<!--quoteo(post=1749822:date=Jan 30 2010, 07:10 PM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jan 30 2010, 07:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749822"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, a society with true freedom of speech. But we don't got that, and what we do gots is, like you say, a cruel joke.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There we are. Exactly.
<!--quoteo(post=1749778:date=Jan 29 2010, 08:25 PM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jan 29 2010, 08:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749778"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what about the American pastors who preached intolerance of homosexuality that led to the Ugandan anti-homosexuality laws? Is the right to free speech the excuse for the blood of millions that might have been spilt if the bill had gone through in its original version (as it very nearly did)?
I think this is where my problem with free speech laws comes in, what once used to prevent people fearing to speak out against corrupt governments is now used by intolerant bigots to attempt to subvert the very government free speech supposedly allowed in the first place. Currently Proposition 28 dominates California and several other states have similar laws in place. Currently media outlets including Fox News are allowed to <a href="http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/06/28/court-ruling-fox-news-has-a-first-amendment-right-to-lie/" target="_blank">tell outright lies</a> that prevent people knowing the truth. How is this "good"? I find it really difficult except for when people say "well without it we'd all be under Sharia Law" or something to the effect, which assumes we live under a fundamentally malevolent government who are held back only by people waving signs saying "burn the ######gots." It confuses me somewhat that this is the ideal way for America to remain. Why must absolutely all forms of free speech remain? How can books like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Swastika" target="_blank">this</a> be justifiable outcomes of free speech?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, allowing dissent in political speech allows for bigots and hate filled ignorant people to be afforded the same protections as long as they don't promote violence since their views usually impact their political views. Fox News as the lack of accountability for blatant lies is based on the absence of regulation for news and information sources. Fo hides behind the 'Commentary show' curtain on most of it's day's programming such as O'Reilly and Hannity, where they don't need to be factual since they are 'just opinions'.
The issue in Uganda is the violence of the people, which is a bit behind the US (who used to regularly hang black people for any hint of a crime). You can't blame the country's willingness to go forth with that kind of legislation on US preachers since it is a completely different country.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1749778:date=Jan 29 2010, 09:25 PM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jan 29 2010, 09:25 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749778"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Â So what about the American pastors who preached intolerance of homosexuality that led to the Ugandan anti-homosexuality laws? Is the right to free speech the excuse for the blood of millions that might have been spilt if the bill had gone through in its original version (as it very nearly did)?
I think this is where my problem with free speech laws comes in, what once used to prevent people fearing to speak out against corrupt governments is now used by intolerant bigots to attempt to subvert the very government free speech supposedly allowed in the first place. Currently Proposition 28 dominates California and several other states have similar laws in place. Currently media outlets including Fox News are allowed to <a href="http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/06/28/court-ruling-fox-news-has-a-first-amendment-right-to-lie/" target="_blank">tell outright lies</a> that prevent people knowing the truth. How is this "good"? I find it really difficult except for when people say "well without it we'd all be under Sharia Law" or something to the effect, which assumes we live under a fundamentally malevolent government who are held back only by people waving signs saying "burn the ######gots." It confuses me somewhat that this is the ideal way for America to remain. Why must absolutely all forms of free speech remain? How can books like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Swastika" target="_blank">this</a> be justifiable outcomes of free speech?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You have to defend lots and lots of scoundrels in order to keep your freedoms. It's all well and good to say "we'll only use free speech restrictions on hate crimes" or "we're only wire tapping and using peek and seek warrants on terrorists" or "we're only using cruel and unusual punishments on sex offenders", but it never stays that way. And then you're in a police state.
<!--quoteo(post=1750222:date=Feb 2 2010, 04:26 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Feb 2 2010, 04:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750222"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You have to defend lots and lots of scoundrels in order to keep your freedoms. It's all well and good to say "we'll only use free speech restrictions on hate crimes" or "we're only wire tapping and using peek and seek warrants on terrorists" or "we're only using cruel and unusual punishments on sex offenders", but it never stays that way. And then you're in a police state.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sometimes it doesn't even have to start that way: like what US did with "terrorist" in Patriot Act, which is a legally meaningless term which can be (and is) applied to absolutely anyone regardless of any crimes, present or planned. At the risk of angering Godwin, Nazi Germany did exactly the same, as did Mussolini in Italy, the USSR and even modern China...
However that is merely an extension of civil defence and criminal law, if you're going to take the approach that any limitation of freedom only breeds more then you need permanent anarchy, except you need to <i>enforce</i> permanent anarchy to stop people forming governments of their own free will, which makes it not anarcy, and which requires a big government to do.
So again the only thing that 'works' is modifications of humans to make everyone permanently cooperative, although depending on your viewpoint that could just be like encoding government into people's genetics.
<!--quoteo(post=1749623:date=Jan 29 2010, 12:47 AM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jan 29 2010, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749623"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry Captain America that's a right in any democratic nation. That "socialist hell" called the United Kingdom included.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I mean we can say all sorts of offensive things here, in fact we are encouraged to express ourselves by the government for two minutes every day, the party is very gracious like that, not like those damn eastasia ######s.
<!--quoteo(post=1750313:date=Feb 2 2010, 08:04 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 2 2010, 08:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->if you're going to take the approach that any limitation of freedom only breeds more then you need permanent anarchy<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's very true, actually, as per basic logic: you can't have freedoms and laws at the same time, inevitably one or the other will have to suffer. The imbalance we see is simply a product of this self-defeating approach.
I have no idea why you'd need to enforce anarchy though (genetic programming?.. what?..). Surely if it's better, people won't want any government, and if it's worse... Well. Then again, anarchy says about as much about social structure as agnosticism does about religious beliefs.
<!--quoteo(post=1750325:date=Feb 2 2010, 05:43 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Feb 2 2010, 05:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750325"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's very true, actually, as per basic logic: you can't have freedoms and laws at the same time, inevitably one or the other will have to suffer. The imbalance we see is simply a product of this self-defeating approach.
I have no idea why you'd need to enforce anarchy though (genetic programming?.. what?..). Surely if it's better, people won't want any government, and if it's worse... Well. Then again, anarchy says about as much about social structure as agnosticism does about religious beliefs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have to enforce it because in true anarchy people can do whatever they like, and the first thing they'll do is stop being anarchists.
They will immediately form groups, probably lead by the person with the most guns, basically small dictatorships and eventually they evolve into a city-state society. If you want anarchy you need to force people not to form groups, otherwise they'll start cooperating and forming systems for distribution of supplies to improve efficiency and protocols for doing things and rules to follow to ensure people can coexist and whatnot, government essentially, and then you have the same problem as before.
<!--quoteo(post=1750343:date=Feb 2 2010, 09:44 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 2 2010, 09:44 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750343"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You have to enforce it because in true anarchy people can do whatever they like, and the first thing they'll do is stop being anarchists.
They will immediately form groups, probably lead by the person with the most guns, basically small dictatorships and eventually they evolve into a city-state society. If you want anarchy you need to force people not to form groups, otherwise they'll start cooperating and forming systems for distribution of supplies to improve efficiency and protocols for doing things and rules to follow to ensure people can coexist and whatnot, government essentially, and then you have the same problem as before.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If world's governments suddenly ceased to exist today, I wouldn't call such a scenario far-fetched... And if it was a chaos-bred social movement that thought abolishing government would cure all the world's problems, the outcome would probably be the same. All social institutions exist by conviction of the people, demolishing former without touching the latter would accomplish nothing. I think do see where you're coming from now.
However I can not sympathise with this argument if it's based on the notion of nature or ideal of some sort: if it was in our nature or in our ideal to structure society as it is today, it would not have taken us hundreds of thousands of years to realise it, breeding hundreds of alternatives and permutations of various effectiveness in-between.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1750313:date=Feb 2 2010, 12:04 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 2 2010, 12:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->However that is merely an extension of civil defence and criminal law, if you're going to take the approach that any limitation of freedom only breeds more then you need permanent anarchy, except you need to <i>enforce</i> permanent anarchy to stop people forming governments of their own free will, which makes it not anarcy, and which requires a big government to do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not really, I believe that the inalienable rights granted by the constitution are a good framework for maintaining reasonable freedom and deserve more rigorous protection than other rights. <!--quoteo(post=1750313:date=Feb 2 2010, 12:04 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 2 2010, 12:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So again the only thing that 'works' is modifications of humans to make everyone permanently cooperative, although depending on your viewpoint that could just be like encoding government into people's genetics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> While I don't agree with your premise you might be interested to know that there is evidence this is happening slowly through societal pressures.
<!--quoteo(post=1750411:date=Feb 3 2010, 03:15 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Feb 3 2010, 03:15 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750411"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->inalienable rights granted by the constitution<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If they were inalienable, there would be no prisons, no laws, no censorship, no monopolies, no anti-terror laws... Don't take me wrong, they're good ideas, they've just become a farce as it is and it shouldn't be a surprise that they have: freedom is incompatible with law.
<!--quoteo(post=1750345:date=Feb 2 2010, 07:00 PM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Feb 2 2010, 07:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750345"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If world's governments suddenly ceased to exist today, I wouldn't call such a scenario far-fetched... And if it was a chaos-bred social movement that thought abolishing government would cure all the world's problems, the outcome would probably be the same. All social institutions exist by conviction of the people, demolishing former without touching the latter would accomplish nothing. I think do see where you're coming from now.
However I can not sympathise with this argument if it's based on the notion of nature or ideal of some sort: if it was in our nature or in our ideal to structure society as it is today, it would not have taken us hundreds of thousands of years to realise it, breeding hundreds of alternatives and permutations of various effectiveness in-between.
Bah. I sound dreamy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Society changes because technology changes, we have big countries because we can communicate well, we can fly people across continents and call places on the phone, thus distances are effectively shorter. We live in giant cities because they are feasible to build, but we still have poor people and rich people and powerful people and weak people, and society is still built on the work of the many, the difference is that quite a lot of that work is now in other countries and that is feasible because of the aforementioned communication technology. We can ship vast amounts of stuff into a first world country, we've been doing that for a long time but we can do it more now.
Society isn't really much different, it's improved a lot but it's the same general structure.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1750467:date=Feb 3 2010, 04:59 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Feb 3 2010, 04:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750467"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If they were inalienable, there would be no prisons, no laws, no censorship, no monopolies, no anti-terror laws... Don't take me wrong, they're good ideas, they've just become a farce as it is and it shouldn't be a surprise that they have: freedom is incompatible with law.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's a lovely theory that falls apart in practice, much like anarchy and more radical libertarianism.
<!--quoteo(post=1750569:date=Feb 3 2010, 11:51 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 3 2010, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750569"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Society changes because technology changes, we have big countries because we can communicate well, we can fly people across continents and call places on the phone, thus distances are effectively shorter. We live in giant cities because they are feasible to build, but we still have poor people and rich people and powerful people and weak people, and society is still built on the work of the many, the difference is that quite a lot of that work is now in other countries and that is feasible because of the aforementioned communication technology. We can ship vast amounts of stuff into a first world country, we've been doing that for a long time but we can do it more now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's quite true, however it's hardly the only factor: if we didn't lag behind our technology, our political world would have changed much more dramatically in the last 50 years or so.
<!--quoteo(post=1750569:date=Feb 3 2010, 11:51 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 3 2010, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750569"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Society isn't really much different, it's improved a lot but it's the same general structure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I would have to go with no. It's absolutely nothing like it was 50,000 or 40,000, etc. years ago, it's nothing like the hunter-gathered community, it's nothing like the bronze age, it's nothing like Greek democracy or Matriarchy or American Indian tribal structure, even though we take ruling class or money or separation of labour or wars or law as granted today, it was hundreds of thousands of years before we came up with them. Our society is built on knowledge, not genetic wisdom.
Our society is no more natural than a multi-million-transistor silicoid chip. To presume things will always turn out the way they are today is thus a big stretch of imagination.
<!--quoteo(post=1750610:date=Feb 4 2010, 04:01 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Feb 4 2010, 04:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a lovely theory that falls apart in practice, much like anarchy and more radical libertarianism.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not advocating anything, only pointing out the self-defeating logic behind the argument of "freedom" in our current state... Which does and has fallen apart in practice.
I think this is indication of a big damn flashing-red glaring problem, but I also don't think simply abolishing laws or governments would do anything to correct it.
<!--quoteo(post=1750665:date=Feb 4 2010, 08:26 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Feb 4 2010, 08:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750665"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's quite true, however it's hardly the only factor: if we didn't lag behind our technology, our political world would have changed much more dramatically in the last 50 years or so.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean the development of transcontinental treaties, massive unification in europe, lots of former colonies gaining independence, the rise and fall of superpowers, and insane amounts of technological progress hasn't already changed it a lot?
<!--quoteo(post=1750811:date=Feb 5 2010, 02:31 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 5 2010, 02:31 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750811"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You mean the development of transcontinental treaties, massive unification in europe, lots of former colonies gaining independence, the rise and fall of superpowers, and insane amounts of technological progress hasn't already changed it a lot?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Rather, it hasn't changed enough. We've had more discoveries in the last 20 years than we did in the last 50,000, and the effect from that on the structure of our society might not even be there.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1750665:date=Feb 4 2010, 03:26 AM:name=Draco_2k)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Draco_2k @ Feb 4 2010, 03:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750665"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not advocating anything, only pointing out the self-defeating logic behind the argument of "freedom" in our current state... Which does and has fallen apart in practice.
I think this is indication of a big damn flashing-red glaring problem, but I also don't think simply abolishing laws or governments would do anything to correct it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The point I'm trying to make is that you're confusing theory with reality. Theoretically, if you defend every right to it's utmost you end up with the anarchy paradox you referenced. In reality some rights are more important that others and you can prioritize and maintain a reasonable amount of freedom without having your society fall into anarchy.
<!--quoteo(post=1751190:date=Feb 6 2010, 03:57 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Feb 6 2010, 03:57 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1751190"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The point I'm trying to make is that you're confusing theory with reality. Theoretically, if you defend every right to it's utmost you end up with the anarchy paradox you referenced.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And if you don't, you end up in a fascist state. It's a lose-lose scenario, and it couldn't be anything else: it's logically self-defeating. We generally have this weird idea that it's somehow viable because the system hasn't collapsed <i>yet</i>, but it should take no more than a cursory glance at history of freedom in most modern nations to realise this is simply irresponsible.
In fact, it's a false dichotomy: law is just patchwork on top of guaranteed freedoms to prevent people from abusing them, it's a lazy man's attempt at coming up with a solution. A society with a lick of sense would simply work to eliminate the causes for anti-social behaviour (poverty and ignorance for most types, really).
I'm PRO "minding my own business"... as the rest of the US needs to learn. Let people BE FREE. Don't we all have that right to pursue our own happiness? I'm for all forms of marriage, as most hetero couples, don't take it serious anyways. I'm against abortion... but I don't reserve the right to tell someone else how to live their life... nor do I judge them. It's simply how I live my life and that's it. As long as people aren't murdering one another, I feel the government needs to butt out of the personal affairs of peoples everyday lives.
Comments
There we are. Exactly.
I think this is where my problem with free speech laws comes in, what once used to prevent people fearing to speak out against corrupt governments is now used by intolerant bigots to attempt to subvert the very government free speech supposedly allowed in the first place. Currently Proposition 28 dominates California and several other states have similar laws in place. Currently media outlets including Fox News are allowed to <a href="http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/06/28/court-ruling-fox-news-has-a-first-amendment-right-to-lie/" target="_blank">tell outright lies</a> that prevent people knowing the truth. How is this "good"? I find it really difficult except for when people say "well without it we'd all be under Sharia Law" or something to the effect, which assumes we live under a fundamentally malevolent government who are held back only by people waving signs saying "burn the ######gots." It confuses me somewhat that this is the ideal way for America to remain. Why must absolutely all forms of free speech remain? How can books like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Swastika" target="_blank">this</a> be justifiable outcomes of free speech?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, allowing dissent in political speech allows for bigots and hate filled ignorant people to be afforded the same protections as long as they don't promote violence since their views usually impact their political views. Fox News as the lack of accountability for blatant lies is based on the absence of regulation for news and information sources. Fo hides behind the 'Commentary show' curtain on most of it's day's programming such as O'Reilly and Hannity, where they don't need to be factual since they are 'just opinions'.
The issue in Uganda is the violence of the people, which is a bit behind the US (who used to regularly hang black people for any hint of a crime). You can't blame the country's willingness to go forth with that kind of legislation on US preachers since it is a completely different country.
I think this is where my problem with free speech laws comes in, what once used to prevent people fearing to speak out against corrupt governments is now used by intolerant bigots to attempt to subvert the very government free speech supposedly allowed in the first place. Currently Proposition 28 dominates California and several other states have similar laws in place. Currently media outlets including Fox News are allowed to <a href="http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/06/28/court-ruling-fox-news-has-a-first-amendment-right-to-lie/" target="_blank">tell outright lies</a> that prevent people knowing the truth. How is this "good"? I find it really difficult except for when people say "well without it we'd all be under Sharia Law" or something to the effect, which assumes we live under a fundamentally malevolent government who are held back only by people waving signs saying "burn the ######gots." It confuses me somewhat that this is the ideal way for America to remain. Why must absolutely all forms of free speech remain? How can books like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Swastika" target="_blank">this</a> be justifiable outcomes of free speech?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have to defend lots and lots of scoundrels in order to keep your freedoms. It's all well and good to say "we'll only use free speech restrictions on hate crimes" or "we're only wire tapping and using peek and seek warrants on terrorists" or "we're only using cruel and unusual punishments on sex offenders", but it never stays that way. And then you're in a police state.
Sometimes it doesn't even have to start that way: like what US did with "terrorist" in Patriot Act, which is a legally meaningless term which can be (and is) applied to absolutely anyone regardless of any crimes, present or planned. At the risk of angering Godwin, Nazi Germany did exactly the same, as did Mussolini in Italy, the USSR and even modern China...
So again the only thing that 'works' is modifications of humans to make everyone permanently cooperative, although depending on your viewpoint that could just be like encoding government into people's genetics.
<!--quoteo(post=1749623:date=Jan 29 2010, 12:47 AM:name=Tesseract)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tesseract @ Jan 29 2010, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1749623"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Sorry Captain America that's a right in any democratic nation. That "socialist hell" called the United Kingdom included.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I mean we can say all sorts of offensive things here, in fact we are encouraged to express ourselves by the government for two minutes every day, the party is very gracious like that, not like those damn eastasia ######s.
That's very true, actually, as per basic logic: you can't have freedoms and laws at the same time, inevitably one or the other will have to suffer. The imbalance we see is simply a product of this self-defeating approach.
I have no idea why you'd need to enforce anarchy though (genetic programming?.. what?..). Surely if it's better, people won't want any government, and if it's worse... Well. Then again, anarchy says about as much about social structure as agnosticism does about religious beliefs.
I have no idea why you'd need to enforce anarchy though (genetic programming?.. what?..). Surely if it's better, people won't want any government, and if it's worse... Well. Then again, anarchy says about as much about social structure as agnosticism does about religious beliefs.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You have to enforce it because in true anarchy people can do whatever they like, and the first thing they'll do is stop being anarchists.
They will immediately form groups, probably lead by the person with the most guns, basically small dictatorships and eventually they evolve into a city-state society. If you want anarchy you need to force people not to form groups, otherwise they'll start cooperating and forming systems for distribution of supplies to improve efficiency and protocols for doing things and rules to follow to ensure people can coexist and whatnot, government essentially, and then you have the same problem as before.
They will immediately form groups, probably lead by the person with the most guns, basically small dictatorships and eventually they evolve into a city-state society. If you want anarchy you need to force people not to form groups, otherwise they'll start cooperating and forming systems for distribution of supplies to improve efficiency and protocols for doing things and rules to follow to ensure people can coexist and whatnot, government essentially, and then you have the same problem as before.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If world's governments suddenly ceased to exist today, I wouldn't call such a scenario far-fetched... And if it was a chaos-bred social movement that thought abolishing government would cure all the world's problems, the outcome would probably be the same. All social institutions exist by conviction of the people, demolishing former without touching the latter would accomplish nothing. I think do see where you're coming from now.
However I can not sympathise with this argument if it's based on the notion of nature or ideal of some sort: if it was in our nature or in our ideal to structure society as it is today, it would not have taken us hundreds of thousands of years to realise it, breeding hundreds of alternatives and permutations of various effectiveness in-between.
Bah. I sound dreamy.
Not really, I believe that the inalienable rights granted by the constitution are a good framework for maintaining reasonable freedom and deserve more rigorous protection than other rights.
<!--quoteo(post=1750313:date=Feb 2 2010, 12:04 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 2 2010, 12:04 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So again the only thing that 'works' is modifications of humans to make everyone permanently cooperative, although depending on your viewpoint that could just be like encoding government into people's genetics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I don't agree with your premise you might be interested to know that there is evidence this is happening slowly through societal pressures.
If they were inalienable, there would be no prisons, no laws, no censorship, no monopolies, no anti-terror laws... Don't take me wrong, they're good ideas, they've just become a farce as it is and it shouldn't be a surprise that they have: freedom is incompatible with law.
However I can not sympathise with this argument if it's based on the notion of nature or ideal of some sort: if it was in our nature or in our ideal to structure society as it is today, it would not have taken us hundreds of thousands of years to realise it, breeding hundreds of alternatives and permutations of various effectiveness in-between.
Bah. I sound dreamy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Society changes because technology changes, we have big countries because we can communicate well, we can fly people across continents and call places on the phone, thus distances are effectively shorter. We live in giant cities because they are feasible to build, but we still have poor people and rich people and powerful people and weak people, and society is still built on the work of the many, the difference is that quite a lot of that work is now in other countries and that is feasible because of the aforementioned communication technology. We can ship vast amounts of stuff into a first world country, we've been doing that for a long time but we can do it more now.
Society isn't really much different, it's improved a lot but it's the same general structure.
That's a lovely theory that falls apart in practice, much like anarchy and more radical libertarianism.
That's quite true, however it's hardly the only factor: if we didn't lag behind our technology, our political world would have changed much more dramatically in the last 50 years or so.
<!--quoteo(post=1750569:date=Feb 3 2010, 11:51 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Feb 3 2010, 11:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750569"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Society isn't really much different, it's improved a lot but it's the same general structure.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would have to go with no. It's absolutely nothing like it was 50,000 or 40,000, etc. years ago, it's nothing like the hunter-gathered community, it's nothing like the bronze age, it's nothing like Greek democracy or Matriarchy or American Indian tribal structure, even though we take ruling class or money or separation of labour or wars or law as granted today, it was hundreds of thousands of years before we came up with them. Our society is built on knowledge, not genetic wisdom.
Our society is no more natural than a multi-million-transistor silicoid chip. To presume things will always turn out the way they are today is thus a big stretch of imagination.
<!--quoteo(post=1750610:date=Feb 4 2010, 04:01 AM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (locallyunscene @ Feb 4 2010, 04:01 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1750610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That's a lovely theory that falls apart in practice, much like anarchy and more radical libertarianism.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm not advocating anything, only pointing out the self-defeating logic behind the argument of "freedom" in our current state... Which does and has fallen apart in practice.
I think this is indication of a big damn flashing-red glaring problem, but I also don't think simply abolishing laws or governments would do anything to correct it.
You mean the development of transcontinental treaties, massive unification in europe, lots of former colonies gaining independence, the rise and fall of superpowers, and insane amounts of technological progress hasn't already changed it a lot?
Rather, it hasn't changed enough. We've had more discoveries in the last 20 years than we did in the last 50,000, and the effect from that on the structure of our society might not even be there.
I think this is indication of a big damn flashing-red glaring problem, but I also don't think simply abolishing laws or governments would do anything to correct it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point I'm trying to make is that you're confusing theory with reality. Theoretically, if you defend every right to it's utmost you end up with the anarchy paradox you referenced. In reality some rights are more important that others and you can prioritize and maintain a reasonable amount of freedom without having your society fall into anarchy.
And if you don't, you end up in a fascist state. It's a lose-lose scenario, and it couldn't be anything else: it's logically self-defeating. We generally have this weird idea that it's somehow viable because the system hasn't collapsed <i>yet</i>, but it should take no more than a cursory glance at history of freedom in most modern nations to realise this is simply irresponsible.
In fact, it's a false dichotomy: law is just patchwork on top of guaranteed freedoms to prevent people from abusing them, it's a lazy man's attempt at coming up with a solution. A society with a lick of sense would simply work to eliminate the causes for anti-social behaviour (poverty and ignorance for most types, really).
~TGunz