So you never really own anything. That is your system. Congrats.
I'm not sure how you manage to equate my paying of property taxes with not owning my own house. A term and condition of a land purchase within the jurisdiction of a nation is that said nation reserves the right to apply taxes to it, to help pay for the services which the government provides. Another term is that the deed on the land is under your own name, and that the government does not have the right to arbitrarily seize your asset. Your refusal of government-offered services means not that you should be exempt from your owed dues (defined at the point of contract creation), but rather that since you find it acceptable to breach the initial contract you and your nation made at the time of purchase, you are better suited for your own society, and should not be privy to the benefits of the collective which request and appreciate those government-offered services.
Edit: To continue - this may be something that's viable for you, but when you require product or services from within the governed collective, don't be surprised to find out that it costs you four cows (when it should truly cost no more than two), because the government acted in ways which enabled the product/service's creation within its confines at a cost which only one side has incurred. As such, it would want its citizenry to be incentivized to consume from within the nation, and disincentivized from consuming from outside of the nation: in other words, the collective is designed to recognize the value of the collective, and will do what it can to perpetuate that strength, to a disadvantage to you on the outside.
Post edited by benjs on
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Ha, I am looking for a successful society that exists without the threat of force of which you and others, to my knowledge, haven't provided. If your system works so well then make it voluntary. That is what I want, the elimination of the State. Of course people will organize, but it doesn't mean that they will start killing because you aren't paying your fees. That is what we have now.
I'm not sure how what we have today is a society where the people "kill because you aren't paying your fees". Of course we have looming threat of consequence for prescribed actions, but that's specifically to provide a basic level of security so that a society can be perpetuated. If a society doesn't have these threats of consequences, what prevents a person from doing what is best for him or herself, instead of the collective? If I am contemplating seizing your house simply because your house is nicer, I want it, and I can - then why won't I? And if I can align myself with more people who simply don't care like myself, then my group, a small sliver of society, will simply keep seizing more and more power (via what ever currency - land, resources, liquid or non-liquid assets - has value). We will coordinate to offer each other mutually beneficial arrangements to disproportionately take, and within long - what you will have is the same wealth inequality today. As I said before, it's because the catalyst for these inequalities is not government - it is humans themselves.
As for the proposal for a voluntary government - that doesn't work either. If I have the choice of being beholden to the rules of the collective (and not the mandate), why would I opt into checks and balances when they don't align with decisions that will benefit exclusively me? And how will a society be expected to work when I've sworn not to murder you for your land, yet my neighbour hasn't? And why do you figure that people won't start killing because they don't pay their fees (and I assume by those you mean taxes)? And who will pay for the infrastructure when no one pays their fees, and an individual never procures enough funds to maintain the infrastructure which they themselves use? How about education - should each person receive a radically different education on the same topics because they're not regulated? Which surgeon will you go to - Doctor Hibbert who received a Bachelor Degree at "Yale Regulated University", or Doctor Nick who received one at "Ben's Pretty Cool Place to Learn"? What if all you can afford is Doctor Nick? These are just a few things that immediately jump to mind, but I know there are more.
I can't fathom how you can expect a society to organize without conditioning its citizens by providing no consequences for 'bad' actions. This historically has always (again, as far as I know) accompanied the convergence of a society to a governed state, for the simple reason that it is the most effective way to mandate that a populace behave in ways best for the basic safety and security demands of the populace over the individual.
An excellent post, but you are wasting your time, Unsung doesn't debate with bootlicking statists.
Why would I? Clearly you'll never turn your back on your God.
Your society exists because of the people in it, some people do need to be ruled.
Mine can't exist because of your voters.
Currently these mall riots are the rage, those wouldn't happen in my society but they are a plague in yours. These people can't function with civility, nor can they be negotiated with.
I thought I laid out several reasonable scenarios above for why your proposed society can't exist (and it's not because of "our voters"). In spite of the mathematics, science, and empirical evidence showing that acting in favour of the collective over one's self has a greater risk * reward upside potential over time, our fundamental flaws like greed and hedonism have time and time again shown the lengths that humans will go to, to obtain marginal personal gain fraught with risk, over slightly less collective gain with significantly less risk. This is not about my society versus your society - this is about human characteristics which will not change over time, regardless of the organization of a group.
No, certain behaviors can't be negotiated with however a group of like minded will all work together to ensure that their lives are not reduced to requiring a ruling class to extort them.
Those that are excluded are free to start their own society in another location. They can go riot there all they want.
Again - no matter how like-minded you suspect people are, history shows time and time again that a person who can attain power unjustly without ramifications will consistently put their own needs above those of the collective, and do so. If you'd like to exclude people who don't exhibit that behaviour (i.e. introduce ramifications akin to the ones you loathe from government), then your society's population has decreased to zero. These traits which make an ungoverned society untenable are as intrinsic to humans as our ability to breathe and think, and don't come with an off switch (save for a lobotomy).
Edit: Your society's population can exist with a population of one - where the interests of the collective equal the interests of one's self.
unsung thinks he's rick grimes. but there's always going to be a negan.
You guys keep telling me how my society can't work and here I see your society and how it is falling apart.
You guys keep telling me that people can't be trusted, then go and get people to rule over you as if they are the exceptions. Your system is exactly what you are telling me what mine would turn into and I sit here and find it unacceptable to not attempt it given how far gone this current system is.
last I checked, you aren't a sovereign nation unto yourself. you are part of "your society", whether you like it or not.
they don't rule over us. they aren't kings and queens. they are elected representatives that are chosen based on their policy that allign most with the voters. are some on the take? of course they are. but it's the best we've got at the moment. insert unsung's "you are so naive" comment about how our government "really" works. yeah, I know how it "really" works. we all do. it's flawed. but it still functions. your system would die on the vine. or, more likely, would just simply go back to the way it is now.
your utopia of self-rule and everybody is nice to each other (and of course, your "try to take my shit and I'm tougher than you" stance) is simply fantasy. that worked in the land before societies and civilizations. hunter gatherers. but even in those small groups, as in primates still today, there is a system of order and heirarchy. a system of "everyone is equal and has an equal voice" is simply not feasible. that would mean everyone would have to get along, everyone would have to agree, and if they didn't, no one ever got butthurt over it and no one ever tried to rise up against the factions of the group that control everything.
your society only works if every single person on the planet lives alone and interacts with no one else.
Your society only exists through the use, or threat, of force. I have never said that people wouldn't form groups, in fact the opposite.
So let's say I save up enough dollars, post income tax, to buy some property. On said property I use more of my saved dollars to build a house. This house functions completely isolated from city services. I have a well and septic, propane tank, or fire place, and since I have a highly technical background I have purchased a battery system that is charged through your beloved green energy (solar) and have my own power, even a surplus. I have played your game with your rules and secured all necessary permits (government permission slips) to do what I want on my property without creating negative issues for my neighbors.
Do you have a problem with that?
why would anyone have an issue with that? but I also don't see the relevance of it. plenty of people do just as what you described.
Amazingly enough we can VOLUNTARILY create associations with other groups in order to accomplish all of this.
Compound? And you wonder why I don't have much of a desire to discuss this with some of you. Your minds work in such a narrow band that you simply refuse to believe that any other way of life, except this current pathetic system could possibly exist.
But I want to keep on my line here for a moment, going with this route of my "apparently totally self sufficient house" as if that is a bad thing.
untrue. we just don't believe YOUR system could exist. maybe it could exist for an individual, but it would never work for everyone.
Amazingly enough we can VOLUNTARILY create associations with other groups in order to accomplish all of this.
Compound? And you wonder why I don't have much of a desire to discuss this with some of you. Your minds work in such a narrow band that you simply refuse to believe that any other way of life, except this current pathetic system could possibly exist.
But I want to keep on my line here for a moment, going with this route of my "apparently totally self sufficient house" as if that is a bad thing.
So you're objecting to the use of my word "compound"? Why? You seem to be describing your totally self-sufficient house, which by its very nature would require quite an infrastructure. If you are self-sufficient you will need to grow and produce food, clothing, etc. That requires quite a bit of space beyond one single house; thus, my use of the word compound. It's not like it's a dirty word or something.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
So you never really own anything. That is your system. Congrats.
I'm not sure how you manage to equate my paying of property taxes with not owning my own house. A term and condition of a land purchase within the jurisdiction of a nation is that said nation reserves the right to apply taxes to it, to help pay for the services which the government provides. Another term is that the deed on the land is under your own name, and that the government does not have the right to arbitrarily seize your asset. Your refusal of government-offered services means not that you should be exempt from your owed dues (defined at the point of contract creation), but rather that since you find it acceptable to breach the initial contract you and your nation made at the time of purchase, you are better suited for your own society, and should not be privy to the benefits of the collective which request and appreciate those government-offered services.
Edit: To continue - this may be something that's viable for you, but when you require product or services from within the governed collective, don't be surprised to find out that it costs you four cows (when it should truly cost no more than two), because the government acted in ways which enabled the product/service's creation within its confines at a cost which only one side has incurred. As such, it would want its citizenry to be incentivized to consume from within the nation, and disincentivized from consuming from outside of the nation: in other words, the collective is designed to recognize the value of the collective, and will do what it can to perpetuate that strength, to a disadvantage to you on the outside.
Ah, so the King's land so pay the King's ransom. Thanks.
unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.
After reading through this thread, I'm interested in the response too.
Can you find a more valid source instead of zerohedge?
Typical liberal tactic. Can't argue the story so try to discredit the source.
Typical conservative tactic, spreading false information as fact along with citing no valid sources to prove the point. Then complaining when someone questions the source.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
So you never really own anything. That is your system. Congrats.
I'm not sure how you manage to equate my paying of property taxes with not owning my own house. A term and condition of a land purchase within the jurisdiction of a nation is that said nation reserves the right to apply taxes to it, to help pay for the services which the government provides. Another term is that the deed on the land is under your own name, and that the government does not have the right to arbitrarily seize your asset. Your refusal of government-offered services means not that you should be exempt from your owed dues (defined at the point of contract creation), but rather that since you find it acceptable to breach the initial contract you and your nation made at the time of purchase, you are better suited for your own society, and should not be privy to the benefits of the collective which request and appreciate those government-offered services.
Edit: To continue - this may be something that's viable for you, but when you require product or services from within the governed collective, don't be surprised to find out that it costs you four cows (when it should truly cost no more than two), because the government acted in ways which enabled the product/service's creation within its confines at a cost which only one side has incurred. As such, it would want its citizenry to be incentivized to consume from within the nation, and disincentivized from consuming from outside of the nation: in other words, the collective is designed to recognize the value of the collective, and will do what it can to perpetuate that strength, to a disadvantage to you on the outside.
Ah, so the King's land so pay the King's ransom. Thanks.
Yes, because the King extended to you the services he extends to each member of society, and you are bound to this contract by virtue of your existence within the confines of the society. Do you believe that work/effort are not worthy of compensation, or do you believe that your side of contractual obligations should be perpetually ignored?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Unanswered repost: unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Unanswered repost: unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.
Posting for a third time: unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I know I'm weeks behind, but just didn't feel like reading nay of this over the holidays. That description is a little misleading. Many innocent teachers do get accused for various reasons. It would be completely unfair to terminate them without any sort of due process. Same goes for pretty much any public job (and private for that matter if the company doesn't want to get sued for wrongful termination), the employee gets a full paycheck until the investigation is complete and they are found guilty. The difference is any jobs allow their employees to go home, here they are forced to sit in a "rubber room" since they are still paid employees. I just don't get what is so unreasonable about continuing to pay someone before they are found guilty of anything, or before an investigation was complete. Think back to the IRS scandal a few years ago. Would it be fair to terminate any and all IRS employees suspected to be involved in the targeting scandal without the investigation? That would just be ridiculous. No, they get a paycheck while the investigation is ongoing and until there is proof of wrongdoing. And in this case, still kept their jobs....but whatever. Why is it different for teachers? Teachers are people with families who rely on their income, it wouldn't be fair to withhold pay until a proper investigation was complete.
Posting for a third time: unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.
Welcome back, unsung. I'd still love an answer to the above.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Posting for a third time: unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.
Welcome back, unsung. I'd still love an answer to the above.
Would still appreciate an answer.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Posting for a third time: unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.
Welcome back, unsung. I'd still love an answer to the above.
Posting for a third time: unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.
Welcome back, unsung. I'd still love an answer to the above.
Would still appreciate an answer.
Bottom line in todays environment it cannot be done. I concede that.
Not until leftists are in their own separate area.
Posting for a third time: unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.
Welcome back, unsung. I'd still love an answer to the above.
Would still appreciate an answer.
Bottom line in todays environment it cannot be done. I concede that.
Not until leftists are in their own separate area.
Posting for a third time: unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.
Welcome back, unsung. I'd still love an answer to the above.
Would still appreciate an answer.
Bottom line in todays environment it cannot be done. I concede that.
Not until leftists are in their own separate area.
Still convinced the leftys are the big government folks, huh?
Posting for a third time: unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.
Welcome back, unsung. I'd still love an answer to the above.
Would still appreciate an answer.
Bottom line in todays environment it cannot be done. I concede that.
Not until leftists are in their own separate area.
Still convinced the leftys are the big government folks, huh?
Posting for a third time: unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.
Welcome back, unsung. I'd still love an answer to the above.
Would still appreciate an answer.
Bottom line in todays environment it cannot be done. I concede that.
Not until leftists are in their own separate area.
Still convinced the leftys are the big government folks, huh?
Posting for a third time: unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.
Welcome back, unsung. I'd still love an answer to the above.
Would still appreciate an answer.
Bottom line in todays environment it cannot be done. I concede that.
Not until leftists are in their own separate area.
Still convinced the leftys are the big government folks, huh?
Comments
Edit: To continue - this may be something that's viable for you, but when you require product or services from within the governed collective, don't be surprised to find out that it costs you four cows (when it should truly cost no more than two), because the government acted in ways which enabled the product/service's creation within its confines at a cost which only one side has incurred. As such, it would want its citizenry to be incentivized to consume from within the nation, and disincentivized from consuming from outside of the nation: in other words, the collective is designed to recognize the value of the collective, and will do what it can to perpetuate that strength, to a disadvantage to you on the outside.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
we will find a way, we will find our place
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
That description is a little misleading.
Many innocent teachers do get accused for various reasons. It would be completely unfair to terminate them without any sort of due process. Same goes for pretty much any public job (and private for that matter if the company doesn't want to get sued for wrongful termination), the employee gets a full paycheck until the investigation is complete and they are found guilty. The difference is any jobs allow their employees to go home, here they are forced to sit in a "rubber room" since they are still paid employees.
I just don't get what is so unreasonable about continuing to pay someone before they are found guilty of anything, or before an investigation was complete.
Think back to the IRS scandal a few years ago. Would it be fair to terminate any and all IRS employees suspected to be involved in the targeting scandal without the investigation? That would just be ridiculous. No, they get a paycheck while the investigation is ongoing and until there is proof of wrongdoing. And in this case, still kept their jobs....but whatever. Why is it different for teachers?
Teachers are people with families who rely on their income, it wouldn't be fair to withhold pay until a proper investigation was complete.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
There's YOUR answer
Not until leftists are in their own separate area.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com