The UCC makes our Constitution irrelevant?

Juror No. 8

New Member
Then there would be no police. People don't voluntarily pay for things that benefit others as much or more than themselves.

Really? You sure about that? Then how do you account for the thousands upon thousands of private charities that people donate their money to, thereby benefiting others more than themselves?

Rational self interest dictates that individuals try to pay less than the next guy if they both derive the same benefit irrespective of contribution.

Go tell that to all those people who donate their money to private charities. I'm sure they'd love to know about this rational self-interest stuff.

The net result is that no voluntary payments are made for collective benefits.

Not buying it.

The market alternative in the policing arena is that the guy with the deepest pockets that buys best private security team makes the laws.

We already have that situation now without a free market. The people and corporations with the deepest pockets lobby our government for favors and also write our laws for us. A lot of the legislation that gets passed in Washington isn't even written by our own representatives. It's written by lobbyists. This means the police are enforcing laws written by corporations, not politicians.

In a truly free market, the people could raise their own police forces to compete against the police forces of corrupt businesses, corporations, and the wealthy elite. As it is now, they can't. Our corrupt government operates a monopoly on policing, which prevents the people from having any real recourse.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Who else but free individuals?

You know, people don't need a government to possess the right to defend themselves and their families from unwarranted aggression and violence.

Who gets to decide what is unwanted aggression and violence? Every person according to their own thoughts?

How about if 50 people of like mind get together and freely decide that you are a threat to them because your values are different, and so they kill you - is that acceptable because free individuals did so of their own volition?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Who gets to decide what is unwanted aggression and violence? Every person according to their own thoughts?

Rational people do. Who else?

How about if 50 people of like mind get together and freely decide that you are a threat to them because your values are different, and so they kill you - is that acceptable because free individuals did so of their own volition?

Why would murdering someone, over nothing more than their values, be acceptable?
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Rational people do. Who else?



Why would murdering someone, over nothing more than their values, be acceptable?

Well there's no government. People are free to decide to do what is necessary to defend their family, right? Oh, we need a rule against murder? Who is going to enforce that? A democratically elected panel and whomever they designate to enforce the prohibition against murder. Sounds governmenty to me.
 

scombrid

Senior Member.
Really? You sure about that? Then how do you account for the thousands upon thousands of private charities that people donate their money to, thereby benefiting others more than themselves?

Charity is the exception and not the rule and most often happens only when people have a surplus such that they are not making any real sacrifice. Read up some on Game Theory as applied to economic behavior or the Tragedy of the Commons.



In a truly free market, the people could raise their own police forces to compete against the police forces of corrupt businesses, corporations, and the wealthy elite. As it is now, they can't. Our corrupt government operates a monopoly on policing, which prevents the people from having any real recourse.

The people's police force here is still a government, just one controlled by "the people" and not by corrupt businesses, corporations...
Would the people's police force be a monopoly force or would opposing groups run competing forces.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Government has always been a hierarchical concept. family, tribe, village, town, city, municipality, county, state, country, region, world. It arises naturally because societies with forms of government work better than those with none. It's a utopian fantasy to suggest there would be NO government. Society IS government.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Rational people do. Who else?



Why would murdering someone, over nothing more than their values, be acceptable?

Because they decided it was acceptable.

What more is needed? Who are you to tell them their actions are not acceptable? Who gets to decide what is murder and what is justified self defence? "Rational people do. Who else?"?? well they have rationally decided to kill you because they see you as a a threat to them. Or because they want your land or your gun or your petrol or your gold or something else you don't want to give or sell to them, or just because they practice polygamy and you won't let one of them marry your daughter, or because you are a different colour and are stopping them using "your people" as slaves, or because you worship a false god, or because you won't join their commune, or just because they don't like you.

There are myriad reasons why people might want to commit murder and think it justified to themselves - and you apparently think they are entitled to do so, because no-one else is allowed to question their freely held belief and their actions.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Well there's no government. People are free to decide to do what is necessary to defend their family, right?

Sure, they are free as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

Oh, we need a rule against murder? Who is going to enforce that?

People will, just as they always have.

A democratically elected panel and whomever they designate to enforce the prohibition against murder. Sounds governmenty to me.

Don't be ridiculous.

If you are walking down the street minding your own business and someone approaches you and attempts to do you bodily harm, do you need a democratically elected panel to tell you that you are allowed to defend yourself?

No? Wow. How are you able to think for yourself without a government? It boggles the mind!
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Government has always been a hierarchical concept. family, tribe, village, town, city, municipality, county, state, country, region, world. It arises naturally because societies with forms of government work better than those with none.

False. The only natural form of government is the individual family unit. Everything outside of that is just an excuse for some to exploit others.

It's a utopian fantasy to suggest there would be NO government.

Actually, no, the utopian fantasy is to suggest that people can't function in groups without government.

Society IS government.

No, society isn't necessarily government. You're conflating two different concepts.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Because they decided it was acceptable.

A group of rapists can decide that rape is acceptable, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is.

What more is needed? Who are you to tell them their actions are not acceptable? Who gets to decide what is murder and what is justified self defence? "Rational people do. Who else?"?? well they have rationally decided to kill you because they see you as a a threat to them. Or because they want your land or your gun or your petrol or your gold or something else you don't want to give or sell to them, or just because they practice polygamy and you won't let one of them marry your daughter, or because you are a different colour and are stopping them using "your people" as slaves, or because you worship a false god, or because you won't join their commune, or just because they don't like you.

A government doesn't solve this problem. Irrational people both inside and outside a government can decide to kill others for the hell of it.

There are myriad reasons why people might want to commit murder and think it justified to themselves - and you apparently think they are entitled to do so, because no-one else is allowed to question their freely held belief and their actions.

Straw man logical fallacy.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Sure, they are free as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

And who gets to enforce that?

People will, just as they always have.

My scenarios are exactly that = a more powerful bunch of people deciding right and wrong, what is justified and what is not, against the wishes of those being acted against.

Don't be ridiculous.

Who are you to tell me what is ridiculous and what is not when there is no Govt? I am free to decide my own values without having to conform to your ridiculous so-called morality thank you :p

If you are walking down the street minding your own business and someone approaches you and attempts to do you bodily harm, do you need a democratically elected panel to tell you that you are allowed to defend yourself?

No? Wow. How are you able to think for yourself without a government? It boggles the mind!

Sure you can defend yourself - I never said otherwise. But if there's 5 of them and 1 of you what good is defending yourself going to do? Oh - you have a gun? well so do they........

And this IS thinking for myself - these are obvious and realistic scenarios - we know they are realistic because THEY HAVE ALWAYS HAPPENED IN HISTORY - even with governments and police - they happen every day still - why do you think they would stop happening with no government???

So here's a scenario - a bunch of low-life criminal types start conducting burglaries in an area - a bunch of residents get together & start patrolling & catch a few of the low-life with goods in hand.

What do they do now? there's no prisons - do they beat them up & tell them to f-off or there'll be worse next time? Do they kill them outright? give them a telling off? Go to their homes & take all their "stuff" as recompense??

Whatever they do - the locals decide that it is a good idea to have some sort of organisation to combat "crime" as they see it - they decide that everyone in their community has to agree to provide some resources - time or equipment or food - whenever these things happen (ie it is not a standing police force - just the "citizens" getting together whenever they collectively feel the need). What is that if not government?

Some time later a bunch of citizens feel aggrieved by something done by someone else in the group - but others in the group think it is actually not a problem at all & refuse to countenance teh action - the smaller party gets chucked out of the group by the larger - ie they are expelled for not having the same values. whether violence is involved or not is irrelevant - if you do not conform to the mores of het group you cannot be part of it - that is government too.

All the so-called anti-government organisations actually have rules themselves - it is the first thing they do - define their expectations of "members" and allow in only those who fit those expectations!!

Basically as soon as you have 2 or more people together you have to have some degree of rule-making and agreed standards of behaviour - that is how it works across all of histotry for al of humanity.

To suggest humans can behave otherwise is just ignorant.

There are myriad reasons why people might want to commit murder and think it justified to themselves - and you apparently think they are entitled to do so, because no-one else is allowed to question their freely held belief and their actions.
Straw man logical fallacy.

In what way is it a straw man? It fits your description perfectly - you are advocating complete sovereignty of each individual, but saying that your idea of what is right and wrong has to be folowed by all of them regardless.

Me pointing out your self-contradiction is not a strawman - it is relevant, it is on topic, and it is something you have actually stated explicitly but apparently do not understand yourself!
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
The groups of people who hadn't yet developed the concept of government.

Who might that be? Who were these groups of people without a government? Is there any historical record of such a society?

Look, you seem to be very passionate about this subject. I assumed you had enough knowledge on this matter to provide answers that have a little more substance than your post #53. If you don't know the answer to my simple question, just say so. There is no shame in it.

I looked into it briefly and can't seem to find any references to societies that don't have a government. And you, who is much more knowledgeable on this topic than I, can't seem to provide an example of one either. So if even you can't name one, then would you think it fair to say that such a society never existed?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
And who gets to enforce that?

People do, just as they do now.

My scenarios are exactly that = a more powerful bunch of people deciding right and wrong, what is justified and what is not, against the wishes of those being acted against.

We have that now, under a corrupt government owned and controlled by corporations, but that doesn't seem to bother you very much. So why would it bother you without a corrupt government in place?

Who are you to tell me what is ridiculous and what is not when there is no Govt? I am free to decide my own values without having to conform to your ridiculous so-called morality thank you :p

Why, are you actually under the impression that government determines and defines morality?

Sure you can defend yourself - I never said otherwise. But if there's 5 of them and 1 of you what good is defending yourself going to do? Oh - you have a gun? well so do they........

Government doesn't solve that problem. People can gang up on you under an authoritarian government just as they can under no government. You're just confused by your own arguments.

And this IS thinking for myself - these are obvious and realistic scenarios - we know they are realistic because THEY HAVE ALWAYS HAPPENED IN HISTORY - even with governments and police - they happen every day still - why do you think they would stop happening with no government???

If these scenarios are going to happen with or without government in place, why pay to have a government at all? Why hand over 30-50 percent of what you earn to a political class that can't and never will solve such problems?

So here's a scenario - a bunch of low-life criminal types start conducting burglaries in an area - a bunch of residents get together & start patrolling & catch a few of the low-life with goods in hand.

What do they do now? there's no prisons - do they beat them up & tell them to f-off or there'll be worse next time? Do they kill them outright? give them a telling off? Go to their homes & take all their "stuff" as recompense??

Who knows? Maybe the people that have been burgled might chop their hands off. Maybe they'll just tie them up for ten days in a barn as punishment. Maybe they'll hang the burglars. Maybe the people that have been burgled will show mercy and just let them go with a very convincing warning.

Whatever they do - the locals decide that it is a good idea to have some sort of organisation to combat "crime" as they see it - they decide that everyone in their community has to agree to provide some resources - time or equipment or food - whenever these things happen (ie it is not a standing police force - just the "citizens" getting together whenever they collectively feel the need). What is that if not government?

What gives one man the right to dictate to another that he must "provide some resources", or else?

Why can't the people just either hire a private security firm or provide the security themselves with a neighborhood watch?

Some time later a bunch of citizens feel aggrieved by something done by someone else in the group - but others in the group think it is actually not a problem at all & refuse to countenance teh action - the smaller party gets chucked out of the group by the larger - ie they are expelled for not having the same values. whether violence is involved or not is irrelevant - if you do not conform to the mores of het group you cannot be part of it - that is government too.

No, that's not government. That's just group dynamics.

All the so-called anti-government organisations actually have rules themselves - it is the first thing they do - define their expectations of "members" and allow in only those who fit those expectations!!

How is an anti-government organization similar to a government, though? Does an an anti-government organization claim dominion over all the people in a geographical location and then tax them out of their earnings?

Basically as soon as you have 2 or more people together you have to have some degree of rule-making and agreed standards of behaviour - that is how it works across all of histotry for al of humanity.

That doesn't necessarily mean government, though. For instance, a group of people living in a certain place can come together to socialize, trade, and cooperate in various ways without ever forming any kind of hierarchical political relationship.

Again, you're just confused about what you're arguing.

To suggest humans can behave otherwise is just ignorant.

False.

In what way is it a straw man? It fits your description perfectly - you are advocating complete sovereignty of each individual, but saying that your idea of what is right and wrong has to be folowed by all of them regardless.

Me pointing out your self-contradiction is not a strawman - it is relevant, it is on topic, and it is something you have actually stated explicitly but apparently do not understand yourself!

No, it was a straw man. Being sovereign doesn't mean you can do anything you want and expect to get away with it. Being "free" doesn't mean being free to rob, rape, and kill. It only means your rights end where the rights of others begin.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Who might that be? Who were these groups of people without a government? Is there any historical record of such a society?

I don't know. Is there any evidence proving that the historical record includes every group of human beings that has ever existed?

Look, you seem to be very passionate about this subject. I assumed you had enough knowledge on this matter to provide answers that have a little more substance than your post #53. If you don't know the answer to my simple question, just say so. There is no shame in it.

I looked into it briefly and can't seem to find any references to societies that don't have a government. And you, who is much more knowledgeable on this topic than I, can't seem to provide an example of one either. So if even you can't name one, then would you think it fair to say that such a society never existed?

No, not really. I can't name a single caveman that ever killed a woolly mammoth, but that doesn't mean it never happened, now does it?

If you have some evidence proving that every group of human beings that has ever lived has lived under an organized form of government then show it to me. Can you do that?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I am not confused by my own arguments at all - having a known and shared set of behavioral expectations (laws) means everyone knows what is expected (or at least allows the possibility of that happening) means that there is a known standard of behaviour - you do not get to tell me what is legal based upon your own morality, and I do not get to tell you what is leggal eeither.

It means we can have a polcie force that "solves" at least some of the crimes, and allows for punishment of offenders.

And government IS group dynamics too - but of very large groups.

You really seem to have no idea at all of what it is your concept involves!

In what way is it a straw man? It fits your description perfectly - you are advocating complete sovereignty of each individual, but saying that your idea of what is right and wrong has to be folowed by all of them regardless.

Me pointing out your self-contradiction is not a strawman - it is relevant, it is on topic, and it is something you have actually stated explicitly but apparently do not understand yourself!
No, it was a straw man. Being sovereign doesn't mean you can do anything you want and expect to get away with it. Being "free" doesn't mean being free to rob, rape, and kill. It only means your rights end where the rights of others begin.

Again I ask you - why is it YOU get to decide what is acceptable and what is not? Why is it that you get to set rules that everyone else has to obey, and why is that not government??!!:rolleyes:
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
I am not confused by my own arguments at all - having a known and shared set of behavioral expectations (laws) means everyone knows what is expected (or at least allows the possibility of that happening) means that there is a known standard of behaviour - you do not get to tell me what is legal based upon your own morality, and I do not get to tell you what is leggal eeither.

Behavioral expectations and an understanding that there are (natural) laws in place governing the conduct of men is still not a government, though. You're confusing one thing for another.

It means we can have a polcie force that "solves" at least some of the crimes, and allows for punishment of offenders.

Wrong again, as you don't need a government to have police, or security.

And government IS group dynamics too - but of very large groups.

No, again, government and group dynamics are two, completely different concepts.

You really seem to have no idea at all of what it is your concept involves!

This is like a person who adds 2 and 2 together and gets 5 telling someone else that they don't understand mathematics.

Again I ask you - why is it YOU get to decide what is acceptable and what is not? Why is it that you get to set rules that everyone else has to obey, and why is that not government??!!:rolleyes:

Why would I let a government determine such things, when government represents nothing but a collection of individuals like myself? Why would I let other individuals determine something I can determine for myself?
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Who are you to say which laws are "natural" and which are not?

Yet again why is it YOU get to decide for ME how I have to behave?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Who are you to say which laws are "natural" and which are not?

Yet again why is it YOU get to decide for ME how I have to behave?

What is it you are confusing yourself with now? Are you arguing that if you want to rob, rape, and murder, people should allow you to do that? That their trying to defend themselves from you constitutes an infringement on your right to behave that way?
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
No, not really. I can't name a single caveman that ever killed a woolly mammoth, but that doesn't mean it never happened, now does it?

There are vast amounts of archeological evidence that "cavemen" existed, that mammoths existed, that cavemen lived at the same time as mammoths and that cavemen hunted mammoths. So we know that cavemen killed wooly mammoths. What we don't know is that a society without a government ever existed. So unless you can provide some evidence that such a society ever existed then one can only assume or speculate that one ever did. Unfortunately, that's what you are doing at this point. Speculating.

If you have some evidence proving that every group of human beings that has ever lived has lived under an organized form of government then show it to me. Can you do that?

Of course one MIGHT have existed. My question is... did one. You don't know of any. Supporting your claim by challenging me to prove that every group that ever existed was governed in some way is a fallacious argument.

At this point there is no evidence that your society ever existed.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
What we don't know is that a society without a government ever existed.

According to you. If that's what you believe, where's your proof?

So unless you can provide some evidence that such a society ever existed then one can only assume or speculate that one ever did.

Where's your proof that every group of human beings that ever existed did so under an organized government?

Unfortunately, that's what you are doing at this point. Speculating.

Just as you are.

Of course one MIGHT have existed. My question is... did one. You don't know of any.

Neither do you, but that doesn't mean one hasn't existed.

Supporting your claim by challenging me to prove that every group that ever existed was governed in some way is a fallacious argument.

Not it's not.

At this point there is no evidence that your society ever existed.

And your proof for this claim is what, exactly?
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
If every group of human beings that has ever lived together did so under an organized government, where's your evidence of this?

If you believe that human beings are incapable of living together and functioning without organized government, where's your evidence of this? Appealing to history or tradition is to engage in a logically fallacious argument.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
If every group of human beings that has ever lived together did so under an organized government, where's your evidence of this?

Did I say that every group of human beings that lived together did so under an organized government? If so, then I'm sure you won't mind showing me in which post I made that statement. Until then, try arguing against things I've actually said instead of things you wished I said.

If you believe that human beings are incapable of living together and functioning without organized government, where's your evidence of this?

I'm not sure if human beings are incapable of living together and functioning without organized government. That's why I asked you if you knew of any current of historical examples.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
According to you. If that's what you believe, where's your proof?

I'm not sure why you're not getting this. The lack of evidence is self evident. The proof that there is no evidence is the fact that there is no evidence.

Read the following carefully. I'm not making the claim that your society never existed, I'm saying there doesn't seem to be evidence that one existed. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, claiming that societies without governments existed is speculation.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Did I say that every group of human beings that lived together did so under an organized government? If so, then I'm sure you won't mind showing me in which post I made that statement. Until then, try arguing against things I've actually said instead of things you wished I said.

Oh, so what you're really saying is, you don't know. OK.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
I'm not sure why you're not getting this. The lack of evidence is self evident. The proof that there is no evidence is the fact that there is no evidence.

Read the following carefully. I'm not making the claim that your society never existed, I'm saying there doesn't seem to be evidence that one existed. Therefore, in the absence of evidence, claiming that societies without governments existed is speculation.

Not really, no. What I am saying is simply intuitive. Since governments are created by or within groups of people (societies), then that must mean that societies existed without government. Governments didn't come first. People did. People living in groups (societies) had to exist before government could be created. Therefore, societies existed before government did. There's no other way around it.

Try as you might, you can't put the cart before the horse.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
If by "simply intuitive" you mean "simply guessing", then I agree.

Just because basic, logical deduction eludes you, that doesn't necessarily mean it eludes everyone else.

If you want to go on believing that governments have always existed, without or without groups of people creating them, then go ahead.

And I've been asking you to provide an example of one... just one such society. Instead you offered a non sequitur about cavemen and wooly mammoths.

What for? Why do you need a specific example? Are you not able to refute my prior argument without engaging in a sort of "appeal to history" logical fallacy?
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
Just because basic, logical deduction eludes you,

I understand logical deduction. That's why, unlike you, I use evidence as the basis of my conclusions.

What for? Why do you need a specific example?

Well, I found the idea of a group of people without a governing body interesting. Then I tried to think of examples of such a scenario. I looked at my own personal experiences, did some quick internet searches, and try as I might, I could not find any examples. Every group, no matter what size, age or race, had a governing body. Then I thought, just because I can't find or think of a group of people without a governing body, that doesn't mean there never was one.

So I asked you. I mistakenly assumed that the strength of your convictions was based on something other than bunk.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
I understand logical deduction. That's why, unlike you, I use evidence as the basis of my conclusions.

At least, that's what you claim.

Well, I found the idea of a group of people without a governing body interesting. Then I tried to think of examples of such a scenario. I looked at my own personal experiences, did some quick internet searches, and try as I might, I could not find any examples. Every group, no matter what size, age or race, had a governing body. Then I thought, just because I can't find or think of a group of people without a governing body that doesn't mean there never was one.

No, it doesn't.

So I asked you. I mistakenly assumed that the strength of your convictions was based on something other than bunk.

If it's bunk, why are you so incapable of constructing an argument against it? Instead, you're engaging in a logically fallacious argument by appealing to history, a history which aren't even familiar with by your own admission.

Go ahead. Here's your chance. Explain why my arguments are wrong.
 

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
No, it doesn't.

Oh good lord. You're now arguing against yourself. I thought you could handle a double negative statement. When I said "that doesn't mean there never was one" I'm saying that there could have been societies without government regardless of whether or not I could find one. However, without evidence, claiming that such societies existed is speculation.

Explain why my arguments are wrong.

You don't have any evidence to support your claim.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Oh good lord. You're now arguing against yourself. I thought you could handle a double negative statement. When I said "that doesn't mean there never was one" I'm saying that there could have been societies without government regardless of whether or not I could find one. However, without evidence, claiming that such societies existed is speculation.

Aside from being troubled by basic, logical deduction, you also have a reading comprehension problem.

Read my response again. I was agreeing with you.

You don't have any evidence to support your claim.

But that doesn't necessarily mean the claim is wrong. You're simply making a logically fallacious argument.
 

Juror No. 8

New Member
Your reply was ambiguous.

Maybe to someone who can't read and follow a conversation.

You said: "Because of x, doesn't mean y."

And I replied: "No, it doesn't."

It's really pretty simple.

I'm not making any argument.

Yes you are. I asked you to explain why my arguments are wrong. You responded by saying, "you don't have any evidence to support your claim." In other words, according to you, my arguments are wrong because I haven't supported them.

That's definitely an argument.

I'm asking you to support yours. You're saying that anarchist societies existed. OK, so prove it to us.

I already have. Again:

- Governments can't exist without groups of people creating them.

- This means that groups of people came before governments.

- Therefore, societies existed without and prior to the creation of governments.
 
Top