CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
It could exist for a while before descending into absolute chaos.
Attempted domination by different groupings would be the norm as the strong reign over the weak every violation and human abuse would go unpunished and human rights would be nonexistent
Yes, but in practice minarchism is preferable to anarchism because the latter is inclined toward mob rule and/or rule by the strong. To decrease the roles of government slowly until it merely protects people's rights would be the best path forward on this front.
To have no state is potentially possible with a hyper-intelligent, conscientious, armed and moral citizenry, but first we would need to create such a citizenry.
No shit Sherlock. If you get rid of laws, the strongest group to organize will make new laws.
But that's exactly what happens right now. The strongest group organises to make laws. You literally began by agreeing with that (i.e. "No shit Sherlock").
I just honestly find it incredible how stupid you are. Simply incredible.
Laws are fundamentally the establishment of known consequences. Society is fundamentally a community.
In order for people to live together for any extended period of time, they have to know the consequences their fellow humans will impose for given actions. Otherwise people would isolate themselves from one another for lack of certainty or trust. It would be Hobbes’s state of nature.
Laws are fundamentally the establishment of known consequences.
Hello A:
Yeah, but...... Of course we need laws against murder, rape, stealing, and hurting each other.. But beyond that, we're good..
Laws against THINGS, like drugs, and guns don't work and cause more problems than they fix..
And, why is it the governments business if you drive drunk??? Note - See above where I said there'll be laws against hurting each other.. So, we'll come down HARD if a drunk driver hurts somebody... But, if he just drives drunk and NEVER hurts anybody, who are we to interfere with his life??
Of course we need laws against murder, rape, stealing, and hurting each other.. But beyond that, we're good..
The question is about laws as such, which is what I was answering.
You know, taxes are imposed by law.
why is it the governments business if you drive drunk?
The roadways are public and publicly maintained. A drunk driver is an inherent threat to all other members of the public they encounter. Imposing consequences for that kind of public endangerment is absolutely the proper role for the government. By the way, we do come down HARD. Since it usually kills someone, it’s usually a murder charge.
You know, if somebody doesn't pay their taxes, that's stealing.. Covered it..
Plus, a law that says you can't hurt anybody, or we'll FUCK you up, is a pretty stiff impediment to HURTING somebody, drunk or not.. Covered that too.
You, on the other hand, wanna prevent some crime from happening, that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT happen... We could call it pre-crime.. Hay... Didn't they make a movie about that?
You know, if somebody doesn't pay their taxes, that's stealing..
Sometimes paying your taxes is stealing.
You, on the other hand, wanna prevent some crime from happening, that MIGHT or MIGHT NOT happen..
Yeah. Crime prevention through laws against activity that severely endangers many many innocent bystanders is something I’m ok with. Say, should the second amendment allow for personal nukes? After all, we can just punish them if they happen to use it.
Drug and alcohol use caused the deaths of 379 King County residents in 2017—an increase from 348 in 2016—according to two new reports published today by Public Health – Seattle & King County and the University of Washington’s Alcohol and Drug Abuse Institute.
Data from the 2017 Overdose Death Report describes drug and alcohol-caused deaths over the past decade investigated by the King County Medical Examiner’s Office (MEO). The report found that in 2017, heroin and opioids, including fentanyl, continue to be the most common drugs associated with fatal overdoses (69%) while the rate of deaths involving methamphetamine continue to increase sharply.
There is continued concern about the growing impact of illicit fentanyl. Fentanyl was involved in 33 fatal overdoses in 2017, up from 23 deaths in 2016. There have been 17 confirmed fentanyl-related deaths in the first quarter of 2018.
SUPER STUPID don't worry about the DRUGS you support because it is no problem in WASHINGTON STATE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Laws are fundamentally the establishment of known consequences. Society is fundamentally a community.
Laws are a consequence of the establishment of property rights. Your pseudo-intellectual garbage is tedious to read.
In order for people to live together for any extended period of time, they have to know the consequences their fellow humans will impose for given actions.
That isn't why laws were invented. You are romanticising history and once again intentionally proliferating myths. Laws were invented to protect the property rights of the ruling class.
Every society has laws. Property rights are only one category. If you don’t believe me, go to some indigenous tribe and assault someone. See what happens.
Every society has laws. Property rights are only one category.
No, laws emerged historically as a direct consequence of property rights. That's actually what happened, whether you like it or not.
If you don’t believe me, go to some indigenous tribe and assault someone. See what happens.
Wtf? I don't even know what this has to do with the conversation. I wish you would stop pointlessly deflecting to random side topics and assuming I disagree with your equally random statements.
No, laws emerged historically as a direct consequence of property rights.
That’s not true in the slightest.
Wtf? I don't even know what this has to do with the conversation.
That’s because you don’t understand what laws are, even though I defined it for you in its most basic form. I don’t know why I repeatedly attempt to educate you, it clearly can’t be done. You can have the last word little guy. I’m done with you for now.
It is completely true and you are simply an imbecile who has never studied history. See:-
Trade was the great disturber of the primitive world, for until it came, bringing money and profit in its wake, there was no property, and therefore little government.
Law comes with property, marriage and government; the lowest societies manage to get along without it. “I have lived with communities of savages in South America and in the East,” said Alfred Russel Wallace, “who have no law or law-courts but the public opinion of the village freely expressed. Each man scrupulously respects the rights of his fellows, and any infraction of those rights rarely or never takes place. In such a community all are nearly equal.”
Our Oriental Heritage, Book One, The Story Of Civilisation, Will Durant, 1935
Each man scrupulously respects the rights of his fellows, and any infraction of those rights rarely or never takes place.
THATS LAW. Durant says that law comes from property, marriage, and government. It need not be written down. This is going to be over your head but... an individual owns their body (property), people develop moral norms around sexual relations (marriage), and whatever determines the consequences for given actions (law) will govern a given group of people (society). There need not be elected officials passing down dictates for a group to have a government. Whatever mechanism they use to determine group norms and action is their government. Law need not be written for it to exist. All that there has to be is known consequences for specific actions ie breach of law. If Durant means to say that Laws must be written for them to be laws, he is quite simply incorrect.
These primitive people described by Wallace would face consequences for an infraction of rights, thus they refrain from said infractions. THAT'S LAW. SOCIETY REQUIRES IT.
Holy shit. I know you are completely incapable of grasping higher order concepts, but sometimes I just have to engage. It's why you are the best troll here. Sorry Ming.