|
NeedToUseYou -> RE: Three men charged in 'dungeon' castration (4/4/2006 2:08:10 PM)
|
quote:
Yet, all of these things exist…well all except government. There is a quote from something that says “If god didn’t exist, we would have invented him.” What you think of as “government” is the god we created. People did all of those things…people would have created them no matter what mass hallucination of organization they all shared. They would have looked back and said, “See what we have? None of this would have been possible without ‘government’ (or ‘the gods’ or ‘the aliens’ or whatever)”, much like you just have. People will collect and organize and do what is in their own best interests, such as building transit systems and establishing trade standards. They do it in places where economies have collapsed. They do it in places where the official governments have become too oppressive or stopped working (black markets). They do it without encouragement and without supervision. The rest of your post falls into the same trap. You assume that these good things you attribute to government would suddenly vanish if people realized that government doesn’t exist.
No, I just think another form of government would appear. Even when bad governments fall new ones take there place. And, I see no point in toppling a government to only replace it with something worse. There are plenty of worse forms in existance. And I don't feel it's worth that dramatic shift just because people can't do some very fringe things openly. I'd think it would be much better to just encourage change in the current government. I'm no global expert but is there a inhabitable place on the planet without a government, and then is there a government that doesn't actually impose some restrictions on what its citizens can do(This will always rub someone wrong). To my knowledge they all do the same thing to different degrees.
quote:
They wouldn’t. People would still influence others with their mores and values. They would still form collectives and use the power of the gun to get what they wanted. It would just be a lot more honest. No pretending to do what they think is right in the name of “the people”. It isn’t “the people” they are representing, it is themselves. What I am really trying to point out is the hypocrisy of the position that it is ok for other people to control some aspects of other people’s lives, but not others. You are fully willing to break a law you don’t agree with, yet you think others should obey laws that they don’t agree with. Taggard
I disagree in this instance I think it is the people they are representing, they just aren't representing you and a small segment of the population, in that case the government has little to do with it, your true disagreement is with the populace in general. I have little doubt if you asked people if they think practicing medicine without a license should be legalized the vast majority would say no. Or even more specificly practicing surgery without a license. So, even if every community was self regulating the outcome would be the same. I guess you could form your own town with like minded(but then someone will disagree with those standards and feel persecuted). Anyway, the problem is not government and regulations it's in my opinion that people in general wouldn't want those things anyway. I don't, but I could be wrong.
As far as me being willing to break a law I don't agree with, and expecting others to follow it. That's not it, I don't break every law even if I think they're bullshit(because it's not that important to me). But I'd break any law that interfered with something important to me, and I'd guess most would. But I don't take the position that I shouldn't be punished if found out. The government represents the populace, but that doesn't mean it represents my wants exactly. It represent the general consensus. I know of no other way to draw up laws. And laws are necessary, as people have very different ideas of what they feel is right and wrong. How would you judge crimes without them. Either way a single standard needs to be in place. This is the ideal role of government, does it work perfect. No. Does any government reflect the populace exactly. No. Can it be better, Yes. Does that require toppling the current system and setting up a new one. No. What it requires is the changing of the publics perception. As that will be reflected in most systems of government.
Now, is there a certain amout of disconnect between government and the populace. yes. But I don't think so in this case. If you feel such things should be legal you'd be better off figuring out to present it in a way that made sense to everyday people. And the guy that got busted doesn't really feel me with confidence that it is a good idea.
Someone no matter how you set up the laws will feel their rights are being infringed upon. Just look at the abortion debate. Either way a large segment feels alienated. Whether it's this government, or the new government that would arise.
Anyway, I think we about beat this horse dead.
If you want to reply I'll give you the last word. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
