or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Mormon Religion--not necessarily the members--but the religion itself is 100% Racist
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Mormon Religion--not necessarily the members--but the religion itself is 100% Racist - Page 5

post #161 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

What I find interesting is the immediate, knee-jerk dystopian imagination that so many people so quickly jump to in situations like this. It's as if many people lack any ability to imagine how the situation could be as good or even better. It's as if they cannot possibly imagine new, innovative and creative ways the problems they imagine might be solves with State involvement. It's as if they cannot see the plethora of current real-world examples of order, coordination and peaceful collaboration that exist in the private market without (or even in spite of) State control and intervention. That's quite fascinating to me.

 

What fascinates me is your often repeated theme that the detail of this kind of system would just work itself out. That's an interesting concept in the context of a system that has never even arisen. In the absence of centralized government we have had tribalism and feudalism, but not, in recorded history, the Utopian model that you espouse, which suggests that it has not been a preferred branch in sociopolitical evolution. How do you see it ever arising, let alone surviving?

post #162 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

What fascinates me is your often repeated theme that the detail of this kind of system would just work itself out.

 

Well not by magic, but it often appears that way to the superficial analysis. These things DO get worked out. That you don't see that is truly astonishing.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That's an interesting concept in the context of a system that has never even arisen.

 

Bullshit.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In the absence of centralized government we have had tribalism and feudalism

 

With the State we simply have a different form of feudalism.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

...but not, in recorded history, the Utopian model that you espouse...

 

I don't espouse a Utopian model. But whatever. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

...which suggests that it has not been a preferred branch in sociopolitical evolution.

 

True enough. That, of course, doesn't invalidate the feasibility of it.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

How do you see it ever arising, let alone surviving?

 

Well, it would have to begin with education and persuasion.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #163 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That's an interesting concept in the context of a system that has never even arisen.

 

Bullshit.

 

Should I take that as a compact way of saying that you have some examples that show that it has?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

...which suggests that it has not been a preferred branch in sociopolitical evolution.

 

True enough. That, of course, doesn't invalidate the feasibility of it.

 

Or should I take that to mean that you agree that it hasn't?

post #164 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Should I take that as a compact way of saying that you have some examples that show that it has?

 

Should I take that as a way of saying that you're playing dumb here?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Or should I take that to mean that you agree that it hasn't?

 

A society of that purest implementation of freedom?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #165 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Should I take that as a compact way of saying that you have some examples that show that it has?

 

Should I take that as a way of saying that you're playing dumb here?

 

No, you should take it as saying that your answer was rude, unhelpful and did not refute my observation.

post #166 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Perhaps not in that paragraph, but I thought I did in these:

 

OK.

 

 


 

 

 

Quote:
Roads: Can (and should) be private. No need for the State there. Road operators would deal with the appropriate rules (e.g., speed limits) within that context.

 

We've been through this one before.  I think the State can be of help here, particularly when we are dealing with coordinating large transportation networks.  The interstate highway system is a perfect example.  It never would have existed without the public sector.  There would be no profit incentive for such a large infrastructure project.  Ultimately we disagree on the role of government...I think that maintaining and supporting infrastructure is a perfectly legitimate function.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Environmental: Ultimately a private property regime here would be best, however, absent this some environmental regulations may be necessary because private property boundaries are difficult to police.

 

I agree, and pollution goes beyond those boundaries.  

 

 

 

Quote:
Financial: No. The market can handle this. But first the Fed needs to end and we need to have a private market in money and the banking cartel needs to end...no more State-protected banks.

 

I don't agree with completely unregulated financial markets.  Some regulation is necessary.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
I believe I've said that it probably won't happen given the current ideological, intellectual and educational (not to mention emotional and rational) state of a large part of the population. Meaning that I don't see us getting there any time soon. The first order of business is to educate, inform and enlighten people. The first step is an intellectual revolution. Freedom can't be forced on people, they have to want it, they have to understand it and when it is being abridged. A more clear understanding of the State and what it really is and does is part of this. Perhaps then socially, politically, culturally, etc. we can evolve to a new manner of social organization that does not include the State and its requisite use of force.

 

Understood, though we differ again on how far this should go.  

 

 

 

Quote:
I wasn't arguing against outlawing them because they were unlikely to occur. I was arguing against them because it would be an infringement upon the rights of consenting adults by the State. What I'm also saying is that: a) the probability of these things happening doesn't matter in that argument, and b) the probability of these things happening is low even without laws prohibiting them.

 

So any individual has the RIGHT to legal marriage to any other individual, or even group of individuals?  As for likelihood, you seem to be backpedaling.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #167 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We've been through this one before.

 

Yes we have.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I think the State can be of help here, particularly when we are dealing with coordinating large transportation networks.

 

And I don't think it is necessary.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The interstate highway system is a perfect example.  It never would have existed without the public sector.  There would be no profit incentive for such a large infrastructure project.

 

That's pure speculation.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Ultimately we disagree on the role of government...I think that maintaining and supporting infrastructure is a perfectly legitimate function.

 

Yes we do disagree.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't agree with completely unregulated financial markets.  Some regulation is necessary.

 

Like what? Why?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So any individual has the RIGHT to legal marriage to any other individual, or even group of individuals?

 

Yes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As for likelihood, you seem to be backpedaling.  

 

I don't see how. I think you're simply misunderstanding me. I consider likelihood low but irrelevant.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Mormon Religion--not necessarily the members--but the religion itself is 100% Racist