Government or no government?
I'm stuck in a bit of a paradox regarding the best political system. For me, it's a decision between what is more moral, anarchy (i.e. almost complete negative liberty, would still probably have a courts system), or what will spread the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people, i.e. organised resource redistribution (to me, the only legitimate function of a government).
Sorry capitalists, not a big fan of property.
Statism
Side Score: 16
|
 |
Anarchism (or subsets of such)
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
In an ideal world, i would support anchaism, but the world is not how is ideally should be. You say your not a fan of property, but say i grow a garden that i maintain on my own. Is it right that some else who did not particpate in growing my garden take anything that i have grown for themselves without compenstating me. And what if they weren't the only one's, what ever everyone who walked by took something from me, til i had nothing left. Capitalism might not be an ideal solution, it does have it's problems, but i believe it motivates a better work effort rather than simply passing out stuff. That is not to say charity should be stopped, we should continue to care for the less fortunate, but at the same time push them to be able to stand on their own. Side: Statism
1
point
What gives you the right to that garden in the first place? Someone decided they had more of a right to it than everyone else, and so decided to kill anyone that tried to take it. Now you have a private army who will kidnap and imprison anyone who attempts to take what previously was unowned. Now depending on how I feel on a given day, I usually subscribe to Proudhon's theory on property, that is, there are different types of property. Property created through one's labour is legitimate property, and property claimed by use of force is not. This would be the difference between growing and picking strawberries to trade, and turning up to a strawberry plant with a knife to shank anyone that comes near it. One is created through labour, the other through coercive force. Side: Anarchism (or subsets of such)
1
point
It's great to see that you created this debate really only to dispute everyone on the statist side. Is there really any organized authority that you could consider justified in some specific set of circumstances and presuppositions about the world we live in? Side: Anarchism (or subsets of such)
2
points
1
point
1
point
If doing so would encourage the Chinese to exercise and increase the national spirit enough that it would encompass any harm done to those individuals then China is doing a very moral thing. In fact, it would be selfish of them not to. The Chinese just think of it differently. Everyone is forced to act in accordance to the common good. By this everyone gains. Side: Statism
1
point
I think I just had some sort of revelation. That I'm completely miso-political. The choice between statism and anarchy is from one extreme to the other, both of which suck. So you want mass government control? Then you throw away all negative liberty. You have no self control, you're coerced into being the prostitute of government bigwigs. Wanna take some funky substances? You're not fucking doing that. If you're 15, wanna go fuck a 15 year old? You're not doing that, you fucking filthy pedophile. You're gonna do exactly what they tell you to, and there's nothing you can do about it, cos guess what? You're the fucking moron that gave them power in the first place. Yea, I bet all the anarchists are laughing in agreement now. However, anarchy's just as bad. So you want no government control? Then you throw away all positive liberty. Instead of being government's bitch, ie, one entity's bitch, you get to be the bitch of a fucking cartel of corporations, ie, multiple entities. And don't give me that competition bullshit; have you been to Britain recently? Instead of these cartels of corporations working competitively to get the lowest price to the consumer, they're working competitively to get the highest price to the consumer, so they can have a fucking Hawaiian vacation. It's no coincidence that the year that energy prices for consumers are their highest for several years, the energy firms announce their highest profits for several years. And there's nothing you can do about it, because there's no authority to get rid of the problems. Neither statism or anarchy works, which means settling for a weak neutral form of government, pseudo libertarian. However, the results of this will also be weak and neutral, meaning no-one will prosper. ALL political systems fail, and the sooner indoctrinated buffoons obsessed with labeling themselves as libertarian, authoritarian, nonogenarian or whatever, decide to let their tags and ideas go, the sooner we can progress as a race to a new form of political and ideological thinking. A revolution of thought is required, but so long as we have people clinging to the failed dreams of yester-year, we'll never see that revolution occur. Which saddens me greatly. Side: Statism
1
point
I would also like your objection to equal political and economic authority between individuals. It doesn't feel to fit your criticism as much. Remember that the debate creator seems to have definate left-libertarian characteristics. You are answering to his dilemma after all. Side: Statism
1
point
Firstly, I'd like to point out that I was a teensy weeny bit horribly drunk when I wrote that. However, I do somewhat stand by it, if a little less extremely. Can you please clarify what you mean by "equal political and economic authority between individuals". My eyes and brain aren't working properly; I think you might be asking me my about my objections to the freedom anarchy provides, but I'm not sure, so I won't plunge in without checking. Side: Statism
1
point
No, statism is not necessarily authoritarianism, it just means a belief there should be a government. " you get to be the bitch of a fucking cartel of corporations," In anarcho capitalism, yes, but if there were to be anarcho communism, anarcho syndicalism or mutualism, illegitimate property and therefore corporations would not exist. Yes, you make legitimate points, this is the same dissonance I have with myself over politics. Side: Statism
1
point
No, statism is not necessarily authoritarianism, it just means a belief there should be a government. While that is true, the authoritative nature of government more often than not leads to authoritarianism. In anarcho capitalism, yes, but if there were to be anarcho communism, anarcho syndicalism or mutualism, illegitimate property and therefore corporations would not exist. I find left-anarchism in general to be slightly utopian, and a bit fanciful, given the greed of humans. However, until it is tried in a society, I can't fundamentally dispute its ideals. Side: Statism
1
point
I definitely dont think an anarchy would be a good idea. We should have government, just not a huge, complicated, money-eating one like we have. It should be alot smaller, so it would cost us less taxes, and it would make less inflation aka less ruining of the economy. And a smaller government would help it make decisions faster. It should be less complicated, so your average citizen could understand whats going on without wasting their life reading up on it and still being confused. Side: Statism
1
point
|
Your description is... eh. If I had to choose between Anarchy with a court system or Statism that functions to redistribute wealth, I'd choose Anarchy. Government, in general, is a terrible thing. Not that it hasn't done good, but considering over time what government HAS done, that bit of goodness is shit. Hell, people are still acting like roads only exist because government made it that way... yet even roads are just mostly beneficial towards corporations and the military industrial complex. It doesn't benefit the common man until the corporation decides to pull in as many common men as possible. And, of course, the fact that if roads are needed by the people, businesses will build them anyway. Of course, we can never know this, but people act like just because something happened one way it could never have happened any other way. Like the fallacy that the religious use when they talk about all the "good" that religion did and use that as justification for its existence. I believe in government, however. Call me a hopeless romantic, but I think if government could just abide by a constitution it can actually do much good. Specifically, protect your right to life and property. That's it. Make sure that others don't steal or kill or hurt others, and avoid trying to be the moral kings. Poor people exist, yeah. Don't act like somehow you've got a magical way to get rid of poverty. When you "redistribute" wealth you're just pooling the ability for the rich to create more resources. Resources are discovered and created. There isn't a set amount until you create a standardized monetary system that you decide to make the end-all towards everything we do in trade. The poor exist because they don't have enough of this magic paper. You give them a bunch of this magic paper that you took from the rich, and guess what, the rich doesn't have the ability to try and produce more goods and services with their magic paper. So now the poor have a bunch of useless paper because it doesn't buy them shit. What to do then? Add more value to specific amounts of paper? Yeah, and then come to the issue of who's going to accept your new paper, or how much the rich are really going to be able to use this new paper just because you said it's worth more. No consideration for the fact that money and government don't make the world richer, but just people who work hard to try and discover or create new things. What gets in their way? Regulation, taxes, sanctions, and this new idea that government owns whatever comes into existence (airwaves, space, the ocean, medicine, etc.) Government has become the mythical creature that we all bow down to and demand that others sacrifice their lives and property for. This mythical being, controlled by some people that we've chosen, will know more what to do with your property and lives than... yourself. Because they're smarter and "Democratically" chosen. I'm a hopeless romantic, though. I have this hope that government could one day just make sure that we don't hurt each other and that's it. That it won't become what it is now... but whether we set up Anarchy or my ideal government, eventually the people will believe that what they believe in is far more important than what others believe in, and demand that government steps in and makes this ideology the standard. Side: Anarchism (or subsets of such)
1
point
"If I had to choose between Anarchy with a court system or Statism that functions to redistribute wealth, I'd choose Anarchy." They weren't the only choices, I was merely sharing my own conflict of ideas which lead me to create this debate. "Hell, people are still acting like roads only exist because government made it that way" I know exactly what you mean. I don't understand why people bring this up. I couldn't give less of a shit about roads, it's not like the government are the only ones able to build them, and it's not as if being near roads is a human right. " I think if government could just abide by a constitution it can actually do much good. Specifically, protect your right to life and property. That's it. Make sure that others don't steal or kill or hurt others, and avoid trying to be the moral kings." I sort of agree, hence why I would prefer to have some form of organised court system. "Poor people exist, yeah. Don't act like somehow you've got a magical way to get rid of poverty. " They'd be a lot less poorer if they could actually use what they produced, hence the leftie "handing the means of production to the workers" thing, which I prefer to the "get the poor people to do the work while we spend the money they created by working" thing. Very interesting opinions, can't say I agree on everything, but at least you share my disdain for authority. Side: Anarchism (or subsets of such)
1
point
people will believe that what they believe in is far more important than what others believe in, and demand that government steps in and makes this ideology the standard. Thank you for providing a mouthpiece for my statist propaganda. You propose using the government, let alone a constitutional and not democratic one, to step in and make your ideology standard. You impose your idiology solves that which is just. You can ride your high horse saying that yours promotes maximum liberty. What someone else with objective viewpoints on morality would say is that what your government supports is unnecessary or undesireable freedoms or is actually not the way to establish maximum liberty. If certaint rules that apply to everyone are necessary, then the government we are talking about must be democratic to allow for everyone to affect what must affect everyone. Side: Statism
to step in and make your ideology standard. The ideology for due process and against an individual going out to kill or harm other individuals. Now, I would prefer a completely voluntary system a bit like current States rights arguments, except that the State would be developed by small governments that would collect taxes via property tax and provide protection of said property. Almost Anarcho-Capitalism, except you have to pay property tax and the state has to exist. Only because I don't believe in Anarchy. What someone else with objective viewpoints on morality would say is that what your government supports is unnecessary or undesireable freedoms Freedom is the default of lack of government. Of course, this is all subjective, because people define freedom differently. So it is liberty, free of government. Government isn't forcing liberty, it just isn't removing liberty. Liberty is default, only tyrants can take it away. You can play with language all you want (ironic, because language is as made up as government) to try and justify your support of statism, but anti-government is not imposing anything... it's lack of coercion. Like Atheism being lack of belief in God. It's not a belief that God doesn't exist, it's lack of belief. then the government we are talking about must be democratic to allow for everyone to affect what must affect everyone. I don't fully oppose Democracy. But Democracy that inflicts with an individual's civil liberties I am against. this is why I support a Constitution, to allow for Democracy. Otherwise I'd choose Anarchy. Side: Anarchism (or subsets of such)
1
point
Justice is the primary virtue of society just as truth is the primary virtue of a scientific theory. A society can be efficient just as a scientific theory can be simple and intricate, but an efficient but unjust society is just like an intricate but untrue scientific theory. There is no doubt that justice trumps efficiency. If your views on justice (or lack of them Á la ThePyg) demand anarchism, then efficiency is no objection to that. Side: Anarchism (or subsets of such)
|
