"that government holds society together"
"something else will fill the same role"
These are just statements that people BELIEVE.
Well you've yet to present any evidence as to why government is fundamentally and not simply circumstantially flawed. So, I don't yet feel compelled to go out of my way to support these statements yet.
@DJK3654
"Someone has to."
And that would be me and you, and the rest of our neighbors. People can work together without government.
"So who determines the law then and who enforces it? "
There is common law which I am happy to live by. No theft, fraud or Assault. A security company that is paid by insurance would enforce it. You have a video camera insurance goes down, you have a gun insurance goes down, you have a big fence and a dog insurance goes down.
"How can ensure that this group acts in the common interest?"
Insurance, stop paying them and they will fall.
" It would sure be convenient if you had some sort of centralized body with a democratic basis, to manage such regulations of society"
And who regulates them... ? What if they people become uneducated and democracy fails (much like now).
@DJK3654
"Someone has to."
And that would be me and you, and the rest of our neighbors. People can work together without government.
Giving everyone guns only makes it easier for your government replacement system to collapse.
"So who determines the law then and who enforces it? "
There is common law which I am happy to live by. No theft, fraud or Assault.
Who determines what is common law?
"How can ensure that this group acts in the common interest?"
Insurance, stop paying them and they will fall.
How can you trust that the public will act in common interest? Democracy bypasses this, each person can act entirely selfishly, but because of the equality of it, it ends up being in the common interest. This doesn't have that equality- certain people will be able to pay more for protection than others, and certain people will spend more of what they have on protection than others. The more money you make in this society, the more you can take advantage of the security company, the more you can take advantage of the security company, the more money you can make. How do you stop this vicious circle?
" It would sure be convenient if you had some sort of centralized body with a democratic basis, to manage such regulations of society"
And who regulates them... ? What if they people become uneducated and democracy fails (much like now).
The body (government) is regulated by democracy. There can be no further regulation, there must be an end to the regression, and the equally weighted opinions of the public is a very good place to end, in part because it's inherently very sustainable due to it's majority power basis.
@DJK3654
"Giving everyone guns only makes it easier for your government replacement system to collapse."
How so? This sounds like a belief.
"Who determines what is common law?"
It's been determined.
"the more you can take advantage of the security company"
How so? You are paying to insurance not the security company.
How is the current system dealing with corrupt cops?
In fact the US government used the CIA to bring drugs into America. Whistle blowers like Micheal Ruppert have come forth... but people don't believe him anyways. http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/2014/q2/rip-michael-c-ruppert-the-cop-that-busted-the-cia/
"The body (government) is regulated by democracy."
Not with an uneducated public. Which I think the government is making dumber for more control. E.G. letting the stupid bread more.
"So, I don't yet feel compelled to go out of my way to support these statements yet."
Cool we will leave them as beliefs.
So Obama bombs a hospital...
Where is his trial? Is this democracy looking after the government? LOL!!
Is democracy stopping these illegal wars? No!
"So who determines the law then and who enforces it? "
There is common law which I am happy to live by. No theft, fraud or Assault. A security company that is paid by insurance would enforce it. You have a video camera insurance goes down, you have a gun insurance goes down, you have a big fence and a dog insurance goes down.
Please clarify what you mean by "common law", because the term as most people would use it requires the scaffolding of a government in order to function properly.
@DJK3654
"Giving everyone guns only makes it easier for your government replacement system to collapse."
How so?
It makes guns harder to be used to enforce rules, because everyone has them.
"Who determines what is common law?"
It's been determined.
Who? Everyone? I don't think so.
Obviously, you must be referring to only a certain section of people. Who decided they were right? You? But you are one of them aren't you?
We are getting on one of the key problems you'll need to address to make your ideas work, how is it determined how society is structured without democratic government?
"the more you can take advantage of the security company"
How so? You are paying to insurance not the security company.
How does the whole thing work then? Need more detail here.
How is the current system dealing with corrupt cops?
Irrelevant. The current system is not the ultimate representative of the idea of government in general.
"The body (government) is regulated by democracy."
Not with an uneducated public.
An uneducated public means not very good regulation, not no regulation.
"So, I don't yet feel compelled to go out of my way to support these statements yet."
Cool we will leave them as beliefs.
So this is the part you respond to in that post? The open request for a more developed argument doesn't strike you as something to be addressed?
Is democracy stopping these illegal wars? No!
Are you finished rehashing the same moral objections to government actions as if it advances this discussion? I've addressed all such moral objections with the response that they must be demonstrated to be fundamental to government else they aren't really relevant, and you've yet to either provide a response that challenges the notion that you must demonstrate this fundamental connection or provided a case for one. Until you do either of these, you are not addressing my argument.
The next step is to demonstrate that society without government has less fundamental flaws than society with government. Then you will have a case for why government should be abolished, and then we can have a much more productive debate.
What I am arguing now is that governments are allowing the fat/lazy and stupid to out produce the fitter smarter people.
E.g. The Australian government was giving ~$5k to people that had a baby. The stupid people were having babies to get the money even though they couldn't afford to have a baby on their own, they would normally spend the money on drugs or waste it in some silly way.
This premise is innately flawed. For for your premise to be true you must prove that low income people who receive these tax benefits are inherently fat and lazy and they are low income because they are fat and lazy. Until you can prove your premise it is not a valid argument.
@DJK3654
"Someone has to."
And that would be me and you, and the rest of our neighbors. People can work together without government.
What do you do when people cannot come to an agreement? Some people are just simply incapable of listening to the logic of others and can not be reconciled with properly without outside intervention. Who determines the common good in this situation.
"How can ensure that this group acts in the common interest?"
Insurance, stop paying them and they will fall.
A centralized group that holds all of the power. Sounds like you've got a problem for the common good there if they decide their interests do not align with the common person's interests.
" It would sure be convenient if you had some sort of centralized body with a democratic basis, to manage such regulations of society"
And who regulates them... ? What if they people become uneducated and democracy fails (much like now).
Previously I have seen you advocate against government run education despite almost certainly having received one yourself. How do you reconcile this inconsistency?
@DJK3654
"Giving everyone guns only makes it easier for your government replacement system to collapse."
How so? This sounds like a belief.
You keep saying X thing is a belief without clarifying what you mean by that statement. Perhaps we can all get a better understanding of what you mean if you took a moment to elaborate on this statement you keep making.
"Who determines what is common law?"
It's been determined.
It would appear that it is not fully determined, since we can not come to an agreement about it on an internet forum. "Common law" might seem like an easy thing to pin down to you but moral and social guidelines are not perfectly consistent across all cultures.
How is the current system dealing with corrupt cops?
When they are discovered they are fired and often convicted of crimes. Please do not believe everything you read about America, it is not all that bad.
"The body (government) is regulated by democracy."
Not with an uneducated public. Which I think the government is making dumber for more control. E.G. letting the stupid bread more.
But you advocate against public education. So which is it. Should the public be educated or not?
So Obama bombs a hospital...
Where is his trial? Is this democracy looking after the government? LOL!!
Is democracy stopping these illegal wars? No!
Obama bombed a hospital? Citation please. We may not agree with every decision that our government makes and I certainly do not think that our recent wars were necessary or a good idea but they were sanctioned by the U.N. so calling them illegal is simply silly.
@dox
You BELIEVE that without government that 'Massive weapons and power hungry organizations' will take over. You haven't explained how they will take over or... and its the same with:
"that government holds society together"
Where do you think governments come from?
Kings were really rich people that made everyone do what they want. They declared themselves rulers. We labeled this system of control a "monarchy". That's a government.
Typh00n, how do you believe the first governments formed? How did rich, powerful organizations morph from perfectly fine private sectors into evil governments?
@Lithl
"Please clarify what you mean by "common law", because the term as most people would use it requires the scaffolding of a government in order to function properly."
Was developed by the Romans 400 B.C. It's the basis of much of the other laws.
Could we have a government that doesn't have leaders? Or one with ~7 Billion leaders.
@DJK3654
"It makes guns harder to be used to enforce rules, because everyone has them."
Why? What if everyone was enforcing the rules?
"How does the whole thing work then? Need more detail here."
You pay an insurance company. Then the out source security or detective depending on the crime, if they don't solve it they don't get paid.
"Irrelevant. The current system is not the ultimate representative of the idea of government in general."
You are saying that in an/my Anarchic society you will be able to take advantage of the security force. So whats the difference to comparing it with one now?
"So this is the part you respond to in that post?"
-"that government holds society together"
-"something else will fill the same role"
You believe that government holds society together, why can't this be done by everyone?
I guess if governments did collapse, everyone will fill that roll (which would be my ideal, everyone looking after each other, well at least those in a community, and communities can be connected via internet).
"Are you finished rehashing the same moral objections to government actions as if it advances this discussion?"
When war stops I will be.
"The next step is to demonstrate that society without government has less fundamental flaws than society with government."
Well they kill less people, that is a great start!!
@dox
"These conditions do not fully protect you from disease."
Either do vaccines. But yeah I'll use my immune system too!
"What do you do when people cannot come to an agreement?"
Judge
"A centralized group that holds all of the power."
No there will be competition in a free market.
"Previously I have seen you advocate against government run education despite almost certainly having received one yourself. How do you reconcile this inconsistency?"
Alright I'll agree with government run education I am against. But just because I got one doesn't mean I can't be against it. It would be like going to war, then after being against war!
"You keep saying X thing is a belief without clarifying what you mean by that statement."
It's a statement that people belief without evidence or support.
"but moral and social guidelines are not perfectly consistent across all cultures."
CULTures means inequality, I guess in an Anarchic or Communist World cultures would have to be broken down.
I don't see culture as a good thing.
"When they are discovered they are fired and often convicted of crimes."
They are treated differently than normal people, getting lighter penalties. Often just getting suspended with pay for a crime LOL.
"But you advocate against public education."
Am I where did I say that???? I will admit I am against government education, but =/= public education!
"Should the public be educated or not?"
So yes. And the government is doing a horrible job of it!
"were sanctioned by the U.N. so calling them illegal is simply silly"
It was a war of aggression.
"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
"Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq."
calling them legal is simply silly!!
"It makes guns harder to be used to enforce rules, because everyone has them."
Why? What if everyone was enforcing the rules?
Never going to happen. Especially when 'the rules' include no government- a lot of people are going to want to reinstate government. How will you stop them?
"How does the whole thing work then? Need more detail here."
You pay an insurance company. Then the out source security or detective depending on the crime, if they don't solve it they don't get paid.
How does this stop people abusing the system like I described? This is more limiting of the ability for it to happen, but it's also more like a government than without because no the law is getting increasingly defined.
"Irrelevant. The current system is not the ultimate representative of the idea of government in general."
You are saying that in an/my Anarchic society you will be able to take advantage of the security force. So whats the difference to comparing it with one now?
What point are you trying to make here?
"So this is the part you respond to in that post?"
-"that government holds society together"
-"something else will fill the same role"
You believe that government holds society together, why can't this be done by everyone?
People have far from entirely common interests and opinions on how to best serve those interests. Government works by the principle that the majority opinion rules, because it's inherently sustainable and a very natural way of organizing people. Government acts to bring people together to decide what is best- at least in theory, a democratic government is the representative of everyone.
"Are you finished rehashing the same moral objections to government actions as if it advances this discussion?"
When war stops I will be.
Do I really need to say anything here? That was such a nonresponse.
"The next step is to demonstrate that society without government has less fundamental flaws than society with government."
Well they kill less people, that is a great start!!
...Demonstrate fundamental flaw. Why is this a problem with government that can't be solved without abandoning government altogether?
@Lithl
"Please clarify what you mean by "common law", because the term as most people would use it requires the scaffolding of a government in order to function properly."
Was developed by the Romans 400 B.C. It's the basis of much of the other laws.
In the future, I recommend you use "jus commune" if you mean that. While that's just Latin for "common law", jus commune as used by other people is roughly equivalent to what you're talking about, so you'll be able to have a conversation with people by virtue of using the same words. "Common law", on the other hand, is used to mean law by precedent; case law, or what some would derisively call "legislating from the bench" whenever a ruling doesn't go their way.
That said, jus commune is the basis for modern laws only in the sense that the Romans created a framework that we have used to construct our modern legal system. Modern laws do not line up with specific Roman laws in any way except the most basic and obvious, like "don't kill each other." I think Germany held onto Roman-based laws the longest, lasting until 1900.
Do you realize that your citation there proves my point. For your premise to be true it would require that all people on social welfare programs be freeloaders. At best it defined 20% of applicants as having unrealistic pay expectation, hardly an indication of them being fat or lazy. So would you like to try again with a source that proves your point and not mine?
"A centralized group that holds all of the power."
No there will be competition in a free market.
Free market capitalism with no oversight has proven time and again to be an awful idea. Without regulations markets frequently bubble or collapse entirely. Government oversight helps avert these disasters.
"Previously I have seen you advocate against government run education despite almost certainly having received one yourself. How do you reconcile this inconsistency?"
Alright I'll agree with government run education I am against. But just because I got one doesn't mean I can't be against it. It would be like going to war, then after being against war!
You missed the point here. The point was you complained that the public cannot make proper decisions because without education they are uniformed. You clearly think it is good to be educated but paradoxically you reject the best way to educate people.
"You keep saying X thing is a belief without clarifying what you mean by that statement."
It's a statement that people belief without evidence or support.
Okay, I think we are getting closer to understanding your thought process now. You think that people with different opinions from you could not have seen evidence to support their positions? Welcome to the world, people with the same evidence can come to a different conclusion than you. It is not a cause for confrontation nor a reasonable basis to advocate the toppling of functioning world powers.
"but moral and social guidelines are not perfectly consistent across all cultures."
CULTures means inequality, I guess in an Anarchic or Communist World cultures would have to be broken down.
I don't see culture as a good thing.
please explain further what is wrong with having different cultures in our world. It makes our collective society richer and more diverse to draw from many viewpoints
"When they are discovered they are fired and often convicted of crimes."
They are treated differently than normal people, getting lighter penalties. Often just getting suspended with pay for a crime LOL.
perhaps cite a statistic here. Despite what you may have read a huge majority of the police force in America are not corrupt and they risk their lives everyday to help people. Now who is the one believing random things huh?
[quote from="Typho0nn »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/669894-is-government-a-religion?comment=211"]"But you advocate against public education."
Am I where did I say that???? I will admit I am against government education, but =/= public education
"Should the public be educated or not?"
So yes. And the government is doing a horrible job of it!
You may not like to admit it but public education is government education and you may not like it and it may not be perfect but it is leaps and bounds better than the alternative of no education at all.
Sorry I was confused. I thought you meant Obama personally detonated a bomb on a hospital in stead of making an apology for a mistake that was never even his direct action in the first place. My apologies.
"were sanctioned by the U.N. so calling them illegal is simply silly"
It was a war of aggression.
"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal." http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
"Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq."
calling them legal is simply silly!!
I have already stated the I do not agree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but the secretary general of the U.N. coming out after the fact to say it was illegal does not change the fact that is was sanctioned at the time.
People BELIEVE government will change things, (but it mostly makes things worse).
And therefore the people do not want to change for themselves to make things better.
It's this belief that makes government comparable to religion.
A prime example of this is becoming sustainable to slow down climate change.
My closing argument would be that governments are not some mystical magical force. Some people seem to believe that if all the super powerful rich people and organizations just had complete freedom to do what they want - then everything would be better and we wouldn't have kings or powerful organizations telling us what to do.
In the real world, that's what a government IS. That's how kings get made.
People BELIEVE government will change things, (but it mostly makes things worse).
And therefore the people do not want to change for themselves to make things better.
It's this belief that makes government comparable to religion.
Why didn't you put that on the first page. That statement is more clear than most of your posts from the last nine pages.
Anyway, as for your premise one people do not believe the government will changes things, the government just changes things independent of belief (sometimes mistakes are made but for the most part they serve to further the progress of society.)
As for premise two people for the most part are motivated to make change themselves, this is demonstrated by all social revolutions that have happened ever. its pretty clear that individuals are motivated to pursue change at times. (I will take this moment to remind you that the way your premise is worded it requires all people to do nothing to influence the actions of the government, a premise rendered impossible by the fact that governments are run by people, even collectives of people in some cases, therefore anyone who influences the actions of a governments negates your premise)
Your conclusion is based on two flawed premises and therefore holds little bearing. Governments share little in common with religious beliefs, they are supported by different things and sustained by different things and have different goals as part of their purposes.
Why didn't you put that on the first page. That statement is more clear than most of your posts from the last nine pages.
Possibly because I basically already did it for him on page 2.
Quote from Stairc »
Your basic confusion here is that "points of similarity' does not equal "same thing". Rollerblades and airplanes both have wheels. Not the same thing.
You don't seem to be making anything close to a coherent argument. You're just saying stuff.
A coherent argument might look like...
"People put trust in excess of what is warranted by evidence in their governments. This is highly similar to religious thinking. Under a broad definition, we could consider 'faith in government' to be equivalent to 'faith in the catholic church'. Therefore, I'd argue that the average catholic's faith in the pope is equivalent to the average citizen's faith in their chosen political leader. As we consider this form of thinking to be religious in nature, we should consider the product of this form of thinking to be a religion."
See? It's a coherent argument. Premises, following statements, a conclusion. Everything's on topic too. It's still wrong, but it's coherent. That's a huge step up
Its pretty much the same thing. I think the "Is government a religion?" Title may have lead to some confusion...
How much do you believe that government can change things?
The key word is believe, or Trust. How much belief is placed in the government?
Government has the same hierarchical structure as religion.
What is the difference between religion and nationalism?
Was my starting argument and questions. Pretty short, and should work on it. But I was just trying to get it out there and develop as the debate went on. I never said it was a religion. People make too many assumptions and twist words, its pretty bad debate
I was wanting to go into some internet controlled world wide anarchism or socialism (Or even some A.I.) arguments but...
So I guess the thing that is to be argued is, What is the difference between religion and nationalism?
P.S.
I stated on page 1 “A religion does not need to believe in the supernatural.”
Its pretty much the same thing. I think the "Is government a religion?" Title may have lead to some confusion...
How much do you believe that government can change things?
The key word is believe, or Trust. How much belief is placed in the government?
Government has the same hierarchical structure as religion.
What is the difference between religion and nationalism?
Was my starting argument and questions. Pretty short, and should work on it. But I was just trying to get it out there and develop as the debate went on. I never said it was a religion. People make too many assumptions and twist words, its pretty bad debate
I was wanting to go into some internet controlled world wide anarchism or socialism (Or even some A.I.) arguments but...
So I guess the thing that is to be argued is, What is the difference between religion and nationalism?
To be honest (and give constructive criticism) between the title and the initial framing of your argument there was a lot of confusion in your message. I feel like we could have had a better conversation if the message had been stated more clearly from the beginning. Also advice: people will be more likely to make assumptions about what you mean if you frame your statements less clearly. Being specific in a debate is always helpful to both your argument and your opponents understanding there of.
Its pretty much the same thing. I think the "Is government a religion?" Title may have lead to some confusion...
How much do you believe that government can change things?
The key word is believe, or Trust. How much belief is placed in the government?
Government has the same hierarchical structure as religion.
What is the difference between religion and nationalism?
Was my starting argument and questions. Pretty short, and should work on it. But I was just trying to get it out there and develop as the debate went on. I never said it was a religion. People make too many assumptions and twist words, its pretty bad debate
I was wanting to go into some internet controlled world wide anarchism or socialism (Or even some A.I.) arguments but...
So I guess the thing that is to be argued is, What is the difference between religion and nationalism?
Define religion explicitly here.
If your basis for saying government is religion is related to faith, then that doesn't apply to many people at all. There's probably some people who have a sort-of faith in their government, but every impression I get says more people are deeply mistrustful of their own government than place great faith in them. And, just in case you try to argue it, even if people treat government like a religion, that's not relevant to whether it's a good idea generally.
You can't broaden the definitions of things until they're the same thing, and then act as if you made a meaningful point by comparing the two. The argument can basically be summarized quite easily here.
"Apples and Oranges are the same thing. I'll prove it by stripping the 'apple' definition of any trait beyond 'round fruit'. Therefore they're the same thing. And btw guys, there's a definition of 'apple' that doesn't even involve fruit - because it has to do with computers - so don't pretend that any of these so-called traits that make an apple distinct from an orange are valid differences. An apple doesn't HAVE to have these traits, because under a completely unrelated definition to my statement - they don't."
I was wanting to go into some internet controlled world wide anarchism or socialism (Or even some A.I.) arguments but...
I would be pretty terrified to live in a world controlled by an AGI. Pretty much as soon as an AGI is turned on, it's over. You'd better hope that the AGI's maximization function somehow includes human values (as if you could quantify that), because otherwise you've probably created a paperclipper and the universe is doomed.
The universe might still be ultimately doomed if the AGI wants to somehow maximize human values, but at least the humans (however the AGI defines the concept) would be safe in some fashion in that case.
@DJK3654
"Someone has to."
And that would be me and you, and the rest of our neighbors. People can work together without government.
"So who determines the law then and who enforces it? "
There is common law which I am happy to live by. No theft, fraud or Assault. A security company that is paid by insurance would enforce it. You have a video camera insurance goes down, you have a gun insurance goes down, you have a big fence and a dog insurance goes down.
"How can ensure that this group acts in the common interest?"
Insurance, stop paying them and they will fall.
" It would sure be convenient if you had some sort of centralized body with a democratic basis, to manage such regulations of society"
And who regulates them... ? What if they people become uneducated and democracy fails (much like now).
I think we'll just jump to a really more difficult problem: Water Rights.
Now, not just any water rights but rights to an aquifer we're going to talk about the Ogallala Aquifer.
Now the depletion cycle outpaces the capacity for rain to fill the aquifer. But since there is a drought, people pump water needed for today to do business as farmers and to water cities.
Now how does private enterprise solves this. I've read Reisman's Capital, but it only deals with say animal refuges on terrestrial land and posits that private property is best. This does not solve the same problem as a conservationist approach to animal management is not the same as mineral and water rights nor water management which is multiparty.
What we're trying to solve here is a tragedy of the commons scenario through anarcho-capitalism:
Its pretty much the same thing. I think the "Is government a religion?" Title may have lead to some confusion...
How much do you believe that government can change things?
The key word is believe, or Trust. How much belief is placed in the government?
Government has the same hierarchical structure as religion.
What is the difference between religion and nationalism?
Was my starting argument and questions. Pretty short, and should work on it. But I was just trying to get it out there and develop as the debate went on. I never said it was a religion. People make too many assumptions and twist words, its pretty bad debate
I was wanting to go into some internet controlled world wide anarchism or socialism (Or even some A.I.) arguments but...
So I guess the thing that is to be argued is, What is the difference between religion and nationalism?
P.S.
I stated on page 1 “A religion does not need to believe in the supernatural.”
Nationalism is familial and tribal sensibility with loyalty relative to territorial disputes and collective identity.
Religion is metaphysical and not territorial based, utilizing more in the sense of a self-help community building approach without regard to actual territory without hybridization through a theocracy.
Religions are extra-national, while nations are national and loyalty can in some respects be inter-national and intra-national if we take a globalist perspective.
"You're in my personal space dude."=angry nationalism
"You just pissed off my Dad."=angry religion
This is like Love.
I can love you as a "person."
I can love you as my "lover."
I can love you as my "father."
I can love you as my "neighbor."
I can love your "hair."
All are accurate expression in sense of love, but each are categorically different in terms of sense and scale.
I believe in my "country."
I believe in my "family."
I believe in my "religion."
I believe in "you."
I don't worship you and ascribe my daily life if I say I "believe in you," meanwhile if I "believe in my religion" there is a sense of moral and ethical foundations to individual behaviors. Meanwhile, nationalism lacks that identity except in the most broadest details that bind people within that nation state as the identity is at its most fluid and generalist at that level. If I "believe in my country" there is a sense of identity, but not as deep as the identity for religion which is not national rather intra-national. Meaning that two Muslims from the same branch can and will have a sense of "brotherhood" that can and will be deeper than two American strangers on the street, as the sense of being Muslim is higher to identity that being "American." This stuff is equally psychologically tiered for "belief" and "love" and other such emotions. Semantics.
We also have a thing called different levels of belief:
Believer/Zealot
Belief/Fervor
When nationalism goes from "belief" into "fervor" we do not call them a religious zealot rather we call that person a fascist while trying to take on the stronger identity bonds of a nation and turn it into a form of living structure beyond what is socially acceptable by turning what is typically seen as a collective identifier in the broadest sense and attempt to turn that into an individualistic sense through brutal crackdown to spread greater homogeneity than what most people expect.
People BELIEVE government will change things, (but it mostly makes things worse).
And therefore the people do not want to change for themselves to make things better.
It's this belief that makes government comparable to religion.
A prime example of this is becoming sustainable to slow down climate change.
A government is not defined by what people believe it will and will not do. The government is defined by what it actually does. (Dictatorship =/= Democratic Elections)
A religion is defined by what people believe it is and is not. A religion is not defined by what it actually does. (Islam =/= ISIS)
People BELIEVE government will change things, (but it mostly makes things worse).
And therefore the people do not want to change for themselves to make things better.
It's this belief that makes government comparable to religion.
A prime example of this is becoming sustainable to slow down climate change.
A government is not defined by what people believe it will and will not do. The government is defined by what it actually does. (Dictatorship =/= Democratic Elections)
A religion is defined by what people believe it is and is not. A religion is not defined by what it actually does. (Islam =/= ISIS)
ISIS=Islamic State
ISIS=!Islam
ISIS=Islamic State=Theocracy
The government is set up in part as a giant game that sets up specific rules for conflict resolution with specific mechanics for enforcement.
Religion is communal identity, emotional well being, and "fuzzy self help" stuff.
Government is collective management.
Religion is typically centered on individualistic and collective morality management.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
How much do you believe that government can change things?
The key word is believe, or Trust. How much belief is placed in the government?
Government has the same hierarchical structure as religion.
What is the difference between religion and nationalism?
Yes, I think you are right. Romans 1 says that when people suppress the truth in unrighteousness they will turn from God and worship created things rather than the Creator:
"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen." (Romans 1:24-25).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well you've yet to present any evidence as to why government is fundamentally and not simply circumstantially flawed. So, I don't yet feel compelled to go out of my way to support these statements yet.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
"Someone has to."
And that would be me and you, and the rest of our neighbors. People can work together without government.
"So who determines the law then and who enforces it? "
There is common law which I am happy to live by. No theft, fraud or Assault. A security company that is paid by insurance would enforce it. You have a video camera insurance goes down, you have a gun insurance goes down, you have a big fence and a dog insurance goes down.
"How can ensure that this group acts in the common interest?"
Insurance, stop paying them and they will fall.
" It would sure be convenient if you had some sort of centralized body with a democratic basis, to manage such regulations of society"
And who regulates them... ? What if they people become uneducated and democracy fails (much like now).
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Giving everyone guns only makes it easier for your government replacement system to collapse.
Who determines what is common law?
How can you trust that the public will act in common interest? Democracy bypasses this, each person can act entirely selfishly, but because of the equality of it, it ends up being in the common interest. This doesn't have that equality- certain people will be able to pay more for protection than others, and certain people will spend more of what they have on protection than others. The more money you make in this society, the more you can take advantage of the security company, the more you can take advantage of the security company, the more money you can make. How do you stop this vicious circle?
The body (government) is regulated by democracy. There can be no further regulation, there must be an end to the regression, and the equally weighted opinions of the public is a very good place to end, in part because it's inherently very sustainable due to it's majority power basis.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
"Giving everyone guns only makes it easier for your government replacement system to collapse."
How so? This sounds like a belief.
"Who determines what is common law?"
It's been determined.
"the more you can take advantage of the security company"
How so? You are paying to insurance not the security company.
How is the current system dealing with corrupt cops?
In fact the US government used the CIA to bring drugs into America. Whistle blowers like Micheal Ruppert have come forth... but people don't believe him anyways. http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/2014/q2/rip-michael-c-ruppert-the-cop-that-busted-the-cia/
"The body (government) is regulated by democracy."
Not with an uneducated public. Which I think the government is making dumber for more control. E.G. letting the stupid bread more.
"So, I don't yet feel compelled to go out of my way to support these statements yet."
Cool we will leave them as beliefs.
So Obama bombs a hospital...
Where is his trial? Is this democracy looking after the government? LOL!!
Is democracy stopping these illegal wars? No!
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
It makes guns harder to be used to enforce rules, because everyone has them.
Who? Everyone? I don't think so.
Obviously, you must be referring to only a certain section of people. Who decided they were right? You? But you are one of them aren't you?
We are getting on one of the key problems you'll need to address to make your ideas work, how is it determined how society is structured without democratic government?
How does the whole thing work then? Need more detail here.
Irrelevant. The current system is not the ultimate representative of the idea of government in general.
An uneducated public means not very good regulation, not no regulation.
So this is the part you respond to in that post? The open request for a more developed argument doesn't strike you as something to be addressed?
Are you finished rehashing the same moral objections to government actions as if it advances this discussion? I've addressed all such moral objections with the response that they must be demonstrated to be fundamental to government else they aren't really relevant, and you've yet to either provide a response that challenges the notion that you must demonstrate this fundamental connection or provided a case for one. Until you do either of these, you are not addressing my argument.
The next step is to demonstrate that society without government has less fundamental flaws than society with government. Then you will have a case for why government should be abolished, and then we can have a much more productive debate.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
This premise is innately flawed. For for your premise to be true you must prove that low income people who receive these tax benefits are inherently fat and lazy and they are low income because they are fat and lazy. Until you can prove your premise it is not a valid argument.
What do you do when people cannot come to an agreement? Some people are just simply incapable of listening to the logic of others and can not be reconciled with properly without outside intervention. Who determines the common good in this situation.
A centralized group that holds all of the power. Sounds like you've got a problem for the common good there if they decide their interests do not align with the common person's interests.
Previously I have seen you advocate against government run education despite almost certainly having received one yourself. How do you reconcile this inconsistency?
You keep saying X thing is a belief without clarifying what you mean by that statement. Perhaps we can all get a better understanding of what you mean if you took a moment to elaborate on this statement you keep making.
It would appear that it is not fully determined, since we can not come to an agreement about it on an internet forum. "Common law" might seem like an easy thing to pin down to you but moral and social guidelines are not perfectly consistent across all cultures.
When they are discovered they are fired and often convicted of crimes. Please do not believe everything you read about America, it is not all that bad.
But you advocate against public education. So which is it. Should the public be educated or not?
Obama bombed a hospital? Citation please. We may not agree with every decision that our government makes and I certainly do not think that our recent wars were necessary or a good idea but they were sanctioned by the U.N. so calling them illegal is simply silly.
Where do you think governments come from?
Kings were really rich people that made everyone do what they want. They declared themselves rulers. We labeled this system of control a "monarchy". That's a government.
Typh00n, how do you believe the first governments formed? How did rich, powerful organizations morph from perfectly fine private sectors into evil governments?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
"Please clarify what you mean by "common law", because the term as most people would use it requires the scaffolding of a government in order to function properly."
Was developed by the Romans 400 B.C. It's the basis of much of the other laws.
Could we have a government that doesn't have leaders? Or one with ~7 Billion leaders.
@DJK3654
"It makes guns harder to be used to enforce rules, because everyone has them."
Why? What if everyone was enforcing the rules?
"How does the whole thing work then? Need more detail here."
You pay an insurance company. Then the out source security or detective depending on the crime, if they don't solve it they don't get paid.
"Irrelevant. The current system is not the ultimate representative of the idea of government in general."
You are saying that in an/my Anarchic society you will be able to take advantage of the security force. So whats the difference to comparing it with one now?
"So this is the part you respond to in that post?"
-"that government holds society together"
-"something else will fill the same role"
You believe that government holds society together, why can't this be done by everyone?
I guess if governments did collapse, everyone will fill that roll (which would be my ideal, everyone looking after each other, well at least those in a community, and communities can be connected via internet).
"Are you finished rehashing the same moral objections to government actions as if it advances this discussion?"
When war stops I will be.
"The next step is to demonstrate that society without government has less fundamental flaws than society with government."
Well they kill less people, that is a great start!!
@dox
"These conditions do not fully protect you from disease."
Either do vaccines. But yeah I'll use my immune system too!
"people who receive these tax benefits are inherently fat and lazy"
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/04/03/unemployment-how-the-lazy-are-hurting-the-needy
It's up for debate!
"What do you do when people cannot come to an agreement?"
Judge
"A centralized group that holds all of the power."
No there will be competition in a free market.
"Previously I have seen you advocate against government run education despite almost certainly having received one yourself. How do you reconcile this inconsistency?"
Alright I'll agree with government run education I am against. But just because I got one doesn't mean I can't be against it. It would be like going to war, then after being against war!
"You keep saying X thing is a belief without clarifying what you mean by that statement."
It's a statement that people belief without evidence or support.
"but moral and social guidelines are not perfectly consistent across all cultures."
CULTures means inequality, I guess in an Anarchic or Communist World cultures would have to be broken down.
I don't see culture as a good thing.
"When they are discovered they are fired and often convicted of crimes."
They are treated differently than normal people, getting lighter penalties. Often just getting suspended with pay for a crime LOL.
"But you advocate against public education."
Am I where did I say that???? I will admit I am against government education, but =/= public education!
"Should the public be educated or not?"
So yes. And the government is doing a horrible job of it!
"Obama bombed a hospital?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/world/asia/obama-apologizes-for-bombing-of-afghanistan-hospital.html?_r=0
"were sanctioned by the U.N. so calling them illegal is simply silly"
It was a war of aggression.
"The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq
"Mr Annan last night said that there should have been a second UN resolution specifically authorising war against Iraq."
calling them legal is simply silly!!
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Never going to happen. Especially when 'the rules' include no government- a lot of people are going to want to reinstate government. How will you stop them?
How does this stop people abusing the system like I described? This is more limiting of the ability for it to happen, but it's also more like a government than without because no the law is getting increasingly defined.
What point are you trying to make here?
People have far from entirely common interests and opinions on how to best serve those interests. Government works by the principle that the majority opinion rules, because it's inherently sustainable and a very natural way of organizing people. Government acts to bring people together to decide what is best- at least in theory, a democratic government is the representative of everyone.
Do I really need to say anything here? That was such a nonresponse.
...Demonstrate fundamental flaw. Why is this a problem with government that can't be solved without abandoning government altogether?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
That said, jus commune is the basis for modern laws only in the sense that the Romans created a framework that we have used to construct our modern legal system. Modern laws do not line up with specific Roman laws in any way except the most basic and obvious, like "don't kill each other." I think Germany held onto Roman-based laws the longest, lasting until 1900.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
Do you realize that your citation there proves my point. For your premise to be true it would require that all people on social welfare programs be freeloaders. At best it defined 20% of applicants as having unrealistic pay expectation, hardly an indication of them being fat or lazy. So would you like to try again with a source that proves your point and not mine?
How do you propose having a judicial office but no government?
Free market capitalism with no oversight has proven time and again to be an awful idea. Without regulations markets frequently bubble or collapse entirely. Government oversight helps avert these disasters.
You missed the point here. The point was you complained that the public cannot make proper decisions because without education they are uniformed. You clearly think it is good to be educated but paradoxically you reject the best way to educate people.
Okay, I think we are getting closer to understanding your thought process now. You think that people with different opinions from you could not have seen evidence to support their positions? Welcome to the world, people with the same evidence can come to a different conclusion than you. It is not a cause for confrontation nor a reasonable basis to advocate the toppling of functioning world powers.
please explain further what is wrong with having different cultures in our world. It makes our collective society richer and more diverse to draw from many viewpoints
You may not like to admit it but public education is government education and you may not like it and it may not be perfect but it is leaps and bounds better than the alternative of no education at all.
Sorry I was confused. I thought you meant Obama personally detonated a bomb on a hospital in stead of making an apology for a mistake that was never even his direct action in the first place. My apologies.
I have already stated the I do not agree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but the secretary general of the U.N. coming out after the fact to say it was illegal does not change the fact that is was sanctioned at the time.
People BELIEVE government will change things, (but it mostly makes things worse).
And therefore the people do not want to change for themselves to make things better.
It's this belief that makes government comparable to religion.
A prime example of this is becoming sustainable to slow down climate change.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
In the real world, that's what a government IS. That's how kings get made.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Why didn't you put that on the first page. That statement is more clear than most of your posts from the last nine pages.
Anyway, as for your premise one people do not believe the government will changes things, the government just changes things independent of belief (sometimes mistakes are made but for the most part they serve to further the progress of society.)
As for premise two people for the most part are motivated to make change themselves, this is demonstrated by all social revolutions that have happened ever. its pretty clear that individuals are motivated to pursue change at times. (I will take this moment to remind you that the way your premise is worded it requires all people to do nothing to influence the actions of the government, a premise rendered impossible by the fact that governments are run by people, even collectives of people in some cases, therefore anyone who influences the actions of a governments negates your premise)
Your conclusion is based on two flawed premises and therefore holds little bearing. Governments share little in common with religious beliefs, they are supported by different things and sustained by different things and have different goals as part of their purposes.
Possibly because I basically already did it for him on page 2.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Was my starting argument and questions. Pretty short, and should work on it. But I was just trying to get it out there and develop as the debate went on. I never said it was a religion. People make too many assumptions and twist words, its pretty bad debate
I was wanting to go into some internet controlled world wide anarchism or socialism (Or even some A.I.) arguments but...
So I guess the thing that is to be argued is, What is the difference between religion and nationalism?
P.S.
I stated on page 1 “A religion does not need to believe in the supernatural.”
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
To be honest (and give constructive criticism) between the title and the initial framing of your argument there was a lot of confusion in your message. I feel like we could have had a better conversation if the message had been stated more clearly from the beginning. Also advice: people will be more likely to make assumptions about what you mean if you frame your statements less clearly. Being specific in a debate is always helpful to both your argument and your opponents understanding there of.
Define religion explicitly here.
If your basis for saying government is religion is related to faith, then that doesn't apply to many people at all. There's probably some people who have a sort-of faith in their government, but every impression I get says more people are deeply mistrustful of their own government than place great faith in them. And, just in case you try to argue it, even if people treat government like a religion, that's not relevant to whether it's a good idea generally.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
"Apples and Oranges are the same thing. I'll prove it by stripping the 'apple' definition of any trait beyond 'round fruit'. Therefore they're the same thing. And btw guys, there's a definition of 'apple' that doesn't even involve fruit - because it has to do with computers - so don't pretend that any of these so-called traits that make an apple distinct from an orange are valid differences. An apple doesn't HAVE to have these traits, because under a completely unrelated definition to my statement - they don't."
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
The universe might still be ultimately doomed if the AGI wants to somehow maximize human values, but at least the humans (however the AGI defines the concept) would be safe in some fashion in that case.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I think we'll just jump to a really more difficult problem: Water Rights.
Now, not just any water rights but rights to an aquifer we're going to talk about the Ogallala Aquifer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
Now the depletion cycle outpaces the capacity for rain to fill the aquifer. But since there is a drought, people pump water needed for today to do business as farmers and to water cities.
Now how does private enterprise solves this. I've read Reisman's Capital, but it only deals with say animal refuges on terrestrial land and posits that private property is best. This does not solve the same problem as a conservationist approach to animal management is not the same as mineral and water rights nor water management which is multiparty.
What we're trying to solve here is a tragedy of the commons scenario through anarcho-capitalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Or we can play the "Let's prevent the Dust Bowl" game if you don't want to mess with water rights.
Nationalism is familial and tribal sensibility with loyalty relative to territorial disputes and collective identity.
Religion is metaphysical and not territorial based, utilizing more in the sense of a self-help community building approach without regard to actual territory without hybridization through a theocracy.
Religions are extra-national, while nations are national and loyalty can in some respects be inter-national and intra-national if we take a globalist perspective.
"You're in my personal space dude."=angry nationalism
"You just pissed off my Dad."=angry religion
This is like Love.
I can love you as a "person."
I can love you as my "lover."
I can love you as my "father."
I can love you as my "neighbor."
I can love your "hair."
All are accurate expression in sense of love, but each are categorically different in terms of sense and scale.
I believe in my "country."
I believe in my "family."
I believe in my "religion."
I believe in "you."
I don't worship you and ascribe my daily life if I say I "believe in you," meanwhile if I "believe in my religion" there is a sense of moral and ethical foundations to individual behaviors. Meanwhile, nationalism lacks that identity except in the most broadest details that bind people within that nation state as the identity is at its most fluid and generalist at that level. If I "believe in my country" there is a sense of identity, but not as deep as the identity for religion which is not national rather intra-national. Meaning that two Muslims from the same branch can and will have a sense of "brotherhood" that can and will be deeper than two American strangers on the street, as the sense of being Muslim is higher to identity that being "American." This stuff is equally psychologically tiered for "belief" and "love" and other such emotions. Semantics.
We also have a thing called different levels of belief:
Believer/Zealot
Belief/Fervor
When nationalism goes from "belief" into "fervor" we do not call them a religious zealot rather we call that person a fascist while trying to take on the stronger identity bonds of a nation and turn it into a form of living structure beyond what is socially acceptable by turning what is typically seen as a collective identifier in the broadest sense and attempt to turn that into an individualistic sense through brutal crackdown to spread greater homogeneity than what most people expect.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
A government is not defined by what people believe it will and will not do. The government is defined by what it actually does. (Dictatorship =/= Democratic Elections)
A religion is defined by what people believe it is and is not. A religion is not defined by what it actually does. (Islam =/= ISIS)
WUBRGReaper King - Superfriends
WUBRGChild of Alara - The Nauseating Aurora
WUBSharuum the Hegemon - Christmas In Prison
WUBZur the Enchanter - Ow My Face
WRJor Kadeen, the Prevailer - Snow Goats
BRGrenzo, Dungeon Warden - International Goblin All Purpose Recycling Facility Number 12
WGSaffi Eriksdotter - Saffi Combosdotter
UPatron of the Moon - The Age of Aquarius
BHorobi, Death's Wail - Bring Out Your Dead
GSachi, Daughter of Seshiro - Sneks
ISIS=Islamic State
ISIS=!Islam
ISIS=Islamic State=Theocracy
The government is set up in part as a giant game that sets up specific rules for conflict resolution with specific mechanics for enforcement.
Religion is communal identity, emotional well being, and "fuzzy self help" stuff.
Government is collective management.
Religion is typically centered on individualistic and collective morality management.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
Yes, I think you are right. Romans 1 says that when people suppress the truth in unrighteousness they will turn from God and worship created things rather than the Creator:
"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen." (Romans 1:24-25).