Rein I try to not waste posts patting people on the back but I have to thank you for posting this insight!Rien wrote: I am not against governments per se, I am however against the initiation of force.
As soon as you hand somebody the "rights" to initiate force, this becomes the sole solution to every problem he/she tries to solve.
The Decline of Violence
Moderator: Global Moderator
Re: The Decline of Violence
Re: The Decline of Violence
doodle wrote:Pointedstick wrote:I don't believe you've ever addressed my argument that we never left the law of the jungle. The government just serves in the role of "most powerful alpha male who will whack anyone who disagrees with him."doodle wrote: Okay, so the solution is to have 7 billion nations? Each person is a nation unto themselves? If I run a red light and kill your grandmother then I will simply claim diplomatic immunity and say that I cant be tried under the laws of your nation?
We could go back to this state of affairs which would be what led to 25% of males dying at the hands of another human. It would be a return to the law of the jungle...plain and simple.
YES! I agree!!!! Except that this alpha male is constitutionally bound. This is delusionShould there be a global government that makes global decisions? That seems to be where you're heading?...YES! This is probably where we will be one day. If an alien race invades the Earth this is what will happen.doodle wrote: Ive already stated that humans like other primates are not genetically programmed to cooperate on a large scale like bees and ants. In order to unite groups of people together there must be established structures and hierarchies. If there were only a few thousand humans roaming around the earth in small familial bands you wouldn't need governments. However, we have 7 billion people and immensely powerful technology. Just as my condo board makes decisions about how to operate our territory, and my local government makes city wide decisions, and my state government makes statewide decisions...there is a national government that also makes decisions.
But regarding the argument that the complex world requires complex government, I see non-government organizations responding to the complexity of our world far better than governments in most cases....They don't have to deal with the same problems that government does. They have different roles. What problems do governments tackle that non-government organizations don't? Why don't the non-government agencies tackle these problems?
Even your condo organization that you like so much isn't actually a government. You like its authority, and its rule-making power, and that's fine, you're entitled. But it's not a government: you're forgetting that you personally granted them this power when you signed a contract with them, and if they violated the provisions of that contract, you could object and sue them. That's the difference. If our governments worked more like condo boards, you probably wouldn't see as much complaining. Even YOU might be pissed if one day your condo association decided one day that it wasn't fair for you to not share your condo and decided to distribute keys to your condo to local homeless people. "It's not in my contract!", you complain? Who cares! They say. Because that's basically how governments behave. Would you tolerate that from your condo association. If not, why not?
The condo represents the earth! The main difference is that the earth is a condo that no one can leave. How can I sign a contract with that situation? I have no choice. And you can sue the government presently. Yes who mediates your lawsuit against the government? The government robs me every week. Can I sue them? Can the murdered iraqis sue it? This is nonsense.
I bet a lot of people thought it was a waste of time to talk about powered fixed-wing flight before 1904, too.doodle wrote: I cant debate like this anymore. You guys are so far outside of reality that I am having trouble even following your line of reasoning. God bless Moda for trying to talk some sense into you guys, but I simply don't have the patience for such nebulous debates. If you want to talk about improving government, I can have that discussion, but its total elimination is so utterly unrealistic that its a waste of time to even discuss.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: The Decline of Violence
This is logically impossible. Any definition of government that applies to actual governments in the real world must include their "claimed right to the initiation of force", as that is the single attribute of governments that makes them distinct from other groups. Therefore, being against the initiation of force requires being against government.Rien wrote:I think this might be a misunderstanding. I am not against governments per se, I am however against the initiation of force. Governments perform many useful functions that would also be necessary when they forego the initiation of force. It is (imo) the claimed right to the initiation of force that makes a government inefficient. This claimed right is used by the government to keep competitors away. I think that a true market for things that are currently run by the government would create a higher efficiency for less money.doodle wrote:If you want to talk about improving government, I can have that discussion, but its total elimination is so utterly unrealistic that its a waste of time to even discuss.
As soon as you hand somebody the "rights" to initiate force, this becomes the sole solution to every problem he/she tries to solve.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Decline of Violence
Pointedstick wrote:I don't believe you've ever addressed my argument that we never left the law of the jungle. The government just serves in the role of "most powerful alpha male who will whack anyone who disagrees with him."doodle wrote: Okay, so the solution is to have 7 billion nations? Each person is a nation unto themselves? If I run a red light and kill your grandmother then I will simply claim diplomatic immunity and say that I cant be tried under the laws of your nation?
We could go back to this state of affairs which would be what led to 25% of males dying at the hands of another human. It would be a return to the law of the jungle...plain and simple.
YES! I agree!!!! Except that this alpha male is constitutionally bound.
Tell that to the Native Americans. Tell that to the African slaves. Tell that to the Jews in 1940s Poland and Germany and the Cambodians under Pol Pot or the Chinese under Mao or the Russians under Stalin or the North Koreans for the last 60 years...
From my perspective, trying to limit the alpha males with pieces of paper hasn't been very effective. It kind of seems like they generally do whatever they want.
I will leave this response without comment as I believe most people reading it will be horrified enough that it needs no refutation.Pointedstick wrote:Should there be a global government that makes global decisions? That seems to be where you're heading?...YES! This is probably where we will be one day. If an alien race invades the Earth this is what will happen.doodle wrote: Ive already stated that humans like other primates are not genetically programmed to cooperate on a large scale like bees and ants. In order to unite groups of people together there must be established structures and hierarchies. If there were only a few thousand humans roaming around the earth in small familial bands you wouldn't need governments. However, we have 7 billion people and immensely powerful technology. Just as my condo board makes decisions about how to operate our territory, and my local government makes city wide decisions, and my state government makes statewide decisions...there is a national government that also makes decisions.
What about your condo association. You've admitted that your private, contractual, non-government condo association does the exact thing that local governments do--apparently very well, if your assessment is any indication.Pointedstick wrote: But regarding the argument that the complex world requires complex government, I see non-government organizations responding to the complexity of our world far better than governments in most cases....They don't have to deal with the same problems that government does. They have different roles.
But it doesn't have to represent the earth, that's my point. The earth has billions of square miles of space on it.Pointedstick wrote: Even your condo organization that you like so much isn't actually a government. You like its authority, and its rule-making power, and that's fine, you're entitled. But it's not a government: you're forgetting that you personally granted them this power when you signed a contract with them, and if they violated the provisions of that contract, you could object and sue them. That's the difference. If our governments worked more like condo boards, you probably wouldn't see as much complaining. Even YOU might be pissed if one day your condo association decided one day that it wasn't fair for you to not share your condo and decided to distribute keys to your condo to local homeless people. "It's not in my contract!", you complain? Who cares! They say. Because that's basically how governments behave. Would you tolerate that from your condo association. If not, why not?
The condo represents the earth! The main difference is that the earth is a condo that no one can leave. How can I sign a contract with that situation? I have no choice. And you can sue the government presently.
Your condo association is important because you are probably 10 feet away from your neighbors. At such a short distance, your actions affect each other a lot more than if you were even 50 feet apart.
I'm actually agreeing with you that physical proximity tends to require more of an intermediating agent. But by bringing up your condo association again and again, you're actually admitting that a private corporation is doing a good job of intermediating the closest possible physical proximity that strangers can live in without sharing the same room. If your condo association is doing a good job of regulating your behavior vis-a-vis your neighbors who live 10 feet away, why do we need a government to regulate behavior between neighbors in houses 50 or 100 feet away? Why not try an HOA-esque "neighborhood association" and butt the government out and see how it goes? If your condo association is any indication, it might go very well.
Last edited by Pointedstick on Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: The Decline of Violence
No force = no rules. In the absence of force we only have suggestions. In a world of completely rational, egoless, pacifistic people that might work. In reality, it doesn't.Rien wrote:I think this might be a misunderstanding. I am not against governments per se, I am however against the initiation of force. Governments perform many useful functions that would also be necessary when they forego the initiation of force. It is (imo) the claimed right to the initiation of force that makes a government inefficient. This claimed right is used by the government to keep competitors away. I think that a true market for things that are currently run by the government would create a higher efficiency for less money.doodle wrote:If you want to talk about improving government, I can have that discussion, but its total elimination is so utterly unrealistic that its a waste of time to even discuss.
As soon as you hand somebody the "rights" to initiate force, this becomes the sole solution to every problem he/she tries to solve.
Get over it, force is part of life and its not going anywhere. Everything you do imposes a force on something or someone else. It is inescapable.
At the end of the day all of these arguments and disagreements stem from misreading our true nature as one universal whole. We are all just stardust formed into myriad unique snowflakes wrapped up and lost in the illusion of forms. Life and death are nothing but an illusion. That is reality :-)
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Decline of Violence
That's fine, if we want to have our own police force, and jai,l and judicial system. I would prefer to farm these out to a local "government"I'm actually agreeing with you that physical proximity tends to require more of an intermediating agent. But by bringing up your condo association again and again, you're actually admitting that a private corporation is doing a good job of intermediating the closest possible physical proximity people can live in without sharing the same room. If your condo association is doing a good job of regulating your behavior vis-a-vis your neighbors who live 10 feet away, why do we need a government to regulate behavior between neighbors in houses 50 or 100 feet away? Why not try an HOA-esque "neighborhood association" and butt the government out and see how it goes? If your condo association is any indication, it might go very well.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Decline of Violence
That is a correct observation. I choose the words I used because they convey my intention. Such a "government without the initiation of force" would need to be called differently. But we lack the words for it.Libertarian666 wrote:This is logically impossible. Any definition of government that applies to actual governments in the real world must include their "claimed right to the initiation of force", as that is the single attribute of governments that makes them distinct from other groups. Therefore, being against the initiation of force requires being against government.Rien wrote:I think this might be a misunderstanding. I am not against governments per se, I am however against the initiation of force. Governments perform many useful functions that would also be necessary when they forego the initiation of force. It is (imo) the claimed right to the initiation of force that makes a government inefficient. This claimed right is used by the government to keep competitors away. I think that a true market for things that are currently run by the government would create a higher efficiency for less money.doodle wrote:If you want to talk about improving government, I can have that discussion, but its total elimination is so utterly unrealistic that its a waste of time to even discuss.
As soon as you hand somebody the "rights" to initiate force, this becomes the sole solution to every problem he/she tries to solve.
Re: The Decline of Violence
That's not my argument. You need to divorce yourself from the false belief that violence is an acceptable solution to problems.doodle wrote: If people were perfectly peaceful and rational creatures, then there would be no need for government.....that seems to be your argument. Am I the only one who thinks that sounds completely absurd and delusional?
This is called "Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology).
"We must have government's to solve the problem of violence!" - This assumes that governments solve violence. Since governments are the ultimate expression of violence they don't solve the problem. The only solution is for people to not choose violence. You aren't solving it with government and can't because government's are organized agressive violence by definition.
Re: The Decline of Violence
Nope. There are rules in my workplace.....they are all agreed to voluntarily.doodle wrote: No force = no rules.
Re: The Decline of Violence
No not quite. There could for example be a universal "law" like "The initiation of force may be met with sufficient force to counter this"doodle wrote:No force = no rules. In the absence of force we only have suggestions.Rien wrote:I think this might be a misunderstanding. I am not against governments per se, I am however against the initiation of force. Governments perform many useful functions that would also be necessary when they forego the initiation of force. It is (imo) the claimed right to the initiation of force that makes a government inefficient. This claimed right is used by the government to keep competitors away. I think that a true market for things that are currently run by the government would create a higher efficiency for less money.doodle wrote:If you want to talk about improving government, I can have that discussion, but its total elimination is so utterly unrealistic that its a waste of time to even discuss.
As soon as you hand somebody the "rights" to initiate force, this becomes the sole solution to every problem he/she tries to solve.
Such a single main "law" would allow for policing, military etc. The implementation of such a law could be done with companies instead of governments.
But yes, there should be a near universal acceptance of that rule. Which is not that hard I think. Its among the first things we learn as childeren.
Re: The Decline of Violence
If the inititation of force is dropped as a solution for people's problems governments will go away of course because that's what they are. I support Reins comments because government is a dragon or a vapor. It doesn't really exist so protesting it or being against it doesn't get anywhere. People will just say "well what's your solution". We should oppose the inititation of force...not government. That's the solution.Libertarian666 wrote:This is logically impossible. Any definition of government that applies to actual governments in the real world must include their "claimed right to the initiation of force", as that is the single attribute of governments that makes them distinct from other groups. Therefore, being against the initiation of force requires being against government.Rien wrote:I think this might be a misunderstanding. I am not against governments per se, I am however against the initiation of force. Governments perform many useful functions that would also be necessary when they forego the initiation of force. It is (imo) the claimed right to the initiation of force that makes a government inefficient. This claimed right is used by the government to keep competitors away. I think that a true market for things that are currently run by the government would create a higher efficiency for less money.doodle wrote:If you want to talk about improving government, I can have that discussion, but its total elimination is so utterly unrealistic that its a waste of time to even discuss.
As soon as you hand somebody the "rights" to initiate force, this becomes the sole solution to every problem he/she tries to solve.
Re: The Decline of Violence
NO! I don't think that governments SOLVE violence... I don't think you can solve "violence" without some radical reprogramming of human nature. We are violent creatures for crying out loud. Is this good? No, its not. But its REALITY!!! Maybe one day that will change, but I wouldn't hold my breath.Kshartle wrote:That's not my argument. You need to divorce yourself from the false belief that violence is an acceptable solution to problems.doodle wrote: If people were perfectly peaceful and rational creatures, then there would be no need for government.....that seems to be your argument. Am I the only one who thinks that sounds completely absurd and delusional?
This is called "Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology).
"We must have government's to solve the problem of violence!" - This assumes that governments solve violence. Since governments are the ultimate expression of violence they don't solve the problem. The only solution is for people to not choose violence. You aren't solving it with government and can't because government's are organized agressive violence by definition.
The problem with your argument is that it isn't based in reality and requires people to all accept that violence doesn't solve problems. Well that is just so nice and easy sounding but for crying out loud that isn't the world we live in.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Decline of Violence
Private organizations respond to rule-breaking mostly with banishment. You break the rules, your lease isn't continued. You do bad things at work, you're fired. Should your employed have the ability to jail you for breaking their rules? That sounds pretty inhumane to me.doodle wrote:That's fine, if we want to have our own police force, and jai,l and judicial system. I would prefer to farm these out to a local "government"I'm actually agreeing with you that physical proximity tends to require more of an intermediating agent. But by bringing up your condo association again and again, you're actually admitting that a private corporation is doing a good job of intermediating the closest possible physical proximity people can live in without sharing the same room. If your condo association is doing a good job of regulating your behavior vis-a-vis your neighbors who live 10 feet away, why do we need a government to regulate behavior between neighbors in houses 50 or 100 feet away? Why not try an HOA-esque "neighborhood association" and butt the government out and see how it goes? If your condo association is any indication, it might go very well.
The only reason we have jails is because governments claim all the land so they can't really force you out; they have to keep you in.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: The Decline of Violence
And if someone doesn't follow them....can they stay or do they have to leave? Oh I forgot, in Kshartle's world everyone is perfect and rational and there are never disagreements.Kshartle wrote:Nope. There are rules in my workplace.....they are all agreed to voluntarily.doodle wrote: No force = no rules.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Decline of Violence
Okay, so if the condo is the earth and we deal with rule breakers by banishing them I guess we will just banish rule breakers from the Earth right? An intergalactic penal colony maybe?Pointedstick wrote:Private organizations respond to rule-breaking mostly with banishment. You break the rules, your lease isn't continued. You do bad things at work, you're fired. Should your employed have the ability to jail you for breaking their rules? That sounds pretty inhumane to me.doodle wrote:That's fine, if we want to have our own police force, and jai,l and judicial system. I would prefer to farm these out to a local "government"I'm actually agreeing with you that physical proximity tends to require more of an intermediating agent. But by bringing up your condo association again and again, you're actually admitting that a private corporation is doing a good job of intermediating the closest possible physical proximity people can live in without sharing the same room. If your condo association is doing a good job of regulating your behavior vis-a-vis your neighbors who live 10 feet away, why do we need a government to regulate behavior between neighbors in houses 50 or 100 feet away? Why not try an HOA-esque "neighborhood association" and butt the government out and see how it goes? If your condo association is any indication, it might go very well.
The only reason we have jails is because governments claim all the land so they can't really force you out; they have to keep you in.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Decline of Violence
Oh...and isnt banishment a form of force? I thought we couldn't use force?
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Decline of Violence
Now we're getting somewhere. If it is impossible to "solve" the problem of violence, we need to think of approaches to minimize it if at all possible. I do not think that centralizing violence in the hands of a small number of people who are granted the power to basically use it will minimizes it at all, because there is no real check on the power of the central organization of violence. I think violence is minimized when each person's violence is held in tension by the possibility of other people's violence. Right now the government holds our violence in check but we can't do the same to the government, It's an unequal relationship where we receive more violence from them than they receive from us, thus making us more battered and dependent and them more powerful.doodle wrote: NO! I don't think that governments SOLVE violence... I don't think you can solve "violence" without some radical reprogramming of human nature. We are violent creatures for crying out loud. Is this good? No, its not. But its REALITY!!! Maybe one day that will change, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: The Decline of Violence
It's called a DRO...Dispute resolution organization. People who cannot settle a serious dispute would pay a third party to mediate and they would accept the ruling. The DRO would only exist if it was good at it's job and widely accepted, that's the free market at work.Rien wrote: That is a correct observation. I choose the words I used because they convey my intention. Such a "government without the initiation of force" would need to be called differently. But we lack the words for it.
If people refuse to accept the DROs ruling and the DRO was respected by all then people would know this person was not to be trusted or associated with. There are a lot more theories about how and why all this would work and humans could put away the initiation of force to solve their problems.
-
- Executive Member
- Posts: 5994
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm
Re: The Decline of Violence
There are different facets of this. One is called a "protective agency", which takes the place of police and/or military forces, and another is the DRO that Kshartle mentions, which takes the place of courts. There are other components, including a major role for insurance companies.Rien wrote:That is a correct observation. I choose the words I used because they convey my intention. Such a "government without the initiation of force" would need to be called differently. But we lack the words for it.Libertarian666 wrote:This is logically impossible. Any definition of government that applies to actual governments in the real world must include their "claimed right to the initiation of force", as that is the single attribute of governments that makes them distinct from other groups. Therefore, being against the initiation of force requires being against government.Rien wrote: I think this might be a misunderstanding. I am not against governments per se, I am however against the initiation of force. Governments perform many useful functions that would also be necessary when they forego the initiation of force. It is (imo) the claimed right to the initiation of force that makes a government inefficient. This claimed right is used by the government to keep competitors away. I think that a true market for things that are currently run by the government would create a higher efficiency for less money.
As soon as you hand somebody the "rights" to initiate force, this becomes the sole solution to every problem he/she tries to solve.
Last edited by Libertarian666 on Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Decline of Violence
But the condo isn't the Earth; I am rejecting your premise. The Earth is huge. There's room for more than one condo association on this planet. Heck, there's room for more than one condo association on each city block.doodle wrote: Okay, so if the condo is the earth and we deal with rule breakers by banishing them I guess we will just banish rule breakers from the Earth right? An intergalactic penal colony maybe?
Yes, banishment represents violence, but it is violence that the victim has already agreed to run the risk of. When you signed the condo association papers, there were clauses stipulating when they can kick you out if you behave badly in certain ways, no? If so, you already agreed to play by the rules, and if you stop doing so, they can invoke that part of the clause and, yes, use violence if you resist. Why is this moral? Because you previously agreed to it!
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: The Decline of Violence
Well, Steven Pinker and his 800 page book disagrees with you. Why don't you take it up with him and write him a letter. I would be very curious how he would respond since he has spent years investigating this topic.Pointedstick wrote:Now we're getting somewhere. If it is impossible to "solve" the problem of violence, we need to think of approaches to minimize it if at all possible. I do not think that centralizing violence in the hands of a small number of people who are granted the power to basically use it will minimizes it at all, because there is no real check on the power of the central organization of violence. I think violence is minimized when each person's violence is held in tension by the possibility of other people's violence. Right now the government holds our violence in check but we can't do the same to the government, It's an unequal relationship where we receive more violence from them than they receive from us, thus making us more battered and dependent and them more powerful.doodle wrote: NO! I don't think that governments SOLVE violence... I don't think you can solve "violence" without some radical reprogramming of human nature. We are violent creatures for crying out loud. Is this good? No, its not. But its REALITY!!! Maybe one day that will change, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal
Re: The Decline of Violence
Why are people going to sit there? How many insane people do you have in your circle?doodle wrote: And if someone doesn't follow them....can they stay or do they have to leave? Oh I forgot, in Kshartle's world everyone is perfect and rational and there are never disagreements.
- Pointedstick
- Executive Member
- Posts: 8864
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm
- Contact:
Re: The Decline of Violence
Clearly I am going to need to read his book before I am able to formulate better responses!doodle wrote:Well, Steven Pinker and his 800 page book disagrees with you. Why don't you take it up with him and write him a letter. I would be very curious how he would respond since he has spent years investigating this topic.Pointedstick wrote:Now we're getting somewhere. If it is impossible to "solve" the problem of violence, we need to think of approaches to minimize it if at all possible. I do not think that centralizing violence in the hands of a small number of people who are granted the power to basically use it will minimizes it at all, because there is no real check on the power of the central organization of violence. I think violence is minimized when each person's violence is held in tension by the possibility of other people's violence. Right now the government holds our violence in check but we can't do the same to the government, It's an unequal relationship where we receive more violence from them than they receive from us, thus making us more battered and dependent and them more powerful.doodle wrote: NO! I don't think that governments SOLVE violence... I don't think you can solve "violence" without some radical reprogramming of human nature. We are violent creatures for crying out loud. Is this good? No, its not. But its REALITY!!! Maybe one day that will change, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Simonjester wrote: i would love to see his research design, based on comments in the thread on the book i would say its a safe bet that the work is sloppy at best.. and the conclusion that it proves government is ending violence by monopolizing violence is pretty questionable if it doesn't count government violence as violence...
Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for limited resources remains a constant.
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
- CEO Nwabudike Morgan
Re: The Decline of Violence
How do you do the "reprogramming"?doodle wrote: NO! I don't think that governments SOLVE violence... I don't think you can solve "violence" without some radical reprogramming of human nature. We are violent creatures for crying out loud. Is this good? No, its not. But its REALITY!!! Maybe one day that will change, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
We choose violence. You're pretending that the initiation of force is gravity or the need to breath air.
Re: The Decline of Violence
I tend to think they are quite similar. The condo is a way of looking at a country in microcosm form.Pointedstick wrote:But the condo isn't the Earth; I am rejecting your premise. The Earth is huge. There's room for more than one condo association on this planet. Heck, there's room for more than one condo association on each city block.doodle wrote: Okay, so if the condo is the earth and we deal with rule breakers by banishing them I guess we will just banish rule breakers from the Earth right? An intergalactic penal colony maybe?
Yes, banishment represents violence, but it is violence that the victim has already agreed to run the risk of. When you signed the condo association papers, there were clauses stipulating when they can kick you out if you behave badly in certain ways, no? If so, you already agreed to play by the rules, and if you stop doing so, they can invoke that part of the clause and, yes, use violence if you resist. Why is this moral? Because you previously agreed to it!
Anyways, so what contract did I sign when I popped out of my mothers womb? I didn't agree to any of this. I didn't agree to the laws of nature. How dare the universe force ME to do anything against MY will! Gravity is oppressive and the laws of physics...who wrote those laws and who is going to watch over the oppressor who made the laws of nature and make sure they don't violate my RIGHTS!!
Last edited by doodle on Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone. - Blaise Pascal