Spideynw:I am sorry. I should have asked if you have any evidence of industrialized countries governments slaughtering large portions of non-violent, non-cooperative portions of their own population? I would guess that it would probably require more like 75% of the population in most African countries to non-cooperate to get rid of the government. But that is because they are third world countries where death is pretty common.
Moving the goalposts are we? Are we to assume that the Soviet Union is or isn't an industrialized nation?
Spideynw:No, they would not be more inclined to kill them, because killing them would result in a much larger back lash. This is why the government is screwed if at least 5% of the population non-cooperates.
Well I'm still confused. You say that government won't kill large portions of people, but you say that can't imprison people. What in the history of the state leads you to the conclusion that government will not do all that is necessary to sustain itself? Will it just crumble without a fight if we start saying no? They stick those who stand in their way concerning their foreign domains in a legal vacuum in which they extend no rights nor show any sign of release and are constantly torturing these individuals for extended periods at a time. These are dehumanized foreigners [ some are actually American citizens ]. You cannot imagine the dehumanization of a certain sector of society? [ one need only recall the HUAC ] Thus making it so much simpler to jail, torture and kill people? In the 50's would the majority really be against torturing Communists in order to gain information? Perhaps, but perhaps not.
Spideynw:Yes, that I don't think industrialized countries would slaughter its own population for non-cooperation. How many of those deaths from 1900 to the 1980's were by industrialized nations on non-cooperating populations?
Again you are moving the goalposts. What are we going to consider 'industrialized'?
Spideynw:Yes, cults that use armed resistance. So I will ask again, you think the U.S. government would mass slaughter people for not paying taxes, that were simply non-cooperating?
What do you propose to do when the government tries to kidnap you? Say '5% of America won't like this!'?
Spideynw:So, what evidence do you have that people would pay taxes, if they were told they do not have to?
Those who propound welfare and social programs and see it as a obligation to pay taxes for that purpose.
Spideynw: In your world, would people happily pay for the food of someone behind them at McDonald's, if McDonald's had a policy of charging some customers extra so that they could give free meals to other customers? Is that how markets work?
Reserve inequality of value. Of course if they are exchanging money for your food 'dilemma' at McDonalds then they are a fortiori benefiting in a ex-ante sense. If they don't exchange the money then they don't.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man:Moving the goalposts are we?
Marko: Alexander: Only that last one is post-WWII. The totals for soviet caused deaths it estimated all the way up to 60 million. Can anybody, with this in mind, call the USSR anything more then a monstrous outlaw worthy of being put down? Appeal to emotion.
Alexander: Only that last one is post-WWII. The totals for soviet caused deaths it estimated all the way up to 60 million. Can anybody, with this in mind, call the USSR anything more then a monstrous outlaw worthy of being put down?
Only that last one is post-WWII. The totals for soviet caused deaths it estimated all the way up to 60 million. Can anybody, with this in mind, call the USSR anything more then a monstrous outlaw worthy of being put down?
Appeal to emotion.
Theres a difference between emotionalism and emotions. If you value life, your emotions react when millions are killed. Its a subconscious calculation.
I am not saying that this government has no right to exist because of whim, of a blind feeling, or any such matter. I am saying that if one values human lives in the slightest, this government is an atrocity.
Whether or not it would be more effective to just blockade the the USSR (back in time) and not recognize it or to destroy it is hard to say. Letting it implode would most likely work.
"Thats no law, thats just a sword. Happens I got one too"
nirgrahamUK: I assumed he was referring to the regime and not any innocent civilians in the region. this interpretation would be consistent given that he seemed to indicate sympathy towards aforemention civilians. My interpretation may have been wrong.
I assumed he was referring to the regime and not any innocent civilians in the region. this interpretation would be consistent given that he seemed to indicate sympathy towards aforemention civilians. My interpretation may have been wrong.
Allow me to clarify. The rulers responsible for these monstrosities, as individuals, deserve punishment in a fully justifiable fashion. These people constitute the government. I am basing this off the mass murdering, theft, and imprisonment committed by afore-mentioned rulers.
If the individual does it on a one to one basis and for the correct reason, then definitely. A state naturally has no rights and can't feel pain, so it shouldn't feel pleasure either; it simply has the responsibility to protect individual liberty.
Snowflake: Laughing Man:Moving the goalposts are we? This is why its so hard for me to keep up w this thread...
Don't worry, you'll eventually realize bickering about minarchist & anarchist dichotomies is a waste of time beyond the computer armchairs. Practical strategies might involve both, but this would be annoying to the idealists, especially we all reluctantly live in state-society regardless, & must learn how to survive in such a hostile environment, lest the individual dies. It's not as if we are already in an anarchist society & must strive to keep statism down before it takes over, because it already has, honestly.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Nitroadict:Practical strategies might involve both, but this would be annoying to the idealists, especially we all reluctantly live in state-society regardless, & must learn how to survive in such a hostile environment, lest the individual dies.
In the case of 'revolution', no, for that simply means mob violence and a repeat of the American and French failed experiments. But if one means to replace the State, when one has both the right and might to do so (for there is no right that is not also a might, one must not simply have an idea of an imaginary society, but must actually be in a positiion to become the government). To replace democracy with something that is sane and functional, such as a private equity right-wing kingship, is moral so long as it is possible.
JonBostwick: You have the right to prevent the Government of Mexico from victimizing you, or anyone else who wishes to not associate with the government of Mexico. You, however, would be an aggressor to invade Mexico and destroy the state against the will of the people who do wish to be enslaved to it.
You have the right to prevent the Government of Mexico from victimizing you, or anyone else who wishes to not associate with the government of Mexico. You, however, would be an aggressor to invade Mexico and destroy the state against the will of the people who do wish to be enslaved to it.
So, if I enslave you and you like being my slave and I threaten to enslave Spideynw, Spideynw would be an aggressor to invade me. Makes sense.
Under the conditions you describe, it would be morally correct for him to act - on behalf of the sizable proportion of the people who are forced to endure the presence of the evils promulgated by this state. If he beleives he is right in in his judgement that this is an overblown and completely immoral state, then he would be right in asking for someone from the outside. He would have to trust this outsiders promise that innocents wouldn't be endangered, and also have assurance that those with outside means also have moral rationale for their offer of help.
Alexander: I am not saying that this government has no right to exist because of whim, of a blind feeling, or any such matter. I am saying that if one values human lives in the slightest, this government is an atrocity.
Alexander: Whether or not it would be more effective to just blockade the the USSR (back in time) and not recognize it or to destroy it is hard to say. Letting it implode would most likely work.
Nitroadict:Don't worry, you'll eventually realize bickering about minarchist & anarchist dichotomies is a waste of time beyond the computer armchairs.
That's impossible because my time is already worthless!
Marko: Alexander: I am not saying that this government has no right to exist because of whim, of a blind feeling, or any such matter. I am saying that if one values human lives in the slightest, this government is an atrocity. No coercive government has a right to exist. You are not saying anything new. Alexander: Whether or not it would be more effective to just blockade the the USSR (back in time) and not recognize it or to destroy it is hard to say. Letting it implode would most likely work. So you are so appauled by the loss of life in the USSR that you would consider killing more with a blockade? Makes sense. Every coercive government is a criminal enterprise. Why not blockade every one of them? Their crimes differ only in the degree.
It would make the nation collapse upon its self. Better for everybody involved. Helping such a nation live longer would result in significantly more deaths. Not to mention that supporting such a nation may result in it one day turning on you.
I am appalled at senseless murder and slavery. Not trading is hardly an injustice. Murder and slavery is.
Although, an embargo would a response if the state is still in power. If not, I suppose I would have to start a boycott.
Laughing Man:Moving the goalposts are we? Are we to assume that the Soviet Union is or isn't an industrialized nation?
Were the people in the Soviet Union non-cooperating?
Laughing Man:Well I'm still confused. You say that government won't kill large portions of people, but you say that can't imprison people. What in the history of the state leads you to the conclusion that government will not do all that is necessary to sustain itself?
Gandhi.
Laughing Man:Will it just crumble without a fight if we start saying no?
If enough of us say no, yes.
Laughing Man:You cannot imagine the dehumanization of a certain sector of society?
Not a large group of non-cooperators, since it has not happened yet.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Yes, that I don't think industrialized countries would slaughter its own population for non-cooperation. How many of those deaths from 1900 to the 1980's were by industrialized nations on non-cooperating populations? Again you are moving the goalposts. What are we going to consider 'industrialized'?
How many of those deaths were people practicing non-cooperation?
Laughing Man: Spideynw:Yes, cults that use armed resistance. So I will ask again, you think the U.S. government would mass slaughter people for not paying taxes, that were simply non-cooperating? What do you propose to do when the government tries to kidnap you? Say '5% of America won't like this!'?
You didn't answer the question.
As to your question, they may kidnap me. So what? The other 5% are still free and non-cooperating.
Laughing Man: Spideynw:So, what evidence do you have that people would pay taxes, if they were told they do not have to? Those who propound welfare and social programs and see it as a obligation to pay taxes for that purpose.
That's not evidence. That is speculation. People say lots of things. Who cares what they say? What is important is what they actually do.
Laughing Man: Spideynw: In your world, would people happily pay for the food of someone behind them at McDonald's, if McDonald's had a policy of charging some customers extra so that they could give free meals to other customers? Is that how markets work? Reserve inequality of value. Of course if they are exchanging money for your food 'dilemma' at McDonalds then they are a fortiori benefiting in a ex-ante sense. If they don't exchange the money then they don't.
So if it is such a great business model, why doesn't anyone implement it?
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Or it could be for other reasons.
Alex the Amused: Marko: Alexander: I am not saying that this government has no right to exist because of whim, of a blind feeling, or any such matter. I am saying that if one values human lives in the slightest, this government is an atrocity. No coercive government has a right to exist. You are not saying anything new. Alexander: Whether or not it would be more effective to just blockade the the USSR (back in time) and not recognize it or to destroy it is hard to say. Letting it implode would most likely work. So you are so appauled by the loss of life in the USSR that you would consider killing more with a blockade? Makes sense. Every coercive government is a criminal enterprise. Why not blockade every one of them? Their crimes differ only in the degree. It would make the nation collapse upon its self. Better for everybody involved. Helping such a nation live longer would result in significantly more deaths. Not to mention that supporting such a nation may result in it one day turning on you. I am appalled at senseless murder and slavery. Not trading is hardly an injustice. Murder and slavery is. Although, an embargo would a response if the state is still in power. If not, I suppose I would have to start a boycott.
A blockade is not a boycott.
Marko: Alex the Amused: Marko: Alexander: I am not saying that this government has no right to exist because of whim, of a blind feeling, or any such matter. I am saying that if one values human lives in the slightest, this government is an atrocity. No coercive government has a right to exist. You are not saying anything new. Alexander: Whether or not it would be more effective to just blockade the the USSR (back in time) and not recognize it or to destroy it is hard to say. Letting it implode would most likely work. So you are so appauled by the loss of life in the USSR that you would consider killing more with a blockade? Makes sense. Every coercive government is a criminal enterprise. Why not blockade every one of them? Their crimes differ only in the degree. It would make the nation collapse upon its self. Better for everybody involved. Helping such a nation live longer would result in significantly more deaths. Not to mention that supporting such a nation may result in it one day turning on you. I am appalled at senseless murder and slavery. Not trading is hardly an injustice. Murder and slavery is. Although, an embargo would a response if the state is still in power. If not, I suppose I would have to start a boycott. A blockade is not a boycott.
I would prefer a boycott. However, I am speaking of this with a presumed government in charge.
As for private military forces invading? I see no issue with it. No different then hunting down any other murderers.a
You still don`t know what a blockade is. A blockade means using force to prevent goods from a third country reaching the blockaded country. It is an aggression against two seperate parties and an act of war.Even embargo is illegitimate. A government is free to cease trading herself, but has no business forcing its citizens to follow suit.
Marko: You still don`t know what a blockade is. A blockade means using force to prevent goods from a third country reaching the blockaded country. It is an aggression against two seperate parties and an act of war.Even embargo is illegitimate. A government is free to cease trading herself, but has no business forcing its citizens to follow suit.
Alright, I'm in a corner. Point conceded.
I still hold that assaulting their government, however, would be perfectly justified.