The Violence Must Stop

WARNING: This is a deep thinking thread - If you are not prepared to seriously think before replying, do not bother replying.

-----------------------

If we all want what is best for ourselves, why does more than one political party exist?

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why this is?

Logic would dictate that it is impossible to have conflict of interest if legislatures were enacting laws that were in everyone's best interest. The only way to have a representative government that is bound to only enact laws that are in everyone's best interest, is to mandate that every single representative must agree on the law before it is passed.

If there is one dissenter in the room, it would seem to me that the law must not be in everyone's best interest, otherwise why would he have voted against it?

Following from this logic, it would seem that a party system would be impossible. How could more than one political party exist if everyone had to agree before a law could be passed? It couldn't.

What are the possible reasons a person might disagree to a law?

There's only one reason that a person would disagree to a law -- they felt their body or their property might be taken advantage of or lost.

It can never be the case that a person would disagree to a law if their intent was to take advantage of another person or their property if all laws originated from the principle that everyone must agree before a law can be passed.

From this we can say that if one person disagrees to the law, yet the law is passed anyways, violence will be used against that person after the law is passed.

Violence must necessarily follow. For if the law is not in the person's best interests, it can only mean that coercive force will be used against them.

I challenge anyone to come up with a law that the entire Congress could not agree upon that does not involve using coercion against a minority group of individuals who have harmed no one and have not stolen or damaged anyone else's property.

I challenge anyone to come up with a law that the entire Congress could agree upon that does involve using coercion against a minority group of individuals who have harmed no one and have not stolen or damaged anyone else's property.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

What are the possible reasons a person might disagree to a law?

Rhetorical questions....

How many mandatory expectations (laws) are there, specifically, that a member of society must conform to in order to be a law abiding citizen?

Does any child born today have the possibility of living long enough to learn the number of laws, what they all are, and what they all mean when held in context with eachother simultaneously?

How many laws are there under the guise of "Freedom", specifically?

Are these laws enforced, or when these laws are not enforced properly, do law makers just make more laws (911)?

I reserve the right to withhold my thoughts until a rational authority exists, but I will give your Introductory Post some more thought.

S&F mnemeth1,
ET

reply to post by mnemeth1

mnemeth1,

Nobody ever claimed that democracy was the final solution. It's merely the best temporary solution. As long as there is a minority, you will always have friction.

As for the laws that are created under this democracy......they're just too many of 'm!!!

Only law I can think of, that everybody can agree on, is the golden rule:

One should treat others according to how one would like others to treat one's self

With this as only law, you would have no violence. Problem is that it takes a lot of responsibility......

We are not ready (yet) for such a responsible task!!!

Peace

reply to post by operation mindcrime


"One should treat others according to how one would like others to treat one's self "

Is another way of saying what I believe:

There is only one law that is just: One must not damage or steal another person or their property.

reply to post by mnemeth1

mnemeth1,

Your "law" does not cover manipulation (among others). I think this is one of the biggest instigators of violence...

Peace

reply to post by mnemeth1


"One should treat others according to how one would like others to treat one's self"

i agree with that and thats how i try to live my life by i have always thought that since i was knee high to a grasshopper......




there is no law or could there ever be a law that the entire congress will ever agree on this is why majority rules....

congress cannot pass any law that will not infringe on someones right every law they have ever passed has screwed someone over............. but then agian thats how they make a living getting paid to screw people over for their careers in public service...........

sorry if that wasnt deep enough.....my brain hurts when i think to hard....

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

mnemeth1,

Your "law" does not cover manipulation (among others). I think this is one of the biggest instigators of violence...

Peace

If by "manipulate" you mean persuade - what's wrong with that?

If by "manipulate" you mean coerce - that would require violence wouldn't it?

We manipulate people everyday by enticing them to do things for us. Manipulation in this regard is perfectly fine. It is only when violence is used to get ones way that problems arise.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

If by "manipulate" you mean persuade - what's wrong with that?

If one is speaking about equally abled persons, then nothing. But there must be protections in place which prevent the opportunistic from taking advantage of the weak or vulnerable.

Or when a smooth talking con artist scams Grandma out of her retirement funds, would you chalk it up to survival of the fittest and let Granny learn the hard way?

Originally posted by mnemeth1

If by "manipulate" you mean coerce - that would require violence wouldn't it?

The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.

Source for legal definition

No, not necessarily violence or even threat of violence. Simply convincing somebody that they are in danger if they do not act, by indirect threat, is considered coercion. IE... "Mrs Johnson you're just not listening to me... If you don't buy gold, and buy it today, I assure you that the economy will tank and you will starve and die horribly. So you'd better place an order with me today for your own sake.

Coercion.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

We manipulate people everyday by enticing them to do things for us. Manipulation in this regard is perfectly fine. It is only when violence is used to get ones way that problems arise.

Enticements and manipulation are part of life. A part of life we all use, and suffer, at some point or another. But there are forms of manipulation which are rightfully criminal. Technically blackmail and extortion are forms of "enticement" which should be criminalized.

So you're pretty much questioning the legitimacy of party politics in general?

I can see the logic behind it, but you're assuming laws and other legislature are enacted in order accommodate everyone's best interest. I don't think that's how representative democracy functions. An individual is elected as a representative for the people within his/her region, representing what he/she was campaigning for, that is; the best interests of the people he/she is representing, not the best interest of the people two states down.

In the end what you have is a network of representatives all with unique goals, all with supposedly varying interests. Truth is that you will most likely find core principles between representatives which they could say, are in the best interests of their peoples, but in reality this isn't the case. There is no such thing as 'everyone's interest' and this is why a party politics system is justified and continues to exist.

Not to say that a party politics system, especially one that is bipartisan, is not flawed and is not taken advantage of, rather, that there simply is no viable alternative that can be introduced without total revolt and rejection. You either give people the illusion of freedom and power, in the sense that they believe they are truly electing someone who will work for their 'best interests', or you completely strip them of this right and impose a dictatorship. We are stuck with the former.

Originally posted by Hefficide

We all face psychological pressure.

Pressuring someone to do something is not a crime.

Enticing someone to do something is not a crime.

Begging someone to do something is not a crime.

I get pressured to do things all the time. My boss tells me to do something, so I do it, or I could face the consequences of my actions and get fired for not doing it. - there is nothing illegal or immoral about my boss doing that.

It only becomes illegal if I refuse to do what my boss says, and then my boss uses force against me to make me do it.

Originally posted by serbsta
So you're pretty much questioning the legitimacy of party politics in general?

I can see the logic behind it, but you're assuming laws and other legislature are enacted in order accommodate everyone's best interest. I don't think that's how representative democracy functions. An individual is elected as a representative for the people within his/her region, representing what he/she was campaigning for, that is; the best interests of the people he/she is representing, not the best interest of the people two states down.

In the end what you have is a network of representatives all with unique goals, all with supposedly varying interests. Truth is that you will most likely find core principles between representatives which they could say, are in the best interests of their peoples, but in reality this isn't the case. There is no such thing as 'everyone's interest' and this is why a party politics system is justified and continues to exist.

Not to say that a party politics system, especially one that is bipartisan, is not flawed and is not taken advantage of, rather, that there simply is no viable alternative that can be introduced without total revolt and rejection. You either give people the illusion of freedom and power, in the sense that they believe they are truly electing someone who will work for their 'best interests', or you completely strip them of this right and impose a dictatorship. We are stuck with the former.

No, I'm questioning the legitimacy of coercively funded government in general.

Of course that is not how a representative democracy works. A representative democracy is where the majority gangs up on the minority and loots them at gun point.

Laws that are in everyones best interest:

You can not murder.

You can not steal.

You can not rape.

You can not torture.

You can not assault.

You can not burglarize.

You can not negligently kill someone.

You can not rob.

There is no reason for anyone to be against these laws. Since no one wants to have violence or theft used against them, no one would oppose measures against these things.

Even violent murderers want laws that protect themselves from murderers.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If we all want what is best for ourselves, why does more than one political party exist?

Simple: we disagree on how to get there and/or have different standards of how far 'ourselves' should extend.

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why this is?

Many a time.

Logic would dictate that it is impossible to have conflict of interest if legislatures were enacting laws that were in everyone's best interest.

Unfortunately formal logic doesn't play a role in formulating public policy because we can't properly predict the outcomes of particular pieces of legislation. Therefore we all have different ideas.

The only way to have a representative government that is bound to only enact laws that are in everyone's best interest, is to mandate that every single representative must agree on the law before it is passed.

And give individuals power to cripple the entire proceedings of a nation's business when they throw a temper tantrum and don't agree?

I see where you're going here, but the problem is that you're setting everything in an ideal world that is unrealistic because:

1: Often times people don't vote for what's in their best interest
2: There are selfish people
3: There are people who actively seek to inhibit the interests of others
4: People often act irrationally
5: People don't often come to political positions through reason

Among other problems with modern politics.

If there is one dissenter in the room, it would seem to me that the law must not be in everyone's best interest, otherwise why would he have voted against it?

Because he didn't like it. Because he didn't agree with it due to his strict religious beliefs concerning sales of alcohol. Because he wanted to alter it to benefit himself and his constituents even more. Because he doesn't understand the law, it's implications, it's possible results, etc.

What are the possible reasons a person might disagree to a law?

Well, I've listed quite a few.

There's only one reason that a person would disagree to a law -- they felt their body or their property might be taken advantage of or lost.

Well, there's a key word there:

felt

They don't necessarily have reasonable justification.

It can never be the case that a person would disagree to a law if their intent was to take advantage of another person or their property if all laws originated from the principle that everyone must agree before a law can be passed.

Unless they understand how to manipulate the court of public opinion and make a law that horribly subverts the interest of one group look like it doesn't.

From this we can say that if one person disagrees to the law, yet the law is passed anyways, violence will be used against that person after the law is passed.

Unless that person was entirely wrong in disagreeing with the law. What if the person thought that the law would limit their second amendment rights, but it merely provided for higher standards in munitions factories and the availability of gun safety courses?

Violence must necessarily follow. For if the law is not in the person's best interests, it can only mean that coercive force will be used against them.

Hmm...let me actually put this thought in the next bit.

I challenge anyone to come up with a law that the entire Congress could not agree upon that does not involve using coercion against a minority group of individuals who have harmed no one and have not stolen or damaged anyone else's property.

Preventing mandatory religious service in state-funded schools.
Preventing religious groups from using state-funded properties for events for free unless other groups get the exact same privilege.
Mandating gender equality in the work place.
Mandating that religious principles not be taught in the science classroom.
Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

Those are just off the top of my head.

I challenge anyone to come up with a law that the entire Congress could agree upon that does involve using coercion against a minority group of individuals who have harmed no one and have not stolen or damaged anyone else's property.

That I can't really do today. The problem is that it was possible in the past against certain groups like: homosexuals, Mormons (prior to Utah joining the nation), Muslims, Atheists, Native Americans, African-Americans, the Irish, the Polish, the Germans, etc.

But you're right, today I think there would be at least one person to stand up for any minority.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Yes, no one is against those laws, but there are other interests that politicians may be seeking while representing their constituent which lie in addition to those general laws you stated above.

It is these added interests which allow party politics to exist.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Logic would dictate that it is impossible to have conflict of interest if legislatures were enacting laws that were in everyone's best interest.

The problem is people have different opinions whether the final outcome of a law would or wouldnt be in their and everyones best interest. We live in such a complex world thats its often hard (relative to average intelligence) to determine if the net effect of particular law or regulation would benefit or harm the society. People have different intelligence, knowledge, diferent environments and experiences surrounded them while forming their worldview, so its natural they would arrive at different conclusions when examining the effect of particular law.

Take for example welfare state, which we were arguing earlier. You say the effect of ANY welfare system on society is in the end worse than the effect of system with no welfare, only voluntary charity - people will be happier in society with no welfare.
I say that effect of efficient welfare system is benefiting the society so in the end it is more effective (even economically) and all people are happier than in society with no welfare, only voluntary charity.

We BOTH want only which is in the best interest for the people and society, but we disagree if particular law would contribute positively or negatively in our goal. See?

Regardless of this, there exist ONE objective truth (law, for example welfare would either benefit or harm society in the end), but not all, if any persons are objective and informed enough to determine it. Because we are all imperfect.

reply to post by mnemeth1

There's only one reason that a person would disagree to a law -- they felt their body or their property might be taken advantage of or lost.

I disagree. When I examine particular law, I ask myself "would the net effect of a law contribute positively or negatively to the society, development and progress of mankind?" If I arrived to conclusion that for example raising taxes would benefit the society in the long run, I would agree with it, even if it meant more of my property would go to the state.

When I think about it, you are right - I want to benefit the society because I the more advanced mankind would be as a whole, the more of it would come to me . So it all boils down to what I have written above - people are imperfect and often cannot objectively decide whether a given law would be in the end good for mankind (and ultimately to them) or not. Thats why they arrive at different conclusions.

reply to post by mnemeth1

There's only one reason that a person would disagree to a law -- they felt their body or their property might be taken advantage of or lost.

The other reason is that some people are genuinely bad and stupid persons, and prefer short-sighted benefit to themselves, even if they probably know that for the society, and so ultimately for them in the long run, it would cause harm.

Sorry for flood, last post in a row I promise

reply to post by mnemeth1


No matter what ideology, the fact remains that humanity is only ever two meals away from revolution.

Violence is based upon survival instinct.

Originally posted by mnemeth1


If we all want what is best for ourselves, why does more than one political party exist?

Because among grown ups it is agreed upon that it is not easy to establish "what is best". Different interests produce different notions about what is "best for ourselves" and therefore how we should best be governed,

Logic would dictate that it is impossible to have conflict of interest if legislatures were enacting laws that were in everyone's best interest.

That's only if you believe that "everyones best interest" is an apparent entity that can be independently established by all individuals in an objective way - something that clearly has never been the case in the history of mankind. The flaw in this kind of thinking is that you ascribe meaning to "everyones bet interest" when that clearly is a fictional concept that no two humans can agree on in the first place.

The only way to have a representative government that is bound to only enact laws that are in everyone's best interest, is to mandate that every single representative must agree on the law before it is passed.

I don't see how that is the only way to have a represantative government that acts in everyones interest. Unanimous opinions do not necessarily constitue "the will of the people" - it is rather flawed to think that. I get your point - theoretically, in a direct democracy the only admissible law would be one that every citizien (not just gov. bodies) agree on. That's how Europeans tended to think about politics 200 years ago, but they gave up this line of thinking as it proved incompatible with reality.

Following from this logic, it would seem that a party system would be impossible. How could more than one political party exist if everyone had to agree before a law could be passed? It couldn't.

Parties exist because everyone does not have to agree... There is no state that mandates unanimity in order to justify a law in practice. Political Parties exist because there are different world-views and different interest groups.

What are the possible reasons a person might disagree to a law?

There's only one reason that a person would disagree to a law -- they felt their body or their property might be taken advantage of or lost.

This seems to be libertarian claptrap to me - it's not hard to think of other reasons that one might disagree about a law.

It can never be the case that a person would disagree to a law if their intent was to take advantage of another person or their property if all laws originated from the principle that everyone must agree before a law can be passed.

Well that may be true. But under that paradigm no law would ever get passed since there is no such thing as universal agreement. Since people demand laws, it is not practical to demand unanimity - people would simply not get any laws.

Under your criteria - that much is true - nobody would ever object to any law. But that's simply because no law would ever get passed and therefore the malecontents would have no law to disagree with. Quite a predicament, hu?
The fact that everyone would agree would not stem from the "goodness of the law" but more from the fact that no law could be passed at all this way.

From this we can say that if one person disagrees to the law, yet the law is passed anyways, violence will be used against that person after the law is passed.

This is simply not true. Coercion, persuasian and incentives do 99% of the job in the West. There's not much coercion that involves violence. Which, when regarded in historic comparison, is a rather surprising thing.

To simply chose the world "violence" when it is not the most common form of violence betrays the ideological bend behind your post. A state cannot survive on violence alone - if other mechanism of coercion do not complement it that state is doomed. Even the United States, a moloch of a state if there ever was one, does not rely on violence alone to bring their coercive actions to fruition. "Violence" is not the right word here as it is not the ONLY and certainly not the first or preferred way of making coercion succeeed.

Violence must necessarily follow. For if the law is not in the person's best interests, it can only mean that coercive force will be used against them.

"Coercive force" and "Violence" are not interchangeable as they do not denote the same things.

I challenge anyone to come up with a law that the entire Congress could not agree upon that does not involve using coercion against a minority group of individuals who have harmed no one and have not stolen or damaged anyone else's property.

I'd say half of the sentence is unnecessary:

I challenge anyone to come up with a law that the entire Congress could not agree upon that does not involve using coercion against a minority group of individuals....

The rest is unnecessary. The above sentence is practically a definition of politics - no wonder you can not formulate a policy while disregarding what politics means in practice. The conundrum you produce here is definitorial, it stems from the logical structure of the argument and not from the content. If politics is passing laws and enforcing them by coercion then it is simply absurd to try to refute politics by showing that they are constrained by their own definition.