Turn on thread page Beta

The government is always our enemy watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yep goverment is the total enemy of man, next to our financial services. Check out 'Rothschilds exposed' on youtube.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomheppy)
    libertarians are such annoying people... ron paul supporters are the worst
    Please, you post in every single libertarian thread and even said yourself that you can't refute the libertarian idea of self-ownership on a philosophical level (paraphrasing).

    I give you 6 months before you are reversing the names in your sig :woo: :yes: :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomheppy)
    Say person A attacks person B. Person A is protected only by defence company Z and person B only protected by defence company Y. Both defence companies do not have a form of settling disputes with one another and not signed up to a court that will decide. Unless defence company A or B has relevant clauses when defence will not be provided war between the defence companies will arise.
    Well this doesn't explain why this is likely, or why agencies will try to kill each other. Say that Z proves to be more powerful than Y, why wouldn't Y just, eventually, back down rather than fight to destruction?

    Beyond this, this account surely just tells us why agencies will try not to be agencies that "do not have a form of settling disputes with one another and not signed up to a court that will decide" and try to ensure that they are agencies that have "relevant clauses when defence will not be provided."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Talking to some relatives, one raised the point that the government 'work for us, and are our servants'. I feel that if the past 12 years have taught us anything, it is that the government is not to be trusted, and it has to be reduced to what it is meant to do - uphold the rights of individuals, and nothing else.

    Anyone got any theories in favour or against my view?
    The government and indeed everything involved in the mix is always the enemy cause the benefits of their incomes, profits, companies and business relationships are always the priority before the needs they are "elected" to take care of. It so shameful, the government should do as the people wish or otherwise GTFO (of the country all together). It's ridiculous that in our "democracy" of **** the people are always constricted to do at the supposedly servants say. If the government wants to make a blue tax (just an example) and the people are displeased than with what **** of a face does he implement it?

    It's the illusion of power the people have and the intimidation they constantly receive in various ways that keep the people licking the government's ass. Another very commonly known method is the division of people in small groups opposing each other.

    Por Siempre Socialista!! (the idea isn't perfect but the people supporting it are on your side)
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay Riall)
    Please, you post in every single libertarian thread and even said yourself that you can't refute the libertarian idea of self-ownership on a philosophical level (paraphrasing).
    The idea of self-ownership isn't explicitly libertarian and you don't need to refute self-ownership to not be a libertarian.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    The idea of self-ownership isn't explicitly libertarian and you don't need to refute self-ownership to not be a libertarian.
    It wasn't a serious post tbh :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    The best way to reduce the power of government is to "starve the beast." The less tax revenue the government has, the less oppressive it can be. It also helps to have an armed population as a check to government oppression.
    If the the people all agreed together for once, it would be apocalypse for the government. The country is ours and not the government's. We pay how much tax we like.

    I am pro less prohibiting gun laws cause I like to go hunting and such, but, I fail to believe an armed population is gonna treat the government. The key is the army. The army is by far the supreme law in this matter. We should keep the army soldiers friendly and fight for their rights and decrease their daily. consumption of propaganda. The government without the army is a brain without a body.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomheppy)
    Say person A attacks person B. Person A is protected only by defence company Z and person B only protected by defence company Y. Both defence companies do not have a form of settling disputes with one another and not signed up to a court that will decide. Unless defence company A or B has relevant clauses when defence will not be provided war between the defence companies will arise.

    When has war and conflict ever been profitable? (this is my first question)

    Secondly, notice that it wouldn't have to be "defence" companies who settle disputes, but individuals. Defence companies "defend"...
    you are talking about mercenaries.


    Can you settle disputes with a government? An institution that produces nothing, but only has a monopoly on force. When you have the police carry out the orders of big government, are they not acting just as mercenaries? ... but in this scenario there is NO defence company on your side. (Try anti-terrorism laws, drug prohibition, imposition of taxes, "attempting" to comit suicide, offering work below minimum wage...etc. All victimless crimes)


    Also may I say that it would be unbelievably expensive for a "defence company" (mercenary) to wage war, it is in their interests to DEFEND if need be.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This reminds me of my one of my tutors, who is trying to drill into our heads that The Government Is Bad (using those exact words). I agree with a lot of what he says but his fervour is highly amusing.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missimpossible)
    This reminds me of my one of my tutors, who is trying to drill into our heads that The Government Is Bad (using those exact words). I agree with a lot of what he says but his fervour is highly amusing.
    Is he employed by the state? Can you ask him what kind of political system he favours?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    Talking to some relatives, one raised the point that the government 'work for us, and are our servants'. I feel that if the past 12 years have taught us anything, it is that the government is not to be trusted, and it has to be reduced to what it is meant to do - uphold the rights of individuals, and nothing else.

    Anyone got any theories in favour or against my view?
    we work for the government and are their servants they don't work for us, and aren't our servants. They control us. They might have at some point been working for the people and doing what we would like but now they don't. We've let them have too much power. They're scared of the people thats why they are controlling us and until people wake up to the real world and decide to unite as ONE to get the government to work for us again we shall always be slaves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay Riall)
    Is he employed by the state? Can you ask him what kind of political system he favours?
    I have the same one, and it's hard to tell what his concrete opinions are; he seems to change stances from week to week to keep us on our toes. Given that I do the same depending on my mood, I have no complaints, though I do kind of feel you don't have much excuse to be still doing it once you're in your fifties.
    I get the impression he's reasonably libertarian-leaning (as am I, though I'm still fond of, say, roads), but we haven't had any real in-depth discussions in that vein just yet.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomheppy)
    Say person A attacks person B. Person A is protected only by defence company Z and person B only protected by defence company Y. Both defence companies do not have a form of settling disputes with one another and not signed up to a court that will decide. Unless defence company A or B has relevant clauses when defence will not be provided war between the defence companies will arise.
    Have a read of Friedman.

    In a nutshell, the reason is that it's quite a lot cheaper to negotiate than to fund an all out war.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RawJoh1)
    I agree that government power must be limited. The alternative, I guess ... would be some sort of absolutism. You'll get no disagreement from me with the view that Louis XIV style absolutism is a poor form of government.
    But your rejection of absolutism (as a Rawlsian) is highly contingent - if it were the case that absolutism were the form of government which made the worst-off group in society best-off, you wouldn't have much of a complaint against it, right? Doesn't this remind you, among other things, of the utilitarian position on, say, slavery?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Have a read of Friedman.

    In a nutshell, the reason is that it's quite a lot cheaper to negotiate than to fund an all out war.
    Funny how everyone attacks private companies for solely focusing on profit-maximizing in every part of their business, but as soon as it comes to the idea of an obscenely unprofitable private war, they suddenly go completely against their previous overriding motive. When people come out with this stuff I've found it is almost always based in an emotional distrust of business (or emotional attachment to government) rather than any actual logic or reasoning.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakePearson)
    As I say, the government is only needed to protect and uphold citizens' rights. The police are an example of this.
    No they most definetly are not.


    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay Riall)
    Funny how everyone attacks private companies for solely focusing on profit-maximizing in every part of their business, but as soon as it comes to the idea of an obscenely unprofitable private war, they suddenly go completely against their previous overriding motive. When people come out with this stuff I've found it is almost always based in an emotional distrust of business (or emotional attachment to government) rather than any actual logic or reasoning.
    Relative vs. absolute gains. The whole thing is a bit like the prisoner's dilemma in that yes, Dial-a-Goon could talk the whole thing over with Vigilates'R'Us. On the other hand it could just woop the Vigilantes'R'Us agents. Just like how in the prisoner's dilemma I could make both of us better off over all, or I can **** the other guy over, and there seems to be something psychological going on in that people are much better at recognising relative gains and losses rather than absolute ones; there's also no evidence that private companies would sort this out any better.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missimpossible)
    This reminds me of my one of my tutors, who is trying to drill into our heads that The Government Is Bad (using those exact words). I agree with a lot of what he says but his fervour is highly amusing.
    It's normally the case that people 'Against the State' are considered wackos/fanatics etc because that is the way they have been branded. The state has successfully brainwashed via the use of the political class the entire population to believe that Government action is the default state of human action.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Relative vs. absolute gains. The whole thing is a bit like the prisoner's dilemma in that yes, Dial-a-Goon could talk the whole thing over with Vigilates'R'Us. On the other hand it could just woop the Vigilantes'R'Us agents.
    You're right it could do. But why would it when peacefully resolving disputes is far, far, far more profitable than violently resolving them? How many businesses in this line of work would not realize the obvious truth that violence is not profitable? It is not profitable absolutely or relatively, it is risky, you have to pay people A LOT of money in general to act in this way, it is bad publicity, it opens you up to all sorts of violence in the future and almost all people in a civilized society have a funny aversion to overt violence (yes, even businessmen). How many customers are going to choose violent, costly businesses over cheaper, peaceful ones?

    I really don't get what you're trying to say with the whole prisoners dilemma?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jay Riall)
    You're right it could do. But why would it when peacefully resolving disputes is far, far, far more profitable than violently resolving them?
    I don't know why (you'd have to go ask a sociologist or psychologist or even an IR theorist or something; my personal theory is that we're predisposed to look at gains in relative rather than absolute terms and are therefore content with beating the other person even if it results in a worse overall outcomes; in effect we think we're maximising our utility when infact we're not) but given that people resort to violence when resolving disputes peacefully is more profitable than being violent at the moment I don't see how this is fundamentally going to change in an anarcho-capitalist world. Companies are/have been perfectly happy to resort to violence anyway, from strike-breaking goons in 19th/early 20th century Europe to Coca Cola hiring Colombian militias to murder trade union leaders.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.