Is the US splitting up?

Originally posted by Semicollegiate


Voluntary collectivism will always happen for whatever good reason. That is one of the infinity of things that an individual can choose.

No, we don't get to choose. There will always be collectives as people form them naturally. It always happens.

reply to post by DrGod


Why do we have to take New York

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

What has always perpelxed me, however, is how are you going to ensure that people "do good"?? Who defines it? what happens if they do not do good?

The word ensure leads me to believe that your philosophy starts with control rather than reality.

I try to start from human brains.

Why does anyone do good now?

Because they see that good is the best way to live. That is the original definition of morality.
What works out best, works out best for everyone.

Laws are from custom and behavior, implying that people want to live and let live.

reply to post by Semicollegiate


Reality shows that what some peoploe consider "good" is not the same as others!!

If you cannot answer a question like what happens when someone does not "do good" then I think you really haven't through through your ideas!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Realistically we are not splitting up. If Romney wins he's going to do so with a very similar EV make up that Bush had in 2004. If Obama wins he's going to do so with a very similar EV make up to what Kerry had in 2004 plus 2-3 of the closer battlegrounds in that contest. We haven't been in a 'party system' since before Reagan. This is just the way our elections are gonna be unless there's some big realignment.

reply to post by antonia

No, we don't get to choose. There will always be collectives as people form them naturally. It always happens.

An axiom?

Collectivism as government is the object. Life style collectivism is a different subject..

We can choose, if we are not collectivist.

reply to post by snusfanatic


Realistically perhaps not immediately.

but it sems as if liberals and the right are getting elss and less tolerant of each other or willing to allow that a POTUS of the other persuasion is anything other than the anti-christ or an ayatollah-equivalent.

If that goes on then how do you see these 2 quite seperate populations beign able to co-exist?

As the OP article points out - you effectively already have 2 almost totally seperate media netorks - every major plmedia player is on one side or the other. 85% of States are classified as one or other side for the election with, IIRC, only 7 having any real possibility of going either way - the "swing states".

Perhaps it isn't something that is going to happen in het next term of the POTUS - but you've got to think that sooner or later it's on the cards unless something dramatic happens.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Unfortunately, this isn't the 1800s, 1900s or even 2000s.

And for the love of whatever, don't automatically assume that all liberals are statists. Sure, I think government should be involved in some matters at the very least but in no way do I advocate total government control (your pet term, "statist").

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Reality shows that what some peoploe consider "good" is not the same as others!!

If you cannot answer a question like what happens when someone does not "do good" then I think you really haven't through through your ideas!!

Some one bad would be somewhere between unwlecome and dead, depending on what he did.

How is that not obvious?

Actually I think a real anarchy would happen as people shed layers of government over time. It wouldn't happen after a revolution.

Given that humans can think, anarchy is possible.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by antonia

 

An axiom?

Collectivism as government is the object. Life style collectivism is a different subject..

We can choose, if we are not collectivist.

Government is a collectivist action. What is government? Government is simply the agreed upon system for enforcing policy within the state. You see the state as the problem. You can't separate government from a population. Government is not forced on populations, it is formed from them. It is a reflection of their social norms. Even the smallest tribe has a government. If the country collapsed tomorrow and the your local neighborhood got together to protect themselves you would have a *gasp*-government. Humans have always had such systems, they always will. That isn't "life style" collectivism. Collectivism is a reality of the human species and you won't stamp that out.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I don't think it's going to be violent. The fact is the U.S. is a young country compared to Europe and some of the Asian nations. There is still a lot to work out. As for what would happen if such a split occurred-I'd leave and many others would too.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Reality shows that what some peoploe consider "good" is not the same as others!!

If you cannot answer a question like what happens when someone does not "do good" then I think you really haven't through through your ideas!!

Some one bad would be somewhere between unwlecome and dead, depending on what he did.

How is that not obvious?

I didn't say it isn't obvious - I asked how you would decide? Who decides what consititutes "bad" in the first place? who gets to take action? who decides whether "dead" or "out" is appropriate? Or if amends can be made? who decides how long "out" will last?

What happens if someone somewhere else has a different idea of what is "good", and decides that you are "bad" - who decides which of you is "right"?

IMO these are pretty important questions!

Actually I think a real anarchy would happen as people shed layers of government over time. It wouldn't happen after a revolution.

I agree with the later - but how do you think the former would happen?

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I don't think it's going to be violent. The fact is the U.S. is a young country compared to Europe and some of the Asian nations. There is still a lot to work out. As for what would happen if such a split occurred-I'd leave and many others would too.

Yeah but Europe is not actually " a country", and plenty of the countries in Europe are younger than the USA - eg Belgium, Poland, the Baltic States, Norway, Finland, Ukraine, Byelorus, Moldovia, all the states of the former Yugoslavia, even Yugoslavia itself, Albania, Czech Republic & Slovakia (& Czechoslovakia (sp??) before them)

Of course looking at many of those I suspect you wouldn't get inspired by them!!

Originally posted by antonia

Government is a collectivist action. What is government? Government is simply the agreed upon system for enforcing policy within the state. You see the state as the problem. You can't separate government from a population. Government is not forced on populations, it is formed from them. It is a reflection of their social norms. Even the smallest tribe has a government. If the country collapsed tomorrow and the your local neighborhood got together to protect themselves you would have a *gasp*-government. Humans have always had such systems, they always will. That isn't "life style" collectivism. Collectivism is a reality of the human species and you won't stamp that out.

yep - a lot of people dont' see this - but as soon as you ahve 2 people agreeing on some "behavioural norm" to be followed you have a government and a law

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul


Yeah but Europe is not actually " a country", and plenty of the countries in Europe are younger than the USA - eg Belgium, Poland, the Baltic States, Norway, Finland, Ukraine, Byelorus, Moldovia, all the states of the former Yugoslavia, even Yugoslavia itself, Albania, Czech Republic & Slovakia (& Czechoslovakia (sp??) before them)

Of course looking at many of those I suspect you wouldn't get inspired by them!!

Well, I didn't mean to say Europe was a country. That was my mistake, rather that many of the countries within Europe are older than the U.S. Actually, I think many of those young countries benefit from being closer to older examples. Norway and Finland rank among the highest in the world for their standard of living so they can't be all bad.

reply to post by antonia


Norway benefits from being on the periphery I think, along with having lots of oil now - and "Finlandisation" is a word for a reason!!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


The U.S. has more resources than Norway (beyond oil), so this really shouldn't be much of an issue. I think the biggest difference between the U.S. and Norway is a stable population. The U.S. has never been one solid society. Culturally we have always been divided into regional factions. There is a book I would point you toward but I can't remember the name of it right now. I'll u2u later when i find it. Most of the older, modern European nations have outgrown those divisions though from what I saw when I lived there.

As for Finland, certainly they may have been wrong in aspects of their foreign policy, but I see what they did as more of a practical gesture than anything else. Finland versus the USSR? They weren't stupid, being confrontational with a country that could easily squash you isn't such a great idea. This is perhaps overly Machiavellian of me, but hey

reply to post by antonia

Government is a collectivist action.

We need to define collectivist at this point. I define collectivist as someone who gets privileges from the language of the law, which has perview over everything

I define individualist as someone who has rights that must be obeyed reciprocally with other persons.

What is government? Government is simply the agreed upon system for enforcing policy within the state.

Government can be an agreement but it is not limited to being an agreement. It always evolves into something bigger and more powerful.

You see the state as the problem. You can't separate government from a population. Government is not forced on populations, it is formed from them.

The newly formed government is not the same as many of the real forms that actual governments take.

It is a reflection of their social norms.

Government can completely design social norms.

Even the smallest tribe has a government.

Technically government involves writing and laws, but i understand the congruence.

If the country collapsed tomorrow and the your local neighborhood got together to protect themselves you would have a *gasp*-government.

I get the sentiment, and I have been imprecise like wise, but I don't think a team or task force is a government.

Humans have always had such systems, they always will. That isn't "life style" collectivism. Collectivism is a reality of the human species and you won't stamp that out.

Individualis can't stomp out collectivism. How could an individual stamp out a multitude? It is actually the opposite, collectivism cannot tolerate individualism.

If collectivism could tollerate individualism there would never be conflict between them.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

I didn't say it isn't obvious - I asked how you would decide? Who decides what consititutes "bad" in the first place? who gets to take action? who decides whether "dead" or "out" is appropriate? Or if amends can be made? who decides how long "out" will last?

What happens if someone somewhere else has a different idea of what is "good", and decides that you are "bad" - who decides which of you is "right"?

IMO these are pretty important questions!

Don't you decide those things now? How does anybody decide anythig?

The solutions might be different, but you are applying a not like this world view rather than starting from anarchy at birth.

I agree with the later - but how do you think the former would happen?

Over years, decades,centuries, millenia the government would reduce the amount of laws until there was no government. That is the only path that would be sure to suceed. The level of technology and education would be very high then IMO.

reply to post by Semicollegiate

Individualis can't stomp out collectivism. How could an individual stamp out a multitude? It is actually the opposite, collectivism cannot tolerate individualism.

If collectivism could tollerate individualism there would never be conflict between them.

If you were correct in your first statement then you wouldn't see people like the Unabomber or the Norway killer who could not tolerate the "collectives". You keep arguing from duality, but there is no duality here. Collectives are made up of individuals. The two cannot be divorced. The conflict is not between "collectivists" and "indivdualists". It is simply between two collectives with competing ideals.