NO government is the only way

viagrandad
viagrandad

the only way to nurture humanity to reach its ultimate potential/full evolution is for the species to be left to their own devices, free to make mistakes hurt themselves and grow. government it hampering the progress of humanity.

first argument:

without government there will be no hospitals no licenses will be needed to practice medicine people will pretend their doctors and just hack limbs off…

my rebuttal

if i hurt my ankle, i have no right to FORCE anyone to treat me, i can use any wealth i possess, barter or make a deal (I'll work for you when my ankle heals). If there's no one around then I'm incentivized to learn myself resulting in higher education in medicine and the human body, making me more self reliant, smarter, and more helpful/useful/valuable to others…

If you are stupid enough to go to someone who says smashing your knees in with a rock is the only solution you will probably die and your idiocy won't be passed down in the gene pool, only competently educated people will survive leading the next generation.

natural selection

survival of the fittest

BinaryMan
BinaryMan

Actual argument: government is a natural result of humanity exerting its nature and reacting to its environment as a species. To remove it because "muh social darwinism" would be significantly more artificial than its creation in the first place.

AwesomeTucker
AwesomeTucker

Besides, people need organization and hierarchy.

PackManBrainlure
PackManBrainlure

@viagrandad
check your spelling mistakes

Carnalpleasure
Carnalpleasure

@AwesomeTucker
circular reasoning
@BinaryMan
human nature fallacy
there is no "as a species" there is no "collective" there are only individuals
and all individuals hate goernment, some (wealthy heirs) just happen to make the best of it because they can

Emberfire
Emberfire

page 5 10 replies faggotry

Firespawn
Firespawn

9

SniperGod
SniperGod

x

Crazy_Nice
Crazy_Nice

@Carnalpleasure
human nature fallacy
there is no "as a species" there is no "collective" there are only individuals
and all individuals hate goernment, some (wealthy heirs) just happen to make the best of it because they can
If it wasn't in the interests of people to form governments, they wouldn't have formed them in the first place. If everyone hated the state, why wouldn't they just form gay little hippie communes constantly or go live innawoods? Just because you don't like living under rule of law doesn't mean that everyone else feels the same way. And yet you're the one claiming to be an individualist? Honestly, you'd be better off with Stirner.

Skullbone
Skullbone

the only argument is that people prefer safety over freedom

Snarelure
Snarelure

@Snarelure
Anarchocommunism
money

Which moron made this?

Booteefool
Booteefool

@Crazy_Nice
If it wasn't in the interests of people to form governments, they wouldn't have formed them in the first place. If everyone hated the state, why wouldn't they just form gay little hippie communes constantly or go live innawoods?
you realize this logic can justify anything right?
murder, rape, genocide etc

takes2long
takes2long

@Emberburn
You do realize that private property is universal, right? Meaning that if one guy can own things, everybody can own things. This whole passage rests on the presumption that non-ownership is a permanent state of being; that one who does not own land can never own land, yet history is replete with examples of just such a transition. It hardly takes a stretch of the imagination to devise a process by which have-nots become haves, where private property and free exchange are recognized. It is an empirical fact that more often than not, the poor become middle class, the middle class become rich and the rich become poor, often in the course of one or two generations.
This contrasts starkly with the feudal arrangement of inborn and inherited stations from which one was forbidden to stray. The feudal system was actually propped up by a law called "Entail", which forbade landholders from selling their land. It was forbidden by law for even the nobility to dispose of their land as they wished. As soon as this law went away, the large landholdings were sold off; split up among new emerging and highly mobile economic classes, because that's what the laws of economics show us would happen.
But no; the permanent victim mentality of the economically-illiterate left denies that possibility, and is utterly incapable of explaining the events of history.

@Crazy_Nice
If it wasn't in the interests of people to form governments, they wouldn't have formed them in the first place[?]
That's a fascinating question, and the answer is complex, because the state didn't form all at once. Early humans flourished (relative to their conditions) without anything resembling a state. Even tribal man, who is often depicted as having chiefs by the historically misinformed, generally proceeded in a self-organized and un-commanded manner. A tribe does not have a chief; a chiefdom has a chief, and these were much more rare than tribes. More recent examples can be found among the Plains Indians, particularly the Commanche. They had "War Chiefs" and "Peace Chiefs", but acknowledging them was entirely optional; they were more like charismatic leaders who people trusted and chose to follow, rather than leaders whose word was law. Models like this were much more common among earlier societies than the alternative.
In fact, many of the things we often consider to be states throughout history were not nearly as absolute in their power as is generally believed, and the acceptance of a state with coercive power is actually only (I think) about four hundred years old. There are documented cases of people in thirteenth-century England going to court over not paying their taxes, and they were dismissed on the grounds that they did not wish to. This happened more than once, and there is documentation to show it. It was held that no free man could be deprived of his property, by king or pope, without his permission. In this era, it shows that the king was more a local provider of defense services than an absolute ruler.
I don't mean to make light of the social problems of these eras; I simply intend to show that absolute authority is a much more recent phenomenon than is generally believed.
It seems that when the Enlightenment came around, secularism became a big thing, and new explanations for everything were in high demand, since "goddidit" wasn't satisfying people's curiosity anymore. When this ran into the "Divine Right of Kings", things got sticky. Rather than question the validity of such a thing, many thinkers (who were doubtlessly endorsed by the politicians who would gain from it) simply filled in the holes with secular versions of old doctrine. Original Sin or the supposition that humans are inherently sinful, was replaced with "human nature", or the supposition that humans are inherently violent and uncooperative, despite the fact that they evolved as a social species. The Covenant was replaced with The Social "Contract". God was replaced with "The People" (as a collective separate from any individual), and The Will of God was replaced with The Will of The People. The politicians were now clergy, anointed to speak on behalf of this nebulous entity that nobody ever sees.
It's no coincidence that this is when we begin to see the consolidation of state power. Competing courts in England begin to be swallowed up by the Royal courts. The Statute of Monopolies is passed. The trappings of the modern totalitarian state begin to emerge, all under the guise of increased representation for The People, all while the people didn't realize that they weren't in that club.

There's so much more to say on this topic, but that's why I'm writing a book.

Inmate
Inmate

@Skullbone
safety over freedom
If you give up your freedom, you aren't safe. You've sacrificed the very thing you're hoping to protect. Trading freedom for safety isn't just foolish: It's impossible.

@Snarelure
I don't think they're implying that the AnComs have money. They're just showing how the AnComs are doing without it.
That comic is confusing because it's hard to keep track of who's who as their faces change.

Sage because this was spillover from my other post.

Disable your ad blocker to access the content

Disable your ad blocker to access the content