Is It Possible For The State To Exist

reply to post by Exuberant1

Do the voters have a right to impose their will on the 60?

Yes, because if you dont vote, you are voting - that you want others to decide about the problem. If you dont want a leader, then make a party that supports anarchy, and when you win the elections, anarchy will ensue. Democracy is not the will of the majority - it is the will of the majority that cares enough to actually vote.

It's fun watching the Orwellian justifications for violent looting spewed forth by the commies pop up in here.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Of course he has the right to use violence against the other 60.

He's an elected official.

This gives him the right to take anyone's property using military hardware and paramilitary commandos.

Excellent answer Comrade!

Your zeal will get Food Rations for your whole family this month!

Praise Lenin.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
There are 100 people on an island. They are sterile. No one else exists anywhere else. These people will live forever if left in anarchy. Also, most of them are happy but some are not....

40 of them have decided to hold elections and pick a leader who will tell them what to do. There is no need for a leader on this island, nevertheless the elections proceed. 26 of the 40 vote for a new leader. The leader is elected.

Does this leader now have the right to impose his will on the 60 nonvoters as well as those who voted?

Do the voters have a right to impose their will on the 60?

edit on 20-11-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

There is no need for a leader of such a small group of people, but some organisation will be necessary in order for all 100 islanders to live and remain happy, they will have to come to some sort of agreement between them how they wish to live.

This is an Island though not the real world, where many factors must be taken into account, I have outlined some in my above post.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Excellent answer Comrade!

Your zeal will get Food Rations for your whole family this month!

Praise Lenin.

May Mao expropriate your family's farm and turn it into a collective for the common good.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Since one can always work for a living, trade labor for money, or beg - I don't see the need to ever engage in violent theft.

One cant always work. Even if we exclude disabilities, many people simply cannot sell their work, because noone on the market is interested in buying it (for example unqualified job market is already very saturated with work supply and demand is gradually diminishing due to automation), and they have no means to switch expertise or gain qualification, since you first have to have some money and basic needs fulfilled to study (not the other way around) and they dont have it (or certainly would not have it without welfare paid by theft).

I'm willing to make an exception and say if a person is on the verge of death from starvation, they can't work, and they have absolutely no family to help them, that taking what they need to survive is excusable.

Good. I think even if the situation is not that bad YET, but we know with very high probability that situation will develop that way if we dont act to prevent it, it is excusable too. And if we take utilitarian standpoint into account - the sooner we act, the higher is the probability that an individual will be able to permanenlty escape the povetry situation, its actually preferable to do it sooner.

Of course, this encompasses about 0% of the US population.

Yes, now. But will it stay that way if all forms of government welfare and programs to help the poor will be abolished?

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by Exuberant1
There are 100 people on an island. They are sterile. No one else exists anywhere else. These people will live forever if left in anarchy. Also, most of them are happy but some are not....

40 of them have decided to hold elections and pick a leader who will tell them what to do. There is no need for a leader on this island, nevertheless the elections proceed. 26 of the 40 vote for a new leader. The leader is elected.

Does this leader now have the right to impose his will on the 60 nonvoters as well as those who voted?

Do the voters have a right to impose their will on the 60?

edit on 20-11-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

There is no need for a leader of such a small group of people, but some organisation will be necessary in order for all 100 islanders to live and remain happy, they will have to come to some sort of agreement between them how they wish to live.

This is an Island though not the real world, where many factors must be taken into account, I have outlined some in my above post.

So if it was an island of 300 million, it becomes OK for the leader to violently impose his will on the masses.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
May Mao expropriate your family's farm and turn it into a collective for the common good.

Soon my family will know the joys of contributing ALL to the glory of the revolution.

Each night I lay awake with anticipation... It will be a joyous day.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It's fun watching the Orwellian justifications for violent looting spewed forth by the commies pop up in here.

edit on 20-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

The problem with your whole idea, is that it requires your country completely withdraw from the global economy, in which case you country would probably invaded or just collapse from no foreign invest ment

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by mnemeth1
May Mao expropriate your family's farm and turn it into a collective for the common good.

Soon my family will know the joys of contributing ALL to the glory of the revolution.

Each night I lay awake with anticipation... It will be a joyous day.

Eventually the time will come when our glorious leaders write a new social contract that grants them the right to not only take our property by force, but also our first born daughters for use in joy brigades and our first born sons for use in foreign wars as cannon fodder.

reply to post by mnemeth1

It's fun watching the Orwellian justifications for violent looting spewed forth by the commies pop up in here.

Right to live is more important than right to property. No more justifications are required.

I'm willing to make an exception and say if a person is on the verge of death from starvation, they can't work, and they have absolutely no family to help them, that taking what they need to survive is excusable.

Oh, you communist looter! Now you just need to realize that there are people that want to work, but cant.

Since one can always work for a living, trade labor for food, or beg

Either right to live is more important than right to property, and you do not need to beg, or right to property is more important than right to live, and you can only beg or trade. There is no other option.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It's fun watching the Orwellian justifications for violent looting spewed forth by the commies pop up in here.

edit on 20-11-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

The problem with your whole idea, is that it requires your country completely withdraw from the global economy, in which case you country would probably invaded or just collapse from no foreign invest ment

because it takes violence to engage in peaceful trade.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


No.

If I'm Russia or China there is no way that I'm going to invade a territory where privately owned nuclear arms are kept and maintained.

So the USA would be safe with a logical extension of the second amendment.

*If my corporation owned a private nuke arsenal, your state or community could contract with me for a fee. In exchange I would nuke any country that sent its people to attack your state.

reply to post by Maslo


Don't be mad at me over the fact you enjoy taking people's money by force.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

No.

If I'm Russia or China there is no way that I'm going to invade a territory where privately owned nuclear arms are kept and maintained.

So the USA would be safe with a logical extension of the second amendment.

*If my corporation owned a private nuke arsenal, your state or community could contract with me for a fee. In exchange I would nuke any country that sent its people to attack your state.

Sounds like a terrifying future. Everything comes down to money, you will agree to wipe a nation of the planet for the right fee? Sick

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Sounds like a terrifying future. Everything comes down to money, you will agree to wipe a nation of the planet for the right fee? Sick

No, I will protect my customers for a fee.

*And once the enemy government is destroyed, I could then contract with the citizens of that nation. It makes good business sense to limit the destruction and loss of life.

For example China. That is a nasty government but a customer base with awesome potential. The customer base didn't launch the war, they should be preserved when possible.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Sounds like a terrifying future. Everything comes down to money, you will agree to wipe a nation of the planet for the right fee? Sick

Armored car companies agree to protect your property from theft, using force to do so if necessary.

However, they will not attack someone for a fee.

A company engaging in such activity in a state of anarchy would be subject to retribution from other protection services.

reply to post by Exuberant1


surely thats like taxing them?

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

surely thats like taxing them?

taxes require threats of force or force

voluntary contracts don't require any force.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Don't be mad at me over the fact you enjoy taking people's money by force.

I dont enjoy it. I advocate quite strict conditions to be met before you can use other peoples money, including working for the state, have to take job if it is available, and no procreation.