The Appeal to Emotion done by some people arguing for state socialism.

Thorn14 · 2011-05-22 14:13:51

Because.
Nothing.
Is.
Free.

There is always a catch, its a universal truth, just like gravity.

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 14:15:00

a universal law without chance of appeal? That's despotism!

Thorn14 · 2011-05-22 14:18:42

No, I'm not talking about government. In ALL THINGS nothing is free. Not even the air we breath or the water we drink.

REALITY is a despot, but we need to do our best against it, and we cant do it alone, which is why we need each other.

We can give each other space to be themselves, but we shouldn't push each other away and be our own island too.

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 14:44:14

government in he economy inevitably leads to government in society one form of authoritarianism begets another. economic authoritarianism leads to social authoritarianism and vica versa. all authoritarianism leads in to itself eventually and if the state has a monopoly on anything it is evil. a monopoly on violence and force especially.

The problem is we all have grown up in a period of Kynsion practices around the world and to all of you Kynsianism is the norm and somehow the ultimate good and only option it's become just as much of a dogma. I however favor the Austrian school and think forced government intervention is ultimately a bad thing. Thorn for example though seems to worship the concept of high taxes and htinks that "the govenrment taking all of our money because we obviously don't deserve what we worked for" is a good thing and that scares the shit out of me.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-05-22 14:58:15

The problem with your thinking is that you assume that no one will take it if they don't.

No; real life abhors power vacuums and someone will inevitably take it. I find it more useful to have giants opposed to each other than to try to wish that no one becomes a giant in the first place.

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 15:01:52

the problem is when one of the giants has an edge over the other acutally wha tyou bring up is a core principle of Anarchism. Duel Powers. in order for Anarchism to work you can't allow power to concentrate to one entity you have to constantly create competitive powers.

Forzare · 2011-05-22 16:48:06

"you can't allow power to concentrate to one entity"

Isn't that why we have a two party system?

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 16:52:17

two party system my ass. If there's any real difference between Republicans and Democrats i'ts lost on me. besides that still concentrates too much power in the government and not enough in the people. The two party system can die for all I care.

Forzare · 2011-05-22 16:55:19

You'd rather have one party then?

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 17:05:59

i'd rather say "fuck your parties" and have a revolution. I don't like either of the two parties one is a bunch of theocrats/fascists and the other are a bunch of marxists.

IanExMachina · 2011-05-22 17:07:46

So, what about after the revolution?

Also you'd need popular support for a revolution.

I tried having a revolution on my own, but in the end I just had a wank.

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 17:10:09

bring things back to the constitution or seperate the coutnry in to a collection of smaller countries based on various philosiphies (A Christian Theocracy to appeas the right, a Socialist Democracy to appeas the left, a Federal Constitutional Republic for us which will be further divided in to several smaller states based on various schools of anarchist thought)

IanExMachina · 2011-05-22 17:11:54

I have no idea what you mean by bring them back to the constitution could you clarify?

Also what if people didn't easily separate into those groups/refused to revolt?

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 17:14:12

then they're fucked and i'm dead. When I sya bring back to the Constitution I maean actually make our government follow the constitution isntead of making all these violations like selective free speech restr4ictions, gun regulation, heavy regulation of the economy and creation of a welfare-warfare state like we have today. any powers not granted to the federal government in the constitution will not be allowed to them.

Forzare · 2011-05-22 17:15:23

because bloody revolution is always the answer

amirite

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 17:15:59

at this point I see little else to do.

IanExMachina · 2011-05-22 17:16:54

Ok.

Could you give a run through of each point of the constitution and how the new society would adhere to it?

(Never really studied the US constitution, hardly comes up in the UK.)

GLORIOUSLeader · 2011-05-22 17:18:34

And also, methinks you'd want to take a look at a country that's actually, you know, authoritarian before calling for bloody revolution. How is that working out for Libya, again?

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 17:25:13

yeah generally the US Constitution is what gives the government its power so if it's not inthe constitution the federal government can't do it. Article I Section 8 establishes specific powers of congress for example while Article 1 Section 9 places further restrictions on their powers. Article 2 strictly defines and grants the powers of the executive branch of government. while Article III grants and establishes the powers of the Judicial branch. The individual states have a little more leway as the majority of the constitution doesn't apply to them they have their own constitutions. However all states are prohibited from doing specific things by Article I Section 10 and the Amendments to the Constitution. The fact that the federal government does not have any powers not specifically granted to it is also strictly defined in the Bill of Rights 10th amendment "All powers hereby not granted to the federal government by the constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are hereby reserved to the states and the people respectively) so if it's not specifically a federal power it's left up to the states. If the states are restricted from doing something by Article I Section 10 it's left to the people to decide usually individual towns and municipalities.

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 17:28:13

ah yes the Appeal to Worse Problems fallacy. How much has to happen before you decide its time for revolution. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance so that is what I aim for. if we keep complying because it's "not that bad" we'll lose do they have to pack us on to cattle cars before we realize we're being steadily screwed over?

IanExMachina · 2011-05-22 17:29:08

So what if some of these new states after the revolution start up universal welfare and such?

Also I'll go and wiki the US constitution to get this a bit clearer.

GLORIOUSLeader · 2011-05-22 17:36:25

^^ No. The Appeal to World Problems fallacy is "There are starving children in Africa, so what right do you have to complain?"

I am saying that the circumstances for an armed rebellion are necessitated only be the more extreme types of totalitarianisms (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, etc.). A country that is merely corrupt, or imposes a small amount of restrictions on civil liberty, can easily use a peaceful revolution. It can move to being more mobile if the violations of rights continue.

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 17:43:12

I reccomend ShaneDK's Constitution lectures and Michael Badnriks eight hour lecture on the Constitution. Both of them are quite good. and when you say states doyou mean the overstates or the states within my example of the Federal Constitutional Republic? there are several independent states with their own federal rule a Conservative state (Theocracy). a Liberal State (Socialist Democracy) and my personal favorite the Federal Constitutional Republic. in essence splititng America in to three or more parts based on ideological differences in my vision the Federal Constitutional Republic would itself also be divided in to several smaller states and municipalities that run on various anarchit philosiphies (Anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-socialism, anarcho-communism) with the one rule that they must never use violence to enforce their ways ways on others (oh right the states arn't strictly defined on a federal level the territories are set up by the individuals and communities based on individual or collective ownership of property, voluntaryism, mutuallism, freedom of contract, freedom of association, etc etc.) the federal government of the republic would only serve the functions granted to it in the constitution. The president being reduced to more of a unifying figurehead who manages the executive issues. The state governments have most of the power in these situations think of them like small clubs or businesses where you can choose to subscribe to their services for a fee (light tax or high depending on which individual Community/state you are talking about) the differenc is that these communities would be quite small and competing with eachother for citizans like subscribers all working on the basic concept of voluntaryism and freedom of contract. The difference being that since these communities and Micronations are subject mostly to their own laws regarding taxation, ethics, reguolation, et cetera (except for restrictions from Article 1 Section 10 and the Amendments).

IanExMachina · 2011-05-22 18:12:33

I'm honestly not sure how well that would work in practice?

Also what about instances of tribalism where violence may well occur between the different 'states' despite the no violence policy?

Tnu1138 · 2011-05-22 18:19:52

hopefully tha twould be handled by the individual state legal systems and law enforcement but if it is a case of severe violation that is why the Republic is there to handle these sort of circomstnaces between the individual states. I don't know how it would work either honeslty I was thinking about the idea of htis ideal republic and hwere it would stand and my mind started realing with ideas so most of that was on the spot. Heavily inspired by ancient Ireland. If there are conflicts between states or tribes then thes e would most likely not be serious issues and ammount to little more then bar brawls. However if it is serious the systemmay work in such a way that the individual judiciary systems of the Tribes would meet and discuss how to deal wiht it. if that fails it will then ahve to be taken to the Supreme Court to settle the differences between the two tribes.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

The Appeal to Emotion done by some people arguing for state socialism.

Comments