Can any Government Be Trusted?

[hadit]

I think you misunderstand: you involuntarily enter into citizenship simply by birth on US soil.

Exactly, which means that government mandated membership IS involuntary, which makes your comparison with co-ops invalid.

[hadit]

I think a computer Over Lord would be the best government.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastr...opardy-406146/

It doest like cocaine, it doesn't need spankings by $10,000 hoes, it doesn't need 2 weeks in Bali, It doesnt need stock options, etc read the last paragraphs of the above article.

But then it becomes just another tool to be controlled by someone. And, unlike a human being, it cannot develop a conscience and refuse to obey its controller.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Exactly, which means that government mandated membership IS involuntary, which makes your comparison with co-ops invalid.

No, it's mandatory in the same aspect: you can choose to live in either another nation (in the case of citizenship), or a rental house (in the case of a co-op) instead.

[hadit]

No, it's mandatory in the same aspect: you can choose to live in either another nation (in the case of citizenship), or a rental house (in the case of a co-op) instead.

Ridiculous.

[9ball8]

Hmm, gov't enforcing the rule of law, vs. anarchy (AKA, the "good will of my fellows"). With gummint: -Some more powerful individual/group messes with my property or person, I can turn to gummint to remedy the problem. With anarchy, I'm on my own, unless I can convince others to band with me to take back what was mine. That likely escalates into violence PDQ, in most cases.

I believe what is lacking here is a few hundred $billion in student exchange programs, provided to libertarians & conservatives attending the University of Real World. First, they go to a country that has a practical "rule by the strong" ethic. Laws in such countries are routinely ignored, police are poorly paid (thus easily bribed), and gov't is generally ineffective. Not quite Somalia, but we need to provide a nice variety of the "least gov't." for our student experience. Then, these same students (who are not sold as involuntary organ donors or similar capitalist enterprise) are sent to what are considered generally well-ordered countries on the libertarian's "not so shit-list". Take Singapore, Hong Kong or a few others. There, they will learn that law & order includes gummint coercion of both citizen and business alike. Not coerced in all things, but those things which caused these nations grief some time in the past.

When these students return to the US and western Europe's social republics, they will have a better understanding of what "anarchy" and "freedom" really mean. We hope they will also propose more coherent arguments for de-regulation and controlled capitalism, rather than the old standby: "gummint can't do anything right".

[hadit]

Hmm, gov't enforcing the rule of law, vs. anarchy (AKA, the "good will of my fellows"). With gummint: -Some more powerful individual/group messes with my property or person, I can turn to gummint to remedy the problem. With anarchy, I'm on my own, unless I can convince others to band with me to take back what was mine. That likely escalates into violence PDQ, in most cases.

I believe what is lacking here is a few hundred $billion in student exchange programs, provided to libertarians & conservatives attending the University of Real World. First, they go to a country that has a practical "rule by the strong" ethic. Laws in such countries are routinely ignored, police are poorly paid (thus easily bribed), and gov't is generally ineffective. Not quite Somalia, but we need to provide a nice variety of the "least gov't." for our student experience. Then, these same students (who are not sold as involuntary organ donors or similar capitalist enterprise) are sent to what are considered generally well-ordered countries on the libertarian's "not so shit-list". Take Singapore, Hong Kong or a few others. There, they will learn that law & order includes gummint coercion of both citizen and business alike. Not coerced in all things, but those things which caused these nations grief some time in the past.

When these students return to the US and western Europe's social republics, they will have a better understanding of what "anarchy" and "freedom" really mean. We hope they will also propose more coherent arguments for de-regulation and controlled capitalism, rather than the old standby: "gummint can't do anything right".

Who said anything about anarchy?

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

I do agree than no government should take its power for granted or abuse power and be held accountable for its actions but especially in this day and age I favour strong governments over strong corporations.

The biggest problem is most people are too lazy to participate in making sure their governments stay relatively honest, preferring to spend their time in mindless self-indulgence whenever possible instead spending a few hour a week on civic matters, then getting all butt hurt when their neglect creates a monster, followed by looking around for a couple of minutes finding some Messiah to fix their problems for them, hopefully one with a ignorant, simplistic pre-packaged ideology that doesn't require more than 10 seconds to read, and then go back to whatever mindless crap they fill their free time with.

In the case of the U.S., we do have the best government money can buy, so all the sniveling by the 'Free Marketers' and laissez-faire fans is just silly; they got everything they've ever asked for in the current government. Why they continue to snivel and whine about it is a mystery, but apparently it's some weird notion that their 'philosophy' isn't working because they personally aren't worth billions or something, and nobody gives a shit about making them the country's ruling class, or even inviting them on the Talking Head Circuit. They think this means their wonderful fantasies re Neo-Darwinism are clearly not working and 'SOMETHING IS HORRIBLY WRONG!!!

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Hmm, gov't enforcing the rule of law, vs. anarchy (AKA, the "good will of my fellows"). With gummint: -Some more powerful individual/group messes with my property or person, I can turn to gummint to remedy the problem. With anarchy, I'm on my own, unless I can convince others to band with me to take back what was mine. That likely escalates into violence PDQ, in most cases.

I believe what is lacking here is a few hundred $billion in student exchange programs, provided to libertarians & conservatives attending the University of Real World. First, they go to a country that has a practical "rule by the strong" ethic. Laws in such countries are routinely ignored, police are poorly paid (thus easily bribed), and gov't is generally ineffective. Not quite Somalia, but we need to provide a nice variety of the "least gov't." for our student experience. Then, these same students (who are not sold as involuntary organ donors or similar capitalist enterprise) are sent to what are considered generally well-ordered countries on the libertarian's "not so shit-list". Take Singapore, Hong Kong or a few others. There, they will learn that law & order includes gummint coercion of both citizen and business alike. Not coerced in all things, but those things which caused these nations grief some time in the past.

When these students return to the US and western Europe's social republics, they will have a better understanding of what "anarchy" and "freedom" really mean. We hope they will also propose more coherent arguments for de-regulation and controlled capitalism, rather than the old standby: "gummint can't do anything right".

Well, personally, I think the U.S. would be far, far better off if we could sell libertoons and Republicans to middle class Red Chinese bureaucrats as house pets for their children.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Idiots.

[9ball8]

Who said anything about anarchy?

Well, whenever human behavior is allowed to organize itself, with no oversight from a legal authority, it is generally referred to as "anarchy". That's fine with interpersonal relationships up to a point: family law ignores until mom or dad whip the kids, for example.

When anarchy is proposed for national economic relationships, the scale is way too large. And conservatives -especially libertarians- have not indicated just how the natural structure of economics would be a satisfactory substitute for an artificial authority such as gov't. Failing to regulate or tax a valuables/money transaction between neighbors is a hulluva lot different than failing to regulate a large company's waste disposal procedures; this difference seems lost on too many people. -Hence, the need for a lesson in countries where "natural selection" in economics is the practical rule. Follow this by a lesson in countries that seem to trend more libertarian than the US, yet have a managed economic system in place.

[Freedom&Liberty]

If you don't like the way a company does business, don't buy from them. Natural selection.

[hadit]

Well, whenever human behavior is allowed to organize itself, with no oversight from a legal authority, it is generally referred to as "anarchy". That's fine with interpersonal relationships up to a point: family law ignores until mom or dad whip the kids, for example.

When anarchy is proposed for national economic relationships, the scale is way too large. And conservatives -especially libertarians- have not indicated just how the natural structure of economics would be a satisfactory substitute for an artificial authority such as gov't. Failing to regulate or tax a valuables/money transaction between neighbors is a hulluva lot different than failing to regulate a large company's waste disposal procedures; this difference seems lost on too many people. -Hence, the need for a lesson in countries where "natural selection" in economics is the practical rule. Follow this by a lesson in countries that seem to trend more libertarian than the US, yet have a managed economic system in place.

Generally speaking, taking an opponent's point to an extreme is not a sound debate tactic. The question on the table is, "can any government be trusted?". My position is no, it cannot, because of the nature of power and corruption. It therefore needs to be very carefully granted power, with the understanding that once granted, it becomes impossible to take back. No institution should be able to operate without any checks on its power. That has nothing to do with anarchy, as no one has advocated the elimination of government entirely.

[hadit]

If you don't like the way a company does business, don't buy from them. Natural selection.

Exactly. If you don't like the way a government does business, OTOH, you don't have the choice to ignore it.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Ridiculous.

No, it isn't. By living in a nation, you choose to subject yourself to its national sovereignty, including participating in its collective buying program, government. The same with a co-op.

Incidentally, young people often learn that choosing a co-op with the lowest monthly maintenance payment (or tax burden) isn't usually the wisest course.

[hadit]

No, it isn't. By living in a nation, you choose to subject yourself to its national sovereignty, including participating in its collective buying program, government. The same with a co-op.

Nonsense. I can choose to join a co-op or not join a co-op and I don't have to give up my citizenship. Even more importantly, I can LEAVE a co-op. "Can any government be trusted?" cannot be answered by "Yes it can, because if you don't like it, you can always leave". That ONLY works for non-governmental entities, because governments sometimes make it impossible or prohibitively difficult for citizens to leave while co-ops cannot. You really can't realistically make that comparison stick.

[Cyclone Ranger]

You can also choose to live in or not live in a nation. There are plenty of countries in the world.

[Šñøü†ê®]

^Irony alert!

[Cyclone Ranger]

Snouter, you are not smart enough to understand concepts like irony. Stick to the buffoonery of which you are capable.

[hadit]

You can also choose to live in or not live in a nation. There are plenty of countries in the world.

Not necessarily, as I already pointed out. How many Cubans can choose freely to live in the US? How many North Koreans can choose freely to live in South Korea? How many Chinese can choose freely to live in Japan? Those governments make it impossible or prohibitively difficult to move freely between nations, rendering any comparison to American co-ops invalid.

[Cyclone Ranger]

That's a sophism. Cubans might (or might not) be able to leave their country, but you certainly can leave yours if you don't wish to abide by our social contract.