The Casey Zone

Ditto. I don't get vegetarian groups and groups like PETA. The natural food chain requires us to eat animals, plus all the health reasons.

And another thing, they're against killing animals for food. Plants are living things too. You eat a plant, you kill it. Exact same thing. [/b][/quote]
I think those groups care more about how the animals are abused like how they're put on hormones so they'll grow bigger and make the company more money. I'm not sure though because I'm not a vegetarian nor am I involved in those types of groups.

 

Everyone is talking about animals, but not me :whistle:

Why is murder wrong in the eyes of the law, yet they continue to condemn people to death for their "crimes".
-Punishment

Why is it okay to bomb a foreign country, killing innocent people every day?
-Because that country could make WMD and kill the USA or a part of Europe

Yet I can't go into a gas station and steal a fucking back of chips. Why?
-That would be stealing

Why are there even laws?
-So that there will be peace and order. Allthough that doesnt work at some times.


Now, if you dont want any rules you can live in Africa, build a house and steal a bag of chips from your own made gas station

 

Without laws, the world wouldn't be a very pleasent place because there would be absolutely no order at all and everything would be very mixed up.

 

Without laws, I believe you'll find humans fall back on what it is that led them to law: voluntary action, which is the principle our nature is based upon. What human has done something that he didn't choose to do? Examples are hard to come by. By eliminating the coercive institution of government, the human race takes one step towards eliminating coercion as a whole. If humans simply acted voluntary, which most do anyway, such massive potential could be obtained.

Analyzing a human's rights, and the origins of them, help us lay a solid foundation for the logic of non-law. What is our most basic right? Well, as a human individual, I have the right to my most basic property: myself. All other rights are derived from that simple axiom of self ownership. I own my body, my mind, my actions, and the product of my labor, according to self ownership. An logician would then also state that I do NOT own anyone elses body, mind, actions, or labor. Because I do not own them, I have no right to coerce them or alter them by force. Doing so is against my nature, and it violates the axiom upon which human nature is derived.

Now for how people act, and what drives them. Human volition is influenced simply by incentives. Laws serve as a negative incentive to do things, yes, but the principle of law to a human is a relationship like that of a parent to a small child. It's much more human, in my opinion, that we provide enough information to people (has that not been my common theme this week? lol) to make reasonable judgements on their own, without requiring a smack on the rear in order to do good.

Take a look at the private sector. It is painfully clear that private industry (except in certain special situations which I'd be happy to explain) is much more efficient than public ventures. The explaination for this is simple, in a business transaction, people act according to their desires, incentives, and values. When dealing with government, people make judgements via the point of a gun. Which is more productive? Which is more likely to sponsor criminal behavior? It seems as though it's the LOGIC of the government that you're finding guilty, not the logic of man. The logic of man revolves around voluntary action, not coercion. It seems as though the logic of government, by the means of their actions, sponsors theft, murder, ect., all that you claim would be the downfall of man.

 

personally, as much as I hate the system/government/whatever, i
I think the laws we have are alright. I live in the UK so the murder of murderers (if that makes sense) via the death penalty isn't a problem. but, yeah, OK society has problems but I think most people get by alright with things the way they are...

at the end of the day if we elimanated all the laws, there'd be anarchy and the survivors of that would create their own laws. law is basically a form of control, and control is a result of human greed. but on the other hand without greed, we'd never advance technology etc.

in summary, human greed is our greatest asset and our worst enemy but it's always going to be there, and how society is at the moment seems to work alright, so why not leave it...

 

Let's bring back all Aussies to the mainland and let you guys live there according to your principles, we'll put up cameras and make it a reality show. You might live long, but the question is how are you gonna be living?

Sorry, I work my ass off every week to pay myself some stuff, I don't want people ending up stealing things at my workplace, without working whatsoever, and enjoying it while I just lose money. That is called taking advantage of people, and that is maybe one of the things I respect the least.

I also invest a lot of time trying to build a better future for myself; I don't want someone to ruin all that by randomly killing me.

 

Or how about we just put you on that island?

 

So why do you let the government steal your money? Why do you then, endorse government, who's means of accomplishing anything is to use force? I don't see the correlation, or maybe just no one took the time to read my post. What makes this more likely without a state than with a state?

 

Wake up guys, you're living in your own world. To believe a world might work like it should without any kind of authority is senseless. You shouldn't impose your will on everyone because you have some kind of problem with ANY kind of authorithy. Do I like cops. God no I don't, but they are there for a reason. Do I like governement. Oh how I hate it, but we need it. Do I like paying taxes? Who does, but if I fall sick tomorrow morning I know I won't be in deep trouble. How will I get to work if the roads lie behind 4ft. of snow or simply don't exist? In fact, in your world, I lose my job... So would like... everyone.

Do you have a job? Do you have a problem with authority? Are you selfish? Close-minded? I must wonder. I am considered as a Liberal, yet you guys make me look like a Conservative. Grow up and end that little rebellion, 10 years from now if you still believe in this theory you'll be sitting on a couch paid by the gov't you hate wich will yet give you money for your survival. Having your own ideas is necessary in our society, but now you're just going counter-current.

 

I keep trying to type a retort to that, but I find it's impossible for me to do.

All I know is... I so fucking disagree with you. I have so many emotions and thoughts running through my head reading your posts in here, I can't put them down into a proper response.

Impose my will? It's the internet, get over it. I can't make anyone believe what I believe, neither can Link. Obviously people agree with us though.

I like how you tell me... us, to "grow up & end that little rebellion". Too bad it's not a rebellion, huh? It's a legit opinion and belief.

 

I have a hard time straightening up my stuff into a well-presented opinion too, in part because I don't master English as much as I'd wish (mind you, I put a lot of effort in, but mananging 3 languages is kinda hard) and also because I'm so fucking angry too.

You come out of nowhere to tell that, basically, you found THE way. You're telling us our future lies in the hands of anarchy, of a society in wich everyone is free to do whatever he wants, a society in wich you and me would be DEAD.

That's where it stops cause yeah, we'd be dead by now.

See? Some people would've made a pleasure to beat me to death in your society. I don't feel the need to argue farther, cause in your mind I'm worthless. I should pack a gun and kill everyone I feel is a threat to me.

You might think my answers aren't logic, but they mirror your theory.

 

Without govern the world would be like Mad Max (goddamn I love using that movie as an example)

You can kill someone, they just kill you back. You CAN do whatever you want, there's nothing to stop you, there are just consequences so the world doesn't spin into a downward spiral of violence and 'apocalypse'.

Governments do what they do because they CAN. Nobody will stop them, and that's tough fucking shit isn't it. You however have rules. So honestly... sit down, shut up and be happy you live in North America.

 

BA-DAMN.

What had to be said has been said .

 

feels like a blog posting...

 

What's truly non-sensical is your assertion that man isn't worthy to rule himself, yet he is worthy to rule others. I also don't see any logical following to your blind assumptions of unemployment or lack of roads. Do you seriously believe that in an absence of government, roads won't exist? Do you believe that snow won't be plowed? Do you believe that man has no rights if government doesn't exist? If you answered yes to at least one, then you're carrying some horrid misconceptions into this discussion. Tasks are not completed simply because legislation or a government mandate demands it. Tasks are completed because of human initiative and labor, both of which would not only keep existing in the absence of a government, but would thrive unhindered. In laymen's terms, without the government, everything is privatized, and competition would, if anything, make for more efficient plowing, and more useful roadways.

Do you need a government? Anyone with a shred of self dignity would say no. I do not need a government in order to succeed, rather, I succeed in accordance to my own virtue, and reap the benefits of my own labor. Moreover, I do not need a government to protect my property, because by its very definition, government VIOLATES these rights, therefore contradicting its justification. Am I selfish? Fuck yeah I am! A truer statement would be that the government needs YOU. No government can effectively rule without the, at least, indifference of the ruled.

You do not derive your rights from the existence of government.

I'll say it again, because it's key to understand this concept:

You do not derive your rights from the existence of government. Rather, you derive your rights by merely being human. If...again if....you bothered to read my longer post in this thread at all, you would have acknowledged that my most basic rights come from the fact of self-ownership. I own myself, my body, ect. I feel no need to state this again, because either no one has read it, or no one can refute it, because they haven't done so.

Self ownership is fact, or at least, I've neither come across nor read of anyone who can refute it. If you disagree, please assert and prove otherwise. But the existence of these most core rights encompasses all other individual rights. In short, if a government were to vanish tomorrow, your rights would still exist. In anarchy, anything can happen. Hell, governments can exist within anarchy, as long as the participants did so under their own choice (thus not violating their sovereignty). Privatized courts can be run like businesses, and agreed to be used by the people who want to use them. Negative non-coercive incentives can be used to deter people from minor violations of rights. Call it natural law, or whatever have you, the existence as these individual rights as fact serve the basis of the free society. What is freedom? Freedom is lack of coercion: self determination. Freedom adhere's to self ownership and the logic of human rights, so does a free society.

"Grow up and end that little rebellion, 10 years from now if you still believe in this theory you'll be sitting on a couch paid by the gov't you hate wich will yet give you money for your survival"
That's purely laughable, unless you'd like to establish a causal relationship between believing in the freedom of mankind and sucking up welfare.

Neil, I'm appalled at your settlist view. It's that sort of logic that lets mankind settle for relative freedom, and leads us into the stagnation of mediocrity. And, everything that you said is adressed, I believe in this post already.

 

LINK04 FOR PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD





Wait, that goes against what this thread's about. Oh, well.

 

It seems to me like you're being pretty childish. "I DUN WAN RULEZ!1!!" "I KIN DOO WHAT I WANT" There are rules for a reason, and nothing you do will change that.

Life isn't fair. get used to it.

 

Would you please like to elaborate how I'm being childish? I don't see any logical connection between your premise and your conclusion. Or do you expect to denounce my stance without taking the time to rebut what I've asserted?

Yes, there are a rules for a reason. People also kill for a reason. In fact, there has never occured any such human action that did not have a reason behind it, good or bad. This does not affect the legitimacy or consistency of those rules. I've previously stated the logical flaw in the governments most cited justification (protection of rights and property). If you would like to disagree, please support why.

Your sarcasm seems misplaced. I've felt I've done a reasonably thorough job of explaining the logical necessity of individual choice, and the relation of voluntary action to freedom. If I have done a poor job, cite why and I'll explain further. If you believe you're clear on my argument, yet disagree with it anyway, then cite where and why my argument is flawed.

If you are unable to do either, then I don't believe you're in any such position to sneer at my conclusions.

 

Would you please like to elaborate how I'm being childish? I don't see any logical connection between your premise and your conclusion. Or do you expect to denounce my stance without taking the time to rebut what I've asserted?

Yes, there are a rules for a reason. People also kill for a reason. In fact, there has never occured any such human action that did not have a reason behind it, good or bad. This does not affect the legitimacy or consistency of those rules. I've previously stated the logical flaw in the governments most cited justification (protection of rights and property). If you would like to disagree, please support why.

Your sarcasm seems misplaced. I've felt I've done a reasonably thorough job of explaining the logical necessity of individual choice, and the relation of voluntary action to freedom. If I have done a poor job, cite why and I'll explain further. If you believe you're clear on my argument, yet disagree with it anyway, then cite where and why my argument is flawed.

If you are unable to do either, then I don't believe you're in any such position to sneer at my conclusions. [/b][/quote]
Not you. Casey