptable mainstream culturally acceptable philosophy . . . few debunkers I have ever heard have criticize or challenged the experts . . . they rely heavily upon "established" norms of thought and readily accept their methodologies and cite them as evidence in any debate . . . the conspiracy theorists usually is swimming upstream and sometimes must depart from the mainstream thought to argue their position because they are usually on the fringe of acceptable and verifiable evidence . . .
 
George B said:
I would think debunkers are more likely to support (Trust) the government and most likely going to accept the standard process, the status quo, the accepted experts, and the existing social structure . . . it is their anchor or base from which they launch their debate . . . since any challenge to said base is a fight against inertia . . . they (debunkers) start with an advantage over most if not all new, unusual or fringe arguments . . . and where almost by definition conspiracies and less popular positions are born or are forced to reside . . .
Click to expand...

When it comes to stuff like the illuminati, the new world order, and chemtrails, how I feel about the government is irrelevant. A better correlation would be ones' common sense and reasoning abilities. Debunkers seem to have more.
 
Bill said:
I don't really support the status quo or the existing social structure and from what I've read on this thread most debunkers don't. I just have a low tolerance for BS. The world is complicated enough without political ideologues, special interest groups, medical quacks, and fringe theorist spreading misinformation. If I examine their claims and the facts don't back them up I'm more than willing to call them out. If the standard process you are talking about is the scientific process then yes, I support it wholeheartedly over the innuendo and speculation that passes for evidence on the fringe.
Click to expand...

BINGO!!
 
deirdre said:
well im not a debunker but I certainly don't believe in the big/mainstream conspiracies like 9/11, contrails, the moonlanding hoax etc because personally I cant give government that much credit. The conspiracy theorists are the ones that are putting excessive faith in the capabilities of government.

maybe the Illuminati, or whatever the elite secret society du jour is, could pull it off. But even then, they are men. men brag, act impulsively etc etc. Those big conspiracies that require hundreds of people to keep quiet only work if you completely dismiss the human factor.
Click to expand...


This is very true and makes sense. I hope conspiracy theorists read this.
 
Mick West said:
I'm a debunker. I like finding and exposing bunk. I do it because I enjoy doing it, and because I think it can do some good in terms of helping people not being scared of things that don't exist, and in terms of helping people focus on real issues.

As a debunker, quite often I debunk claims that some "official story" is wrong. For example, the "official story" of the long lasting white lines in the sky is that they are "just contrails". There's a conspiracy theory that they are actually "chemtrails". I've extensively debunked most of the claims of evidence behind this theory.

As a result, I often get the accusation that I'm a "supporter" of the official story, and that I "trust the government", and that I think "everything is fine", and "there's nothing to see here".

This could not be further from the truth.

I don't trust "the government" (and here we are talking about the US government). I most certainly do not trust career politicians. I think a significant quantity of the people in congress are essentially corrupt - working in large part for their own self interests. I think there's a "revolving door" where former politicians go to work in lobbying, or in the industries that they once were responsible for regulating. I think corporations have a huge influence over the formation of legislation.

I most certainly do not think "everything is all right". I think there are major problems both in this country, and in the world at large. I think American foreign policy is overly interventionist, and this has led to significant problems with anti-american sentiment in places like Pakistan that could be a huge issue in the near future, and has contributed to events like 9/11 in the past.

I think the financial system is over extended, under regulated, and twisted and distorted into a pure money-making scheme that does not reflect any kind of economic reality.

I think the war on drugs has resulted in an unconscionably large prison population. I think that is very, very wrong that hundreds of thousands of young people are in jail for essentially victimless crimes. Often they get longer sentences than people who actually killed someone. I think the fact that the prison industry effectively lobbies for longer sentences is utterly disgusting.

I think the rich are getting richer far too fast. I think that wealth inequality is creating deep division in the country, and the race for wealth is a generally corrupting influence all round.

I think Guantanamo should have been closed a long time ago. Clearly there are men there who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fact that remained detained just because it's politically uncomfortable to release them is really unacceptable.

I think the US has used torture, and likely continues to use it, and this is both morally and legally wrong.

I think that people in government lie. I think they lied about the evidence for WMDs in Iraq in order to create a pretext for war. I think thousands of people died because of these lies.

I think the Obama administration's targeted assassination of people without trial, specially via drone/ missile attack with collateral killings, is a bad thing.

I think campaign finance reform is at the root of many of these issues. Ultimately legislation is required to fix them, but the political process is broken and corrupt.

I don't trust the government. I don't think everything is fine. And I've not met a debunker who does.

I invite other debunkers, skeptics, etc, to describe their degree of trust in government, and the degree to which they think everything is fine.
Click to expand...
I was just revisiting this Thread and have to admit I agree almost entirely with Mick's statement above. I would add that predictable human behavior makes conspiracies seem even more prevalent than that there may actually exist. Also, that literature, movies, the media in general reinforces that perception. What one needs to do is filter through the tendency to give more credit to people (institutions, political groups, organizations, corporations, etc) than they deserve.
 
Critical thinking is obviously important. There are too many conspiracy theorists who jump on unproven theories for whatever reason and too many debunkers who care more about debunking then they really care about the plight of other people. There is a balance in the middle I try and maintain. I dont always get it right but at least I am aware of the balance and its importance.

I suppose this is the one thread where I can be a bit political. Mick asks basically what's people stance towards government. Mine is that we would be better just to protect ourselves. I dont believe there is such a thing as a perfect government so we shouldnt have any. Adults shouldnt tell other adults what to do. We should just protect each other from violence. Crime and punishment as a system isnt working. Governments become both the single biggest instigator of violence both in terms of the number of incidences and the severity.

It seems that the government obfuscate their violence by creating lots of little laws that are all just really corporate policy and not true laws that relatively speaking play down the more worse crimes of violence while monetizing smaller misdemenors. Plus we dont really seem to live in a democracy. A lot of people dont vote. If nobody was a entity it would win the vote every time or at least have a big presence in government. That is with all the tricks and propaganda. If we had full disclosure I doubt any human would vote.
 
Seems people can naturally form informal and formal allegiances that appear sometimes to outsiders as orchestrated conspiratorial behavior. Things like clan behavior, supporting one's family, religious affiliation, school, club, employer, union, political philosophy or social organization. We have all read the extreme behaviors that can be witnessed from reactions and support for such entities. I classify these as common mind thinks. No one person is ordering a group to do any particular act. Actions are taken by one or a few members out of solidarity.
 
Gary Cook said:
If we had full disclosure I doubt any human would vote.
Click to expand...

But someone would still take control. Autocracy? Democracy? Ultimately they're the same. A few will be happy with it, a few will not, and the others will be somewhere in between those two extremes.
 
Melbury's Brick said:
But someone would still take control. Autocracy? Democracy? Ultimately they're the same. A few will be happy with it, a few will not, and the others will be somewhere in between those two extremes.
Click to expand...

Only if we LET people who seek authority take control again, in my opinion. I am not pacifist. If somebody uses violence against me I will defend myself. That's the prob though. again in my opinion. People dont defend themselves. They lap up all the freebies that are shrouded as projects for the public good but are really just bribes from some of the the proceeds of what was taken from people with force. It's a racket.

I would challenge anybody to rebut my points but I think most people here agree that instigating violence is wrong. They just have a different way to express it or are more moderate because they are trying to be fair to authoritarians.

Some people that are so called-anarchists do go too far though. Alex Jones comes to mind. Not to make this personal but a lot of what he says is debunked so my opinion is that most of what he says is just to scare people in to buying what he is selling. Most of which can be bought cheaper elsewhere. That's not love. Not being soft but that I why I like this forum so much. It's a counter-balance to people that are acting like that.

Although saying all that, I would think I would accept a much smaller government. I dont mind there being some rules. Its just to me there are so many they become obfuscation so that people dont see how bad violence is any-more. Plus they cost too much money and that leads to corruption etc etc. Eventually I would like the to be no governments.
 
Last edited:
Gary Cook said:
Only if we LET them take control
Click to expand...
we ALWAYS let them take control. if we didn't the governments we have now would be fine.

I can't stand people whining (not you specifically) about what gov does or doesn't do, unless they get in there and are actively working to change things. it's like 'back seat driver' syndrome.
 
deirdre said:
we ALWAYS let them take control. if we didn't the governments we have now would be fine.

I can't stand people whining (not you specifically) about what gov does or doesn't do, unless they get in there and are actively working to change things. it's like 'back seat driver' syndrome.
Click to expand...

I help others with their projects and I am making my own. Promoting it here wouldnt be appropriate but many people are trying to change things. The issues in relation to bunk develop because of things like it being sensationalism that gets traffic so people blog about things that are just for attention which diverts them from real campaigning.

I dont have some agenda except that I dont like violence. Whether it be government or some random looney. But sadly it seems like most violence is government. At least most premeditated violence. That is the kind we definitely can practically eradicate.

There are some well-meaning people in government but government is just basically a monopoly on violence, in my opinion. Even people like Ron Paul couldn't change much and would have to recede on some election promises. The influence of the "military-industrial-complex" is too powerful.

There are solutions but that's digressing away from the subject in-hand and I have learned it better to let some people think they discovered some things themselves. =)

Plus, I personally want people to think of their own solutions. Anything that works is fine by me.
 
Gary Cook said:
The issues in relation to bunk develop because of things like it being sensationalism that gets traffic so people blog about things that are just for attention which diverts them from real campaigning
Click to expand...
some bunk. a lot of bunk comes from people who 'don't trust the gov. or health industry (for ex.)'. I don't mean chemtrails, I'm talking like new age 'health' ideas etc. some is, obviously, money oriented but I think most bunk is just 'well meaning' people who don't consider consequences or science.

Government is imperfect, just as people are imperfect. like George said.
 
deirdre said:
some bunk. a lot of bunk comes from people who 'don't trust the gov. or health industry (for ex.)'. I don't mean chemtrails, I'm talking like new age 'health' ideas etc. some is, obviously, money oriented but I think most bunk is just 'well meaning' people who don't consider consequences or science.

Government is imperfect, just as people are imperfect. like George said.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree but having no government would be better than having an imperfect government for some people, me included.

People seem to have a false sense of security because of government, in my opinion.

To me, even the UK government is just a foreign corporation and I live in the UK.

Governments are constructs. National borders are artifice. I don't think anybody would disagree or could debunk that.
 
Gary Cook said:
Only if we LET people who seek authority take control again, in my opinion.
Although saying all that, I would think I would accept a much smaller government. I dont mind there being some rules. Its just to me there are so many they become obfuscation so that people dont see how bad violence is any-more. Plus they cost too much money and that leads to corruption etc etc. Eventually I would like the to be no governments.
Click to expand...


"Only if we LET people who seek authority take control"
We are the people who seek to take control! If a government is to be brought down it has to be done by people with a plan, and an agreed method for implementing it which has to be coordinated by an individual or collective. You cannot have a revolution without a leader/leaders, who then become either the next government or the selectors of the next government.
There is always some kind of government because someone is always, in one way or another, in control. From a sports team, to an army, to a bunch of kids standing on a street corner, one of them is calling the shots, and at least one of the others is standing by to take over as soon as they can.

"I dont mind there being some rules"
Of course. Society is rules. A collection of regulations and expectations that we all loosely agree to live by. Without them we have no society, we have chaos.

"Eventually I would like the to be no governments"
There will always be government of some sort because humans always will take advantage of a situation. It may not be called government but that is what it is.
 
Melbury's Brick said:
"Only if we LET people who seek authority take control"
We are the people who seek to take control! If a government is to be brought down it has to be done by people with a plan, and an agreed method for implementing it which has to be coordinated by an individual or collective. You cannot have a revolution without a leader/leaders, who then become either the next government or the selectors of the next government.
There is always some kind of government because someone is always, in one way or another, in control. From a sports team, to an army, to a bunch of kids standing on a street corner, one of them is calling the shots, and at least one of the others is standing by to take over as soon as they can.
Click to expand...

-With respect and thanks for the reply, I dont seek power or control.

-Some people have a plan. I have one myself. Just the wrong place to mention it.

-I lead people without governing them, for example. Many others do too.

Melbury's Brick said:
"I dont mind there being some rules"
Of course. Society is rules. A collection of regulations and expectations that we all loosely agree to live by. Without them we have no society, we have chaos.
Click to expand...

This is true. However, the rules don't have to be be anything more than violence and theft is wrong and attempts at such shall be defended against.


Melbury's Brick said:
"Eventually I would like the to be no governments"
There will always be government of some sort because humans always will take advantage of a situation. It may not be called government but that is what it is.
Click to expand...

I cant agree with this or see how you could prove that? People may seek to govern others but nobody has to let them. Just because things have been a certain way doesn't mean they will always be like that. There is a ground-swell exactly demanding no government and there is no reason for me to think that growing trend will ever change.

Anyway like I said I would be content enough with much smaller government but I think that would lead to no government eventually anyway.

I would also contend that humans are not perfect so expecting to be able to somehow find perfect politicians to be impossible.

I would accept my dreams may always be just dreams but I cant simply accept claims that they are not founded in logic.

There is a power structure that would seek to maintain power but that doesn't mean I am wrong not to not want government or that it is impossible.
 
Last edited:
Gary Cook said:
I don't disagree but having no government would be better than having an imperfect government for some people, me included.
Click to expand...

How do you know this? Can you point to any examples?

Seems like wishful thinking. Even "anarchy" is bound to be imperfect.
 
Me thinks the fly in the ointment is always undue influence by vested interests no matter the form of the government. Within the US system as Gary and Mick have both mentioned is the Military Industrial Complex. This conglomeration of elected officials, lobbyists, Corporations, and professional Military and Civilian governmental employees runs the largest part of the discretionary Federal Budget. The Social Welfare System run by the Educators, Medical Insurance and Health Delivery and others controls the next largest part. The bankers and global corporations have their influence directly and indirectly through the Federal Reserve and corporate welfare programs. The individual citizen is really pretty powerless in this mix simply because of a lack of focus, lobbyists, and financial resources. In my opinion power centers mentioned above don't want the average citizen to have a voice because it would be chaotic, uninformed, and would diminish their power. So keeping them divided, confused, ignorant and easily manipulated is the best strategy. The last thing the power brokers want is an informed and organized citizenship. ;)
 
SR1419 said:
How do you know this? Can you point to any examples?
Seems like wishful thinking. Even "anarchy" is bound to be imperfect.
Click to expand...


Good point although I am am one example. It was just my opinion counter to another presented.

To me, it is just gangsterism. I would rather defend myself against smaller groups of people than bigger groups.

I am selfish but some self-interest can be positive for society in general.

Although I could get in to convincing people mode but that is not generally been welcome on this forum. Understandably.

So I am just discussing the topic with nice people from my POV. :)
 
deirdre said:
on an upnote, I'm trusting the government more and more listening to the alternatives on this thread :)
Click to expand...

Now you are just being belligerent. All I have really said is I dont like government violence and nobody has to accept it.

You are entitled to your opinion of course but you haven't rebutted what I have written. You are welcome to try if you want.
 
The only remotely plausible argument I have ever heard against "anarchy" is that it wouldn't have the benefits of violence as a deterrent against violence.

But I dont want to stifle this discussion as its actually quite cool and people dont have to be experts to be allowed to voice and opinion.
 
Gary Cook said:
Good point although I am am one example. It was just my opinion counter to another presented.

To me, it is just gangsterism. I would rather defend myself against smaller groups of people than bigger groups. I am selfish but some self-interest can be positive for society in general. :)
Click to expand...


How are you an example of "having no government"? You aren't. You just think you would be better off if there was no government but you do not really know.

Self interest can prove positive for society- for example the market. But markets without "government" have proven problematic at times.

Thinking that having no government will somehow solve or ameliorate Humanity's penchant for violence seems like an illogical belief.

Is it possible that governments have kept more people safe than they have murdered (in the aggregate over the course of human history?)



Gary Cook said:
many debunkers who care more about debunking then they really care about the plight of other people.
Click to expand...

I find the above quote merely a guess at which you logically can't make.
 
SR1419 said:
How are you an example of "having no government"? You aren't. You just think you would be better off if there was no government but you do not really know.
Click to expand...

I am an example of somebody that doesnt want government. I didnt realise you was asking for an example of proof that no government should be what everybody should want.

Like I said. I was rebutting opinion with opinion.

Do you still want examples of why my theory is viable? I think it is better to keep the convo like this. that is a deep subject that could take months to cover but up to you.

SR1419 said:
Self interest can prove positive for society- for example the market. But markets without "government" have proven problematic at times.
Click to expand...

I never said free-markets do not have issues. I just dont think government is the right solution. A lot of corruption in the free-markets seems to be because of government. Lobbying for laws that potentially push competition out for example, no?


SR1419 said:
Thinking that having no government will somehow solve or ameliorate Humanity's penchant for violence seems like an illogical belief.
Click to expand...

When did I write that? I merely claim that government are the biggest instigators of violence as an entity in terms of the number of incidences and severity. Name one organisation that is free of government influence that can match how many deaths agents of governments have caused in any one country?


SR1419 said:
Is it possible that governments have kept more people safe than they have murdered (in the aggregate over the course of human history?)
Click to expand...

It is possible but I doubt it. The biggest threats in terms of threats from other humans were mostly from other governments. One could argue about vaccines saving humanity and stuff but for all we know private companies could of done the same and in fact it was private companies that ultimately produced the vaccines. Maybe if it wasnt for taxation people could of afforded vaccines themselves.


SR1419 said:
I find the above quote merely a guess at which you logically can't make
Click to expand...

That is a personal observation I made taken slightly our of context. I have said numerous times that there are both basically SOME corrupt debunkers and conspiracy theorists and some with real decent intentions.
 
Gary Cook said:
I am an example of somebody that doesnt want government. I didnt realise you was asking for an example of proof that no government should be what everybody should want.
Click to expand...

I wanted an example of "having no government would be better than having an imperfect government". You believe this but how could you actually know?



Gary Cook said:
I never said free-markets do not have issues. I just dont think government is the right solution. A lot of corruption in the free-markets seems to be because of government.
Click to expand...

What solution other than a social construct could be a solution to market abuses? Government can be a facilitator for market corruption but I think the vast majority of market abuse and failures comes from individual/private greed and corruption and the government is seen as a hindrance to greed fulfillment.

Gary Cook said:
When did I write that? I merely claim that government are the biggest instigators of violence as an entity in terms of the number of incidences and severity. Name one organisation that is free of government influence that can match how many deaths agents of governments have caused in any one country?
Click to expand...

To me, it seemed you implied it...but perhaps you simply think decentralized violence is better than centralized violence. I just do not see society being any less violent without government.

Gary Cook said:
It is possible but I doubt it. The biggest threats in terms of threats from other humans were mostly from other governments. One could argue about vaccines saving humanity and stuff but for all we know private companies could of done the same and in fact it was private companies that ultimately produced the vaccines. Maybe if it wasnt for taxation people could of afforded vaccines themselves.
Click to expand...

If that were true then current HIV treatments would be made widely available throughout Africa by the drug companies...Perhaps study the polio vaccine and its subsequent eradication for the role government played vs. the private sector.





Gary Cook said:
That is a personal observation I made taken slightly our of context. I have said numerous times that there are both basically SOME corrupt debunkers and conspiracy theorists and some with real decent intentions.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. but its seems misguided to suggest you know what anyone other than yourself "really cares about".
 
I once knew a woman in Berkeley who informed me that she was gay.

Months later, it came out in conversation that she hadn't actually ever been intimate
with another woman. Also, that she had never been in a relationship with a female.

When I asked her how she knew she was gay, she responded:
"Well I must be: every relationship I have with a man is awful!" :eek:

I've known a few people who liked to think of themselves as anarchists,
but not one who ever actually lived as an anarchist, or anything close.
In fact, not one that could even point me to a good, useful example of successful anarchy.
 
NoParty said:
In fact, not one that could even point me to a good, useful example of successful anarchy.
Click to expand...

Well, I'd suppose it's fair to say that in all the many ways that Humans have ever designed social/governmental constructs, none of them are 100% "successful" {but then it depends on the definition of "success". Certainly, in every system there's always someone who thinks it is a "success"}.

But to re-iterate the thread's intent, here: Seems evident that the mere act of pointing out any bunk (especially "government" related), once it is proven as such, is definitely not the same as blindly believing that same government, unquestioningly. In fact, isn't it common sense for every interested citizen to question? A representative democracy system seems to inherently lend itself to that, if those citizens bother to.

"Bunk" can arise and prosper merely at a mention, or a suggestion by a few -- then take on a life of its own by those who actually might blindly follow the bunk (rather than vice-versa). And this is not a modern, Internet and instant-connectivity phenomenon.

A famous (paraphrased) quote from the 19th century:
"A lie is half way 'round the world before the truth can get its boots (shoes) on."

(Variously attributed by some sources to 'Mark Twain', possibly apocryphal. A different version is also attributed to Winston Churchill, and others).

I've seen some reference Shakespeare, Henry IV, Part 2.
 
NoParty said:
I once knew a woman in Berkeley who informed me that she was gay.

Months later, it came out in conversation that she hadn't actually ever been intimate
with another woman. Also, that she had never been in a relationship with a female.

When I asked her how she knew she was gay, she responded:
"Well I must be: every relationship I have with a man is awful!" :eek:

I've known a few people who liked to think of themselves as anarchists,
but not one who ever actually lived as an anarchist, or anything close.
In fact, not one that could even point me to a good, useful example of successful anarchy.
Click to expand...

Anarchy works well on paper, but the moment you introduce humans and all their quirky little idiosyncracies to the equation, it falls apart like a hastily constructed Ikea wardrobe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mythic Suns
A.I being used as a debunking tool (MIT experiment)
Replies
2
Views
198
Mythic Suns
Mythic Suns
B
Basic Counter Arguments and Rebuttals Help Please
Replies
6
Views
1K
Mendel
Mendel
Y
Pentagon ex-UFO chief says conspiracy theorists in government drive spending
Replies
12
Views
2K
Mendel
Mendel
Mick West
Sean Kirkpatrick's Interview With Daniel Lavelle at The Guardian [Transcript]
Replies
26
Views
3K
MapperGuy
M
AllTheQuestionsToday
What is your "red line" that would make you unambiguously and sincerely say with full belief, "Aliens are real and are or have been on Earth"?
5 6 7
Replies
248
Views
21K
Mendel
Mendel

Latest posts

Back
Top