$153,000 For a Rattlesnake Bite

[Baruch]

But not as immoral as letting people profiteer off of the literal life of others, so gotta take the lesser of two evils.

That said, I disagree that there is anything immoral or unethical about a government doing it's job, which is to ensure that societies work together for the greater good and everyone is taken care of to the best of the state's ability.

When you talk about "free handouts"... that is literally the purpose of having a government, if you want to use that term "free handout" as loose as you did. If the government didn't provide basic necessities, then it would be worthless.

On what basis, if any, does someone claims "morality"?  There is no basis for it.  Morality comes from the barrel of a gun - to paraphrase Mao.

[Gilgamesh]

But not as immoral as letting people profiteer off of the literal life of others, so gotta take the lesser of two evils.

'profiting off the life of others', at face value, is seemingly an evil thing. But if you examine it there's no evil in that idea. People profit off of making and selling food, which also sustains the life of others. People profit off of making and selling technology - some of it necessary for the life of others.

The alternative is forcing people who are capable of practicing medicine to work for no profit. That is evil at face value and evil upon analysis - because it's a description of slavery.

When you talk about "free handouts"... that is literally the purpose of having a government

Normally I'd try to subvert and work into a corner the 'progressive' until they are forced to reveal their true desire for government, but you just outright admitted it with pride. Amazing.

That is not what the government exists for.

The government exists to ensure freedoms, and should also be heavily constrained so it does not impede on the peoples freedoms itself.

[Shiranu]

People profit off of making and selling food, which also sustains the life of others.

Sustaining the life and *being* the life of others are two completely separate concepts. That said, even the sustaining process is extremely regulated and subsidized by the state. If it wasn't, it wouldn't work and we would not be able to function as a society.

The alternative is forcing people who are capable of practicing medicine to work for no profit.

Except that is not the alternative (at least, not one I have ever seen proposed). State employees are still paid wages. What is proposed is that they cant charge whatever they deem fair, because that is the equievelent of someone holding a gun to your head and telling you, "You pay me this much, or I won't be able to stop the bullet from entering your skull".

If you truly believe in individual freedom above all else, and if we are going to use outlandish exaggerations of the other person position, then you must believe this is an okay situation; the man is free to point the gun at another's head, and the other is free to meet his demands or not.

The government exists to ensure freedoms, and should also be heavily constrained so it does not impede on the peoples freedoms itself.

I'm sorry, but this is an objectively false statement. Its in it's name, for christ sake.. Government, from the Latin gubernare, "to rule".

Anarchy is the ultimate of freedoms; governance is the polar opposite of anarchy. If freedom is what people formed governments for then they would never have formed governments.

Why did government form? From Mesopotamia to Africa, Europe to the Americas, governments formed because once you get enough people together, rules have to be enforced for the better of the collective (and thus, the individual); the regulation of water distribution (particularly important once you develop canal systems and other man-made water routing), the protection of one another (thus the need for an organized military and taxes), the improvement of living standards by building public works (roads, sewers, law enforcement, etc.)... all of these are the function of a government, because no individual is either capable of achieving these things by himself or willing to.

Normally I'd try to subvert and work into a corner the 'progressive' until they are forced to reveal their true desire for government, but you just outright admitted it with pride. Amazing.

I love that you think you backed me into a corner there. That was cute.

Maybe most Americans have been brainwashed into thinking "government" is a bad word, I don't know, but it's not. Government is what makes the world work smoothly. And yes, it can certainly be abused... but no worse than the alternative. And at it's best, governance has yielded hands-down the greatest moments of human achievement and prosperity.

[Gilgamesh]

Anarchy is the ultimate of freedoms; governance is the polar opposite of anarchy. If freedom is what people formed governments for then they would never have formed governments.

Anarchy is not the ultimate of freedoms, because there is no entity to ensure those freedoms. That is why government was formed. Government grants rights to ensure freedoms. Government necessarily comes at the price of freedom, but if kept small it ensures that more freedom is had than it takes away.

Further:

For example, under anarchy, you don't necessarily have freedom to your own life. Someone kills you, which they are free to do, undermining your right to life. Government ensures your freedom to live by taking away the murderers freedom to kill you.

[Baruch]

So all citizens are property of the State ... and are to be created, provisioned and disposed of by the State?  Sounds like totalitarianism to me.  I am my own property, wage and debt slave though I am.  If anything, I owe ultimate loyalty to G-d and to myself, and to the State a distant third.

Good, make the Republicans the one party, ban all other parties.  Establish dictatorship, stop all elections, enslave all Americans.  As a pet of the State, you can expect good treatment ;-)  Or does good dictatorship only arrive from the Democrats?

So, the basis of politics is in ancient Egypt or Mesopotamia?  Shiranu wants to be Pharaoh.

No, the cops don't stop crime.  They only document the crime scene after you are robbed or dead.

[Shiranu]

Anarchy is not the ultimate of freedoms, because there is no entity to ensure those freedoms.

You are contradicting yourself and arguing in my positions favour.

Ensuring freedom requires the restriction of freedom of someone else. That is simple logistics; you cannot stop someone from limiting your freedom without limiting their freedom to do as they choose... meaning you are against freedoms you don't want others to have. For example...

...under anarchy, you don't necessarily have freedom to your own life. Someone kills you, which they are free to do, undermining your right to life.

You yourself admit this is stripping the murder's freedom... but I contend that, when you compare a "truly free" society to a government that prohibits murder, you are ignoring the freedom of the murdered as well.

In a truly free society (anarchy), the person being murdered had the freedom to increase his strength, increase his defenses, to avoid being murdered. He did not choose to do so, or was not capable of doing so to a sufficient extent, given that he was murdered. To say that the government should have protected him means that his freedom was worthless, and in vain, and devalues it.

Anarchy is the only logical way to protect the freedom of both parties; if you want the freedom to live, than you must utilize your freedom to be the strongest. If anyone defeats you it's only because you were not capable of utilizing your freedom to the level others did. If you believe in the sanctity of individual freedom then you have to be pro-anarchy, because it is the only system which your freedom is completely and utterly in your hands.

Anarchy is the ultimate freedom, both for those who benefit from it and those who suffer from it, because ultimately the people who suffer under anarchy had the freedom not to but did not use it.

Government ensures your freedom to live by taking away the murderers freedom to kill you.

So the governments primary role is... to regulate the freedom of others (and yours) to provide for you.

Exactly what I said.

That is why government was formed.

You keep saying that, but you're not presenting any evidence to prove it (and in your last post, you outright contradicted it by saying the governments role is to limit the freedom of it's vassals).

Again; the very word government comes from govern, or gubernare, which means to rule... to subject other. It's name explictily states it's purpose; to enact it's will over others. That is not freedom, and it certainly raises question as to why it would be named such if it's purpose, going all the way back to the ancient Greeks (with gubernare being based on a Greek word for rulership), was to restrict rather than protect.


Side fact; Anarchy = an-arkhos... "Without Ruler". That sounds very much like freedom, does it not?

[Baruch]

"So the governments primary role is... to regulate the freedom of others (and yours) to provide for you."

Your parents (or equivalent) provide for you, man-child ;-)  Grow up, but not too soon.

And no, the government isn't there to regulate, it is to act as a tool of the Establishment to screw everyone over, for fun and profit.  Read Machiavelli.

[Shiranu]

Read Machiavelli.

He came around a long, long while after governance... and his practices do not lead to either productive or long-lasting governments. I would say he is a very good example of what Government isn't suppose to inherently be.

[Gilgamesh]

Ensuring freedom requires the restriction of freedom of someone else. That is simple logistics; you cannot stop someone from limiting your freedom without limiting their freedom to do as they choose... meaning you are against freedoms you don't want others to have. For example...

So far I agree.

You yourself admit this is stripping the murder's freedom... but I contend that, when you compare a "truly free" society to a government that prohibits murder, you are ignoring the freedom of the murdered as well.

In a truly free society (anarchy), the person being murdered had the freedom to increase his strength, increase his defenses, to avoid being murdered. He did not choose to do so, or was not capable of doing so to a sufficient extent, given that he was murdered. To say that the government should have protected him means that his freedom was worthless, and in vain, and devalues it.

How does it devalue the murder victims freedom to say that the government should have restricted his murderers freedom to kill him?

Anarchy is the only logical way to protect the freedom of both parties; if you want the freedom to live, than you must utilize your freedom to be the strongest. If anyone defeats you it's only because you were not capable of utilizing your freedom to the level others did.

I.. guess? I'm not arguing that every freedom is good. The freedom to kill others for no reason is not good. I don't want it.

[Shiranu]

How does it devalue the murdereds freedom to say that the government should have restricted his murderers freedom to kill him?

It doesn't. It devalues it in saying he wasn't able to properly utilize his own freedom to defend himself, and he needed a handout from the government instead of gaining the necessary strength or protection (through his own freedom to do so) to protect himself. Or perhaps he was murdered for something, in which case he had the freedom to meet the murderer's demands and declined to. Perhaps he insulted the murderer, as is his freedom, and thus the murderer should have the freedom to retaliate.

It is, essentially, saying he was not able to properly utilize his freedom, so we will do it for him.

It is saying that, "No, you don't know how to properly value your freedom and utilize it, so we will be in control now!".

The freedom to kill others for no reason is not good. I don't want it.

Then you cant hold it over other people that "freedom" is your ultimate goal, since you only want it when it benefits you and don't want it when it doesn't. And the overwhelming majority of murders is not "for no reason"; one party was slighted, or wanted something from the other party. Should they not have the freedom to retaliate, or to take what they want?


Why is murder "bad"? And yes, this question has a point and isn't just a philosophical word game.

And yet again, by it's very definition of government is "ruled" and anarchy is "unruled", so you cannot argue that government's defining purpose is to insure freedom.

[Gilgamesh]

It doesn't. It devalues it in saying he wasn't able to properly utilize his own freedom to defend himself, and he needed a handout from the government instead of gaining the necessary strength or protection (through his own freedom to do so) to protect himself. Or perhaps he was murdered for something, in which case he had the freedom to meet the murderer's demands and declined to.

It is, essentially, saying he was not able to properly utilize his freedom, so we will do it for him.

Yeah. That's what it is. Why you think it devalues his freedom to defend himself is beyond me, but frankly I don't care since your value judgement is not really pertinent to anything lol. If anything I'd say that having his his right to life enshrined in law is a pretty liberating thing.

you cant hold it over other people that "freedom" is your ultimate goal, since you only want it when it benefits you and don't want it when it doesn't.

Being against the freedom to kill for 0 reason is to the benefit of everybody. There are 0 freedoms that I am both for and against depending on if it benefits me.

And yet again, by it's very definition of government is "ruled" and anarchy is "unruled", so you cannot argue that government's defining purpose is to insure freedom.

Shiranu: socialism doesnt mean socialism anymore words change man
Also Shiranu: hold my beer as i copy-paste the etimology of this word ad nauseum thinking im making an intelligent argument

[Gilgamesh]

Why is murder "bad"? And yes, this question has a point and isn't just a philosophical word game.

It's not necessarily. Having the freedom to dish it out with 0 justification is bad.

[Shiranu]

Yeah, except society hasn't changed the definition of governance or anarchy, yet. Nice try though.

[Gilgamesh]

Yeah, except society hasn't changed the definition of governance or anarchy, yet. Nice try though.

Every government that has ever existed has fit your narrow copy-pasted definition of government because words inform reality and not the other way around. Any government that doesn't fit the definition therefore wasn't a government. Your definition of government excludes a government that ensures more freedoms than it restricts from even being properly entitled a government. Truly a flawlessly argument. Some would say convenient.

Nevermind that if you trace back damn-near any word to its etymological origin its origin was expressing a waayyy more vague and malleable concept.

[Shiranu]

Any government that doesn't fit the definition therefore wasn't a government.

Cool.

Give me a single example of a government that wouldn't fit my definition of government, but still meets what you consider a government then.