Freedomain Radio

Elyrion:

What happens when we abandon the state and start a free society? We cannot reasonably assume that the majority of people are rational, educated and thinking for themself. But once we abandon the state, its institutions and laws, there will be a gigantic vacuum. What should now prevent cultists, religions, political powermongers to try to assemble a massive followship?

If the preponderance of power in a society is not controlled by people "rational, educated and thinking for themself", the state does not get abandoned.

If the preponderance of power in a society society is in the hands of enlightened, then you have no immediate reasons to worry about some pesky reprobate minorities.

If you and like-minded people manage to secede the mainstream society to establish a separate free society - then you have no reason to worry about re-establishment of a state either, though you might need to worry about external aggression.

blueback:

It's things like this that make most of you guys sound like cultists.  You've got your dogma all packaged and ready to be deployed at a moments notice like some Pavlovian knee-jerk reaction.

 "Sound like" is not the same as "is". Bitching that someone knows his own worldview is hardly a rational complaint.

blueback:

it is perfectly lawful for the policeman to use deadly force...

You confuse "law" with "legislation" and "legal" with "legitimate".

blueback:

...you must be appealing to a higher standard of law.  Care to explain that standard?

Not "higher" - just "valid". There is plenty written about "Natural Law" doctrine to spare repetition on this board. Read a book.

blueback:

The state is there to make sure people do what they promised...

There is nothing about the state that makes it do any such thing. It's merely your opinion - demonstrably counterfactual, even if you disregard any logic.

blueback:

Tenko:

The only way to preserve freedom is to instate mandatory taxation and murder those who do not comply?

 

It's things like this that make most of you guys sound like cultists.  You've got your dogma all packaged and ready to be deployed at a moments notice like some Pavlovian knee-jerk reaction.

The world requires compromise.  Period (LOL).  If you want security and stability you have to pay for it by promising not to be dangerous or unpredictable yourself.  The problem is that people lie; it's a very effective tactic for getting what you want without having to pay.  The state is there to make sure people do what they promised to do because promising something, and doing something else, will always be an effective tactic.

People lie to get what they want without paying for it. The state can insure nothing, because it is made of of people, people who not only lie to get what they want, but by definition cannot be held accountable for this fraud. Alll the tactic of forming a state is effective for is to insure that at least some fraud amoung society is perpetrated without the possibility for justice.

blueback:

It's not evil.  There's nothing inherently wrong with lying.  It's just something that happens and has to be accounted for. 

Besides.  Murder is unlawful killing.  If a person refuses to pay taxes and attacks the policeman that comes to his door to collect them it is perfectly lawful for the policeman to use deadly force to defend himself.  That would make it "not murder."  Killing is universal; murder is defined by the laws at the time and place.  To call it murder when someone is killed lawfully means that you must be appealing to a higher standard of law.  Care to explain that standard? 

And if the cop had taken his uniform off, then he would have been tried for murder. Lawfull authority is nothing more than the permmission one group on people give to themselves to do the same thing that criminals do, to the same innocent victims.

Allows democracy more freedom than a brutal communistic dictatorship? I guess so, as I said, I think we have to think about freedom as something which is located between two poles: total and utter slavery of the body and the mind on the one end, absolute freedom on the other, and the goal should be to get as far as possible on the scale towards absolute freedom. But is the danger to fall back on the scale not very high, once we achieve an anarchistic society? That is the point I am getting at.

Elyrion:

Allows democracy more freedom than a brutal communistic dictatorship? I guess so, as I said, I think we have to think about freedom as something which is located between two poles: total and utter slavery of the body and the mind on the one end, absolute freedom on the other, and the goal should be to get as far as possible on the scale towards absolute freedom. But is the danger to fall back on the scale not very high, once we achieve an anarchistic society? That is the point I am getting at.

 Looks like the government schools did a good job with you! +1 for them! You are saying that if a violent thug is trying to rob me, and I try to protect my property, that is is completely ethical for him to kill me? Come on blueballs, I mean blueback! Are you serious? I think you are in the wrong forum. The thugs have forums that you might enjoy more. They openly post about their violent and bigoted behavior there and you can have a chuckle or two reading about their rushes of adrenalin as they crush people's heads into the concrete because of non-payment. Their own "supreme court" ruled that the state has no obligation to protect you. Only to steal from you and harass you.

Blueback, you have started one very interesting discussion. I see some folks here responding ad hominem; Why are you doing that? Do you think it is productive for your cause to bully people who disagree with you away? He is not fundamentally disagreeing with you, or calling your arguments nonsense. He is simply asking some questions I have been playing with, myself, too. Uncle Bob answers them profoundly.

As Stef pointed out in one of the books: Pointing at government is like pointing at a forest. A forest is not an entity by itself, it is a collection of trees. Without the trees, there is no forest. Without the people, there is no government. Government is not the evil entity that wants to rule the world. It is a method people use to achieve their self-interest, even if that self-interest is reflected to others or merely wanting to take part in society.

Are people that support the government evil? Are politicians evil? I do not believe most of them have gone as far as several of the people here have. Going back to the very essence, to the very root of your beliefs and testing them on logic is a very confronting thing to do. I think that most people supporting government genuinly believe it is best for them, where believe is a matter of faith and nurture rather than contemplation.

If we were ever to exist in a free society, it would have to come from the people. People need to realise it, themselves. People need to think, themselves. The way to do this is by talking and debating (not by calling discussion 'unwanted', 'unpleasant' or anything like that). If it is people that support government to control people, then without support the government cannot control.

Someone mentioned slavery. This is such a fine example of how the world is influenced by people and not the other way around. Slavery was ok, it was culture and perfectly normal. Somewhere late in 18th century, early 19th century, the idea that slavery was moral was whiped out in the western world. During the span of just a couple generations the principle of slavery became immoral, socially unwanted and economically uninteresting. If you truly understand what you believe (know?) than you could follow this example. Convince others and do not tell them off for disagreeing.

For the newcomers, I'm fairly certain that-- after he refused a polite request to be more courteous to others here, Mr. Blueback was handed an unvitation.