Proles
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
I think most families would take care of each other. I know I would take care of my own. I don't care about your family though, sorry.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
One of the fallacies behind the idea that one cannot live in society without government is the idea that government is the wellspring of society and even civilization itself. Government is merely a tool.
Government exists of equal footing as organized religion and the market.
It is impossible to live in a society without some form of government, else you wouldn't live in society but by natural freedoms.
The ethos in the US seems to be to day-dream about some return to absolute, or natural, freedoms whilst maintaining social freedoms such as property rights.
This is an impossibility. Without some independent arbitrator it would be a case of take / do whatever you are capable of doing / taking. In that extent, effective government is the well spring of civilisation.
Government is fundamental to social living. You all might argue about the extent or form of government, but it is inevitable.
Anyone who claims otherwise, fantasizes....
Government exists of equal footing as organized religion and the market.
It is impossible to live in a society without some form of government, else you wouldn't live in society but by natural freedoms.
The ethos in the US seems to be to day-dream about some return to absolute, or natural, freedoms whilst maintaining social freedoms such as property rights.
This is an impossibility. Without some independent arbitrator it would be a case of take / do whatever you are capable of doing / taking. In that extent, effective government is the well spring of civilisation.
Government is fundamental to social living. You all might argue about the extent or form of government, but it is inevitable.
Anyone who claims otherwise, fantasizes....
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Society existed long before medicare anyoldiron.
And your point is?
And your point is?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Medicare is a piece of crap...
France spends LESS of their budget on healthcare than us, and we have crappier coverage.
France spends LESS of their budget on healthcare than us, and we have crappier coverage.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
It is impossible to live in a society without some form of government, else you wouldn't live in society but by natural freedoms.
that is false. Societies have existed that were not governed by a centralized authority which uses law to govern behavior. The societies operated using custom and informal social controls. These societies were smaller in scale and less technologically developed however the idea that society cannot exist without government is false.
Society creates government not the other way around.
The ethos in the US seems to be to day-dream about some return to absolute, or natural, freedoms whilst maintaining social freedoms such as property rights.
Who says this. My ethos is government that abandons the use of force in order to control behavior. Property rights are a legacy of government through the use of force. However to reverse that effect governmental use of force is also required.
Property rights do exist in the natural realm when confined to owning what you have created.
This is an impossibility. Without some independent arbitrator it would be a case of take / do whatever you are capable of doing / taking. In that extent, effective government is the well spring of civilisation.
Thats a serious leapo of logic there. You seem to make the erroneous conclusion that because government facilitates the maintenance and advance of civilization that it is the wellspring of civilization. This is a non sequitur. For your statement to be correct you would have to show how government allowed for the initial creation of civilization not just its aiding.
that is false. Societies have existed that were not governed by a centralized authority which uses law to govern behavior. The societies operated using custom and informal social controls. These societies were smaller in scale and less technologically developed however the idea that society cannot exist without government is false.
Society creates government not the other way around.
The ethos in the US seems to be to day-dream about some return to absolute, or natural, freedoms whilst maintaining social freedoms such as property rights.
Who says this. My ethos is government that abandons the use of force in order to control behavior. Property rights are a legacy of government through the use of force. However to reverse that effect governmental use of force is also required.
Property rights do exist in the natural realm when confined to owning what you have created.
This is an impossibility. Without some independent arbitrator it would be a case of take / do whatever you are capable of doing / taking. In that extent, effective government is the well spring of civilisation.
Thats a serious leapo of logic there. You seem to make the erroneous conclusion that because government facilitates the maintenance and advance of civilization that it is the wellspring of civilization. This is a non sequitur. For your statement to be correct you would have to show how government allowed for the initial creation of civilization not just its aiding.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
I meant in an anthropological sense. Not a political sense.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
"Smaller in scale and less technologically developed?" LMAO! Yeah, that's a fair statement. So is saying that a virus is simpler than a human being.
First, those societies that have little or no centralized authority -- generally called acephalous societies -- exist solely at the hunter-gatherer level of social specialization. Secondly, they are no longer considered truly egalitarian either. Research since the 70s has shown that they are actually far more heirarchical than the first, rather credulous observers thought.
Does the chicken create the egg or the egg create the chicken? It's a nonsensical problem: the two are inextricable.
No, they absolutely do not. There are no "property rights" -- no individual rights of any kind -- outside of social constructs.
Your mistake is to see government and law as resulting from the application of force. The relationship is far more organic than that.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
First, those societies that have little or no centralized authority -- generally called acephalous societies -- exist solely at the hunter-gatherer level of social specialization. Secondly, they are no longer considered truly egalitarian either. Research since the 70s has shown that they are actually far more heirarchical than the first, rather credulous observers thought.
Regardless they were societies. It is culturalist to deny that they are. Hierarchy does not equate to government either. There were some Native American societies that lacked a government.
Does the chicken create the egg or the egg create the chicken? It's a nonsensical problem: the two are inextricable.
Simple the chicken creates the egg. An egg is just a chicken. The same follows here. Society came first then government.
No, they absolutely do not. There are no "property rights" -- no individual rights of any kind -- outside of social constructs.
I speak of natural rights. The natural state of a human without coercion brought upon him. In nature one owns one body or ones thoughts. It doesn't take a social construct to make that true. It is self evident. It takes an unnatural act to curtail ones ability to own their body or thoughts.
Your mistake is to see government and law as resulting from the application of force. The relationship is far more organic than that.
Law doesn't exist without the application of force or at least the threat of its use. A society that abandons this principle of the use of force behind the enforcement of law has abandoned government.
The use of informal societal controls are not governmental they are social.
Regardless they were societies. It is culturalist to deny that they are. Hierarchy does not equate to government either. There were some Native American societies that lacked a government.
Does the chicken create the egg or the egg create the chicken? It's a nonsensical problem: the two are inextricable.
Simple the chicken creates the egg. An egg is just a chicken. The same follows here. Society came first then government.
No, they absolutely do not. There are no "property rights" -- no individual rights of any kind -- outside of social constructs.
I speak of natural rights. The natural state of a human without coercion brought upon him. In nature one owns one body or ones thoughts. It doesn't take a social construct to make that true. It is self evident. It takes an unnatural act to curtail ones ability to own their body or thoughts.
Your mistake is to see government and law as resulting from the application of force. The relationship is far more organic than that.
Law doesn't exist without the application of force or at least the threat of its use. A society that abandons this principle of the use of force behind the enforcement of law has abandoned government.
The use of informal societal controls are not governmental they are social.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
First, those societies that have little or no centralized authority -- generally called acephalous societies -- exist solely at the hunter-gatherer level of social specialization.
Exactly my point. You either adhere to social freedoms (as JJR described them) or you exist in a state of natural freedom.
Exactly my point. You either adhere to social freedoms (as JJR described them) or you exist in a state of natural freedom.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Regardless they were societies. It is culturalist to deny that they are. Hierarchy does not equate to government either. There were some Native American societies that lacked a government.
By that definition a wolf pack is a society.
Simple the chicken creates the egg. An egg is just a chicken. The same follows here. Society came first then government.
I've given the chicken / egg question a lot of thought. The egg came first. The preceding species would have laid an egg in which the genetic mutation that created the chicken species would have formed.
I speak of natural rights. The natural state of a human without coercion brought upon him.
There is no such thing, entity or state. Even in a state of natural freedoms coercion is brought about.
With natural freedoms, all have the right to do whatever they are capable of. If I want something and I can physically take it, I take it. Social freedoms protect the person from there things being taken.
Property rights, something so enshrined by those that believe the absolute freedom fantasy, is a social freedom, it isn't natural. You don't have property rights in nature.
In nature one owns one body or ones thoughts. It doesn't take a social construct to make that true. It is self evident. It takes an unnatural act to curtail ones ability to own their body or thoughts.
On the contrary, natural freedoms are the freedom to do whatever you are capable of, if I wish to kill and can physically do it, I do it.
It is social freedoms that protect the rights of the person not to be killed, just as the create property rights.
The use of informal societal controls are not governmental they are social.
And yet still use force to enforce them. The Alpha male uses force to coerce others in a wolf pack.
This means that government merely uses social controls that exist in natural freedoms...
By that definition a wolf pack is a society.
Simple the chicken creates the egg. An egg is just a chicken. The same follows here. Society came first then government.
I've given the chicken / egg question a lot of thought. The egg came first. The preceding species would have laid an egg in which the genetic mutation that created the chicken species would have formed.
I speak of natural rights. The natural state of a human without coercion brought upon him.
There is no such thing, entity or state. Even in a state of natural freedoms coercion is brought about.
With natural freedoms, all have the right to do whatever they are capable of. If I want something and I can physically take it, I take it. Social freedoms protect the person from there things being taken.
Property rights, something so enshrined by those that believe the absolute freedom fantasy, is a social freedom, it isn't natural. You don't have property rights in nature.
In nature one owns one body or ones thoughts. It doesn't take a social construct to make that true. It is self evident. It takes an unnatural act to curtail ones ability to own their body or thoughts.
On the contrary, natural freedoms are the freedom to do whatever you are capable of, if I wish to kill and can physically do it, I do it.
It is social freedoms that protect the rights of the person not to be killed, just as the create property rights.
The use of informal societal controls are not governmental they are social.
And yet still use force to enforce them. The Alpha male uses force to coerce others in a wolf pack.
This means that government merely uses social controls that exist in natural freedoms...
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
By that definition a wolf pack is a society.
One could argue such a thing.
I've given the chicken / egg question a lot of thought. The egg came first. The preceding species would have laid an egg in which the genetic mutation that created the chicken species would have formed.
I agree but we are talking about creation. Chickens create eggs. Eggs don't create anything.
There is no such thing, entity or state. Even in a state of natural freedoms coercion is brought about.
With natural freedoms, all have the right to do whatever they are capable of. If I want something and I can physically take it, I take it. Social freedoms protect the person from there things being taken.
You misunderstand the premise of law based on natural rights. A society must recognize these rights but it does so because they are self evident instead of being nanded down from some centralized authority.
And yet still use force to enforce them. The Alpha male uses force to coerce others in a wolf pack.
This means that government merely uses social controls that exist in natural freedoms...
thats not what informal social controls are. Lets say a person in a community is abusive to others. Members of that community decide not to share the fruits of the community with the abusive member. There exercise of there own freedoms makes the abusive member way the consequences of his actions. He can continue to be abusive and be denied food from his fellows or he can get in line. This differs from government which has a body to enforce laws by physically punishing the offender if he disobeys.
One could argue such a thing.
I've given the chicken / egg question a lot of thought. The egg came first. The preceding species would have laid an egg in which the genetic mutation that created the chicken species would have formed.
I agree but we are talking about creation. Chickens create eggs. Eggs don't create anything.
There is no such thing, entity or state. Even in a state of natural freedoms coercion is brought about.
With natural freedoms, all have the right to do whatever they are capable of. If I want something and I can physically take it, I take it. Social freedoms protect the person from there things being taken.
You misunderstand the premise of law based on natural rights. A society must recognize these rights but it does so because they are self evident instead of being nanded down from some centralized authority.
And yet still use force to enforce them. The Alpha male uses force to coerce others in a wolf pack.
This means that government merely uses social controls that exist in natural freedoms...
thats not what informal social controls are. Lets say a person in a community is abusive to others. Members of that community decide not to share the fruits of the community with the abusive member. There exercise of there own freedoms makes the abusive member way the consequences of his actions. He can continue to be abusive and be denied food from his fellows or he can get in line. This differs from government which has a body to enforce laws by physically punishing the offender if he disobeys.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
I agree but we are talking about creation. Chickens create eggs. Eggs don't create anything.
Genetic mutations occur during reproduction. The species who created the first chicken weren't chickens. It was during the breeding of the preceding species that the chicken was created.
Thus the egg came first.
Genetic mutations occur during reproduction. The species who created the first chicken weren't chickens. It was during the breeding of the preceding species that the chicken was created.
Thus the egg came first.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
You misunderstand the premise of law based on natural rights. A society must recognize these rights but it does so because they are self evident instead of being nanded down from some centralized authority.
Natural rights are the rights to do whatever you like provided you physically can.
If I want your car, and can physically take it, I do so.
You do realise that property rights are a social, not a natural freedom?
Natural rights are the rights to do whatever you like provided you physically can.
If I want your car, and can physically take it, I do so.
You do realise that property rights are a social, not a natural freedom?
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
There exercise of there own freedoms makes the abusive member way the consequences of his actions. He can continue to be abusive and be denied food from his fellows or he can get in line. This differs from government which has a body to enforce laws by physically punishing the offender if he disobeys.
Deprivation of essentials is still physical coercion.
If I lay seige to a town, starving the population, am I not physically coercing the population?
Deprivation of essentials is still physical coercion.
If I lay seige to a town, starving the population, am I not physically coercing the population?
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Property rights are an instinct, not a social structure. Even dogs fight over "their" property. People act like it is some complex thing only created by humans.
There are no property rights in the state of nature, you only have the possessions you can defend.
It is only with social rights that you have protection of property regardless of your ability to defend it.
Property rights are a freedom afford by society, not nature.
There are no property rights in the state of nature, you only have the possessions you can defend.
It is only with social rights that you have protection of property regardless of your ability to defend it.
Property rights are a freedom afford by society, not nature.