INTENSITY²
Start here => Free For ALL => Topic started by: Queen Victoria on November 10, 2012, 04:46:30 PM
-
Where should the line be between these? Some things to consider:
Does someone have the right to buy harmful items/goods, even if it will have a bad effect on him/her?
Should there be a military draft?
Is paying a tax an assault on personal liberty?
How much free speech should there be before government intervenes, e.g. denying the Holocaust, racist language.
Should there be mandatory schooling, even if the student doesn't want it?
Just a few thoughts I came up with, please don't feel limited to these areas.
-
Where should the line be between these? Some things to consider:
Does someone have the right to buy harmful items/goods, even if it will have a bad effect on him/her?
Yes, it's their own body. No one else owns it.
Should there be a military draft?
No.
Is paying a tax an assault on personal liberty?
Yes. Tax is theft, robbery, blackmail.
How much free speech should there be before government intervenes, e.g. denying the Holocaust, racist language.
You should be allowed to say anything that isn't an outright threat.
Should there be mandatory schooling, even if the student doesn't want it?
No.
Just a few thoughts I came up with, please don't feel limited to these areas.
There should of course be no governments at all. A government is a mafia under the hypocritical guise of being there for the ones that it oppresses.
-
How much free speech should there be before government intervenes, e.g. denying the Holocaust, racist language.
I kind a like how that is being addressed here. Offensive things can be said in comedy, in art, in debates, but, when they are used to spread and organise hatred, they are forbidden. I know the line is thin, but, it gives a freedom to debate and such, where it also gives an option to act against it when it is used in a damaging way. Now it is possible to discuss risk groups in crime or illnesses, without being prosecuted for racism, sexism or what ever.
Does someone have the right to buy harmful items/goods, even if it will have a bad effect on him/her?
Depends, in general, yes. In particular, no, not always.
Everything can be harmful, when used wrong. A rope can be used for skipping and for hanging oneself. Selling ropes with noose and all, for hanging, that should not be possible, IMO.
Is paying a tax an assault on personal liberty?
Yes, it is, but so are the things paid with the income of said taxes, and most people do see things paid with said taxes as a right, and, when it comes to roads and such, as something enhancing their liberty. So, it is an assault on personal liberty, but, it is not a bad thing per se.
-
Should there be mandatory schooling, even if the student doesn't want it?
Yes, because without any schooling, people are left disabled in a society that is highly literate. It is the duty of society, and of parents, to make it possible for people to live in the society.
-
Lit, what is government? My simplistic definition is giving someone authority over some parts of your life. Government includes courts, roads, sanitation, etc.
If General Foods decided to put arsenic in their corn, how would you receive compensation without courts? Without out courts, how do you think a weak person/family would be able to manage against the bullies of the world (not that it's such a great system, but it is a system.)
From past history, someone has to keep up the roads, levees, organize the nightsoil disposition, etc. There is no way that Holland and the Mississippi River could have been contained without government.
-
Lit, what is government? My simplistic definition is giving someone authority over some parts of your life. Government includes courts, roads, sanitation, etc.
If General Foods decided to put arsenic in their corn, how would you receive compensation without courts? Without out courts, how do you think a weak person/family would be able to manage against the bullies of the world (not that it's such a great system, but it is a system.)
From past history, someone has to keep up the roads, levees, organize the nightsoil disposition, etc. There is no way that Holland and the Mississippi River could have been contained without government.
:laugh:
And even the Norsemen could not have sailed the oceans without a firm hierarchy and some kind of governing.
-
Lit, what is government? My simplistic definition is giving someone authority over some parts of your life. Government includes courts, roads, sanitation, etc.
If General Foods decided to put arsenic in their corn, how would you receive compensation without courts? Without out courts, how do you think a weak person/family would be able to manage against the bullies of the world (not that it's such a great system, but it is a system.)
From past history, someone has to keep up the roads, levees, organize the nightsoil disposition, etc. There is no way that Holland and the Mississippi River could have been contained without government.
What's wrong is that a government is an hierarchy forced on people by violence. You could very well have a society with rules and courts, but it should be totally voluntarily.
How the good guys should defend themselves against the bad guys? Like in the Old West: everyone is armed and prepared to defend themselves. In most of Europe and even parts of the US the state monopoly on violence is a hindrance for people to defend themselves. If I kill a burglar raping my mum in her own bedroom, I risk jail in this country. Absolutely intolerable.
-
Lit, what is government? My simplistic definition is giving someone authority over some parts of your life. Government includes courts, roads, sanitation, etc.
If General Foods decided to put arsenic in their corn, how would you receive compensation without courts? Without out courts, how do you think a weak person/family would be able to manage against the bullies of the world (not that it's such a great system, but it is a system.)
From past history, someone has to keep up the roads, levees, organize the nightsoil disposition, etc. There is no way that Holland and the Mississippi River could have been contained without government.
:laugh:
And even the Norsemen could not have sailed the oceans without a firm hierarchy and some kind of governing.
The :viking: were anarchists.
-
Lit, what is government? My simplistic definition is giving someone authority over some parts of your life. Government includes courts, roads, sanitation, etc.
If General Foods decided to put arsenic in their corn, how would you receive compensation without courts? Without out courts, how do you think a weak person/family would be able to manage against the bullies of the world (not that it's such a great system, but it is a system.)
From past history, someone has to keep up the roads, levees, organize the nightsoil disposition, etc. There is no way that Holland and the Mississippi River could have been contained without government.
What's wrong is that a government is an hierarchy forced on people by violence. You could very well have a society with rules and courts, but it should be totally voluntarily.
How the good guys should defend themselves against the bad guys? Like in the Old West: everyone is armed and prepared to defend themselves. In most of Europe and even parts of the US the state monopoly on violence is a hindrance for people to defend themselves. If I kill a burglar raping my mum in her own bedroom, I risk jail in this country. Absolutely intolerable.
So, because there are flaws in the legislation, the whole concept of government is wrong? There is nothing in this world without flaws.
-
Does someone have the right to buy harmful items/goods, even if it will have a bad effect on him/her?
Yes
Should there be a military draft?
No
Is paying a tax an assault on personal liberty?
No
How much free speech should there be before government intervenes, e.g. denying the Holocaust, racist language.
Difficult one. I support free speech, but there are cases where you draw a line. Cant be arsed writing out a big response tho
Should there be mandatory schooling, even if the student doesn't want it?
Yes
-
Lit, what is government? My simplistic definition is giving someone authority over some parts of your life. Government includes courts, roads, sanitation, etc.
If General Foods decided to put arsenic in their corn, how would you receive compensation without courts? Without out courts, how do you think a weak person/family would be able to manage against the bullies of the world (not that it's such a great system, but it is a system.)
From past history, someone has to keep up the roads, levees, organize the nightsoil disposition, etc. There is no way that Holland and the Mississippi River could have been contained without government.
What's wrong is that a government is an hierarchy forced on people by violence. You could very well have a society with rules and courts, but it should be totally voluntarily.
How the good guys should defend themselves against the bad guys? Like in the Old West: everyone is armed and prepared to defend themselves. In most of Europe and even parts of the US the state monopoly on violence is a hindrance for people to defend themselves. If I kill a burglar raping my mum in her own bedroom, I risk jail in this country. Absolutely intolerable.
So, because there are flaws in the legislation, the whole concept of government is wrong? There is nothing in this world without flaws.
No, it's fundamentally wrong that someone should rule adult persons by their sound minds without their consent. I'm very surpised that that thought doesn't even seem to have struck most people at least once or twice in their lives.
-
Lit, what is government? My simplistic definition is giving someone authority over some parts of your life. Government includes courts, roads, sanitation, etc.
If General Foods decided to put arsenic in their corn, how would you receive compensation without courts? Without out courts, how do you think a weak person/family would be able to manage against the bullies of the world (not that it's such a great system, but it is a system.)
From past history, someone has to keep up the roads, levees, organize the nightsoil disposition, etc. There is no way that Holland and the Mississippi River could have been contained without government.
What's wrong is that a government is an hierarchy forced on people by violence. You could very well have a society with rules and courts, but it should be totally voluntarily.
How the good guys should defend themselves against the bad guys? Like in the Old West: everyone is armed and prepared to defend themselves. In most of Europe and even parts of the US the state monopoly on violence is a hindrance for people to defend themselves. If I kill a burglar raping my mum in her own bedroom, I risk jail in this country. Absolutely intolerable.
So, because there are flaws in the legislation, the whole concept of government is wrong? There is nothing in this world without flaws.
No, it's fundamentally wrong that someone should rule adult persons by their sound minds without their consent. I'm very surpised that that thought doesn't even seem to have struck most people at least once or twice in their lives.
A group of people will, even without official rules, form a group with people who lead, and people who follow. If said system is regulated, it is possible to claim a right, when something goes wrong. Not that it always works, but, the option is there. Without official rules, it would require very strong social skills to claim a right, when things go wrong.
-
Lit, what is government? My simplistic definition is giving someone authority over some parts of your life. Government includes courts, roads, sanitation, etc.
If General Foods decided to put arsenic in their corn, how would you receive compensation without courts? Without out courts, how do you think a weak person/family would be able to manage against the bullies of the world (not that it's such a great system, but it is a system.)
From past history, someone has to keep up the roads, levees, organize the nightsoil disposition, etc. There is no way that Holland and the Mississippi River could have been contained without government.
What's wrong is that a government is an hierarchy forced on people by violence. You could very well have a society with rules and courts, but it should be totally voluntarily.
How the good guys should defend themselves against the bad guys? Like in the Old West: everyone is armed and prepared to defend themselves. In most of Europe and even parts of the US the state monopoly on violence is a hindrance for people to defend themselves. If I kill a burglar raping my mum in her own bedroom, I risk jail in this country. Absolutely intolerable.
So, because there are flaws in the legislation, the whole concept of government is wrong? There is nothing in this world without flaws.
No, it's fundamentally wrong that someone should rule adult persons by their sound minds without their consent. I'm very surpised that that thought doesn't even seem to have struck most people at least once or twice in their lives.
A group of people will, even without official rules, form a group with people who lead, and people who follow. If said system is regulated, it is possible to claim a right, when something goes wrong. Not that it always works, but, the option is there. Without official rules, it would require very strong social skills to claim a right, when things go wrong.
You must learn the followers to stop being followers. It's the "follower mentality" that creates everything that is wrong. Sapere aude!
-
Lit, what is government? My simplistic definition is giving someone authority over some parts of your life. Government includes courts, roads, sanitation, etc.
If General Foods decided to put arsenic in their corn, how would you receive compensation without courts? Without out courts, how do you think a weak person/family would be able to manage against the bullies of the world (not that it's such a great system, but it is a system.)
From past history, someone has to keep up the roads, levees, organize the nightsoil disposition, etc. There is no way that Holland and the Mississippi River could have been contained without government.
What's wrong is that a government is an hierarchy forced on people by violence. You could very well have a society with rules and courts, but it should be totally voluntarily.
How the good guys should defend themselves against the bad guys? Like in the Old West: everyone is armed and prepared to defend themselves. In most of Europe and even parts of the US the state monopoly on violence is a hindrance for people to defend themselves. If I kill a burglar raping my mum in her own bedroom, I risk jail in this country. Absolutely intolerable.
So, because there are flaws in the legislation, the whole concept of government is wrong? There is nothing in this world without flaws.
No, it's fundamentally wrong that someone should rule adult persons by their sound minds without their consent. I'm very surpised that that thought doesn't even seem to have struck most people at least once or twice in their lives.
A group of people will, even without official rules, form a group with people who lead, and people who follow. If said system is regulated, it is possible to claim a right, when something goes wrong. Not that it always works, but, the option is there. Without official rules, it would require very strong social skills to claim a right, when things go wrong.
You must learn the followers to stop being followers. It's the "follower mentality" that creates everything that is wrong. Sapere aude!
Doesn't work, love.
Even with something simple, as rowing a boat, someone has to lead in the rhythm of the oars. And, others will follow.
Doesn't mean that the one leading the rhythm should also be the one leading the kitchen.
-
Harmful things can not be avoided, many things that can be used responsibly can also be used in a harmful way such as alcohol why punish the responsible ones
A draft seems to just collect a lot of people who don't want to be doing what ever it is they were drafted for and tends not to work out very well.
As long as your are not inciting people to harm others or just out right harassing or threatening with intent to harm someone free speech should not be restricted
Education to a certain level should be mandatory generally speaking but that could be in a school or home schooled.
I do not feel that taxes are a form of theft to a point but feel that point has been reached and surpassed. I am not an anarchist for the reason that it would never work generally speaking, things would boil down to might makes right. Sure you could get it to work for awhile if you could select who you were dealing with and could trust they would do thing ethically and fairly but things don't work that way in the real world. I would be very much in favor of a smaller less bureaucratic government that was less intrusive into the daily lives of it's citizens.
-
Does someone have the right to buy harmful items/goods, even if it will have a bad effect on him/her?
Yes, some people self abuse and have no common sense. You can limit one thing but they'll find something else usually to replace it. Everything can be harmful, I think it would be hard to draw the line after awhile.
Should there be a military draft?
No. Not unless the sons and daughters of those in charge of the mess are first in line and receive the same treatment as the rest. Not going to happen.
Is paying a tax an assault on personal liberty?
Yes and no. But all these taxes are starting to put a damper on how much liberty I can actually afford to have anymore.
How much free speech should there be before government intervenes, e.g. denying the Holocaust, racist language.
I believe in free speech unless they can't shut up about it and are making a complete nuisance of themselves and in turn hindering the free speech of others.
Should there be mandatory schooling, even if the student doesn't want it?
Yes, to a certain grade level, with home schooling available. Only took mine 3 days of kindergarten before he was ready to "drop out". :LOL: You need a certain level of knowledge to function in the world.
-
Since Scrap left, I'm the only freedom loving person here :bigcry:
-
Should there be mandatory schooling, even if the student doesn't want it?
Yes, because without any schooling, people are left disabled in a society that is highly literate. It is the duty of society, and of parents, to make it possible for people to live in the society.
Agreed. At least basic schooling should be mandatory--kids that age should not be allowed to decide.
-
Lit, what is government? My simplistic definition is giving someone authority over some parts of your life. Government includes courts, roads, sanitation, etc.
If General Foods decided to put arsenic in their corn, how would you receive compensation without courts? Without out courts, how do you think a weak person/family would be able to manage against the bullies of the world (not that it's such a great system, but it is a system.)
From past history, someone has to keep up the roads, levees, organize the nightsoil disposition, etc. There is no way that Holland and the Mississippi River could have been contained without government.
What's wrong is that a government is an hierarchy forced on people by violence. You could very well have a society with rules and courts, but it should be totally voluntarily.
How the good guys should defend themselves against the bad guys? Like in the Old West: everyone is armed and prepared to defend themselves. In most of Europe and even parts of the US the state monopoly on violence is a hindrance for people to defend themselves. If I kill a burglar raping my mum in her own bedroom, I risk jail in this country. Absolutely intolerable.
So, because there are flaws in the legislation, the whole concept of government is wrong? There is nothing in this world without flaws.
No, it's fundamentally wrong that someone should rule adult persons by their sound minds without their consent. I'm very surpised that that thought doesn't even seem to have struck most people at least once or twice in their lives.
A group of people will, even without official rules, form a group with people who lead, and people who follow. If said system is regulated, it is possible to claim a right, when something goes wrong. Not that it always works, but, the option is there. Without official rules, it would require very strong social skills to claim a right, when things go wrong.
Such a society would always favour only the strongest. Less fortunate individuals would be marginalised at best. But societies would always form because it is in or nature to live in flocks.
-
Since Scrap left, I'm the only freedom loving person here :bigcry:
Awwww, shut up. :zoinks: ;)
-
But seriously: you mean the current system doesn't favour the strongest? If a billionaire and a bum are both murdered, do the cops put the same effort into solving both cases? Of course not.
When the Swedish prime minister was murdered, they even changed the law in 2011, so that the time of prosecution would not end 25 years after the murder was committed, which has always before been the case in Sweden.
-
But seriously: you mean the current system doesn't favour the strongest? If a billionaire and a bum are both murdered, do the cops put the same effort into solving both cases? Of course not.
Seriously, where did I say that the current system does not favour the strongest? Of course it does, but not nearly as much as your anarchist society would. There is no way such a society would even begin to support the rights of a minority unless that minority had something to offer. And let's face it, most minorities don't.
When the Swedish prime minister was murdered, they even changed the law in 2011, so that the time of prosecution would not end 25 years after the murder was committed, which has always before been the case in Sweden.
And they did the right thing, but for the wrong reason.
-
We should buy some land somewhere and start an Aspie anarchist society! :orly: :viking::arrr:
-
Where should the line be between these? Some things to consider:
Does someone have the right to buy harmful items/goods, even if it will have a bad effect on him/her?
Should there be a military draft?
Is paying a tax an assault on personal liberty?
How much free speech should there be before government intervenes, e.g. denying the Holocaust, racist language.
Should there be mandatory schooling, even if the student doesn't want it?
Just a few thoughts I came up with, please don't feel limited to these areas.
Yes, a story about a mother buying raw milk comes to mind, but I would have to find it.
No, unless WWIII is about to happen.
Governments need taxes to function, but it does not need to be ridiculous
Free speech is pretty much absolute in my book.
As long as school does not cause psychological damage, children should go.
-
Hmmm. I suppose i need time to think about most of it. The one thing i am damn sure about is i believe i have the absolute right to buy, acquire, cultivate whatever substances i want to put in my body. Food, drugs, alcohol, medicine etc. If i want to fill my body with junk - MY CHOICE...or at least it should be.
Apart from illegal drugs that the government have decided i shouldn't have, one thing i get annoyed about is the fact that i can't just go and buy antibiotics or other meds. An example of this is back in the time when i used to get tonsillitis several times a year. If i felt it coming on and it was Saturday or Sunday then i would be fucked because i would have to wait for a doctor to give me a piece of paper saying i am ALLOWED to get these antibiotics. Other times i have had to suffer from prolonged agony due to an abscess while waiting to see a dentist. I resent having to do this because i know what i damn well need.
As for the rest....i will answer later, after giving it some thought. Needless to say i am not an anarchist but i am getting tired of big brother taking charge of my life. I get annoyed about the talk of ID cards - well i won't carry one around. No, i got nothing to hide. Just on principal. Government can just go and kiss my fat ass :grrr: (which incidentally is tattooed anyway therefore i am easily identifiable) :orly:
-
Where should the line be between these? Some things to consider:
Does someone have the right to buy harmful items/goods, even if it will have a bad effect on him/her?
Should there be a military draft?
Is paying a tax an assault on personal liberty?
How much free speech should there be before government intervenes, e.g. denying the Holocaust, racist language.
Should there be mandatory schooling, even if the student doesn't want it?
Just a few thoughts I came up with, please don't feel limited to these areas.
Yes
If needed
No
The current US laws are fine. Anything short of impeding another's personal liberty or safety.
Yes