Thread has been deleted
Last comment
Less Government
Hutler | 
Bulgaria GenderStudies_Professor 
Does less government mean less corruption as well?
2020-01-28 00:11
Topics are hidden when running Sport mode.
No
2020-01-28 00:12
#2
 | 
China SwooksarV2 
No
2020-01-28 00:12
#3
 | 
United States sorcrcrc 
No
2020-01-28 00:13
#4
 | 
Belgium Baitlander 
No because only the state can fight corruption
2020-01-28 00:13
#6
 | 
Greenland FreedomFighter 
Fighting something that you are guilty of at first place OMEGALUL
2020-01-28 00:14
#8
 | 
Slovakia bad_at_life 
true af
2020-01-28 00:16
#16
 | 
Denmark Jeffersond 
Sooo you Think corruption is only in politics?
2020-01-28 00:41
No but the corruption in politics is what affects your life directly or indirectly.
2020-01-28 00:44
#58
ZywOo | 
France CKs1 
I didn’t that you could say something smart
2020-01-31 17:07
#5
 | 
Greenland FreedomFighter 
Of course. Just look at what's going on in USA and how two different parties are trying to control the whole country. It is all about power and money, it has always been and always will be. Limiting the Government to its bare minimum thus limiting the corruption is the best a country can do.
2020-01-28 00:14
#18
 | 
Denmark Jeffersond 
Dumb
2020-01-28 00:41
Ok baby boy
2020-01-28 00:44
If you live in a fantasy land, yeah... Limiting government to the bare minimum will only increase corruption and leave the door open for massive abuses of the environment and labor.
2020-01-28 00:55
Keep believing that bullshit. No one will work for you if you abuse them 0/8
2020-01-28 00:58
#28
 | 
Denmark Jeffersond 
What fantasy land are you living in lul?
2020-01-28 00:58
Tell me how many of your colleagues on the public job you are working on are actually working?
2020-01-28 00:59
Who says it needs to be a public job? The private sector doesn't do things out of the goodness of their hearts. If you remove common sense labor laws, then they will fuck you over for profits.
2020-01-28 01:02
I am talking about this guy cuz he seems obsessed with me.
2020-01-28 01:03
#35
 | 
Denmark Jeffersond 
Like wtf opression is in every corner of the world in every industry, all our tech all the jobs we dont wanna do we outsource, and we dont ask questions... oppression and corruption is as Big in the private indrustry as in the public... Might be shot spelling - nede phone and autocorrect is fuckin with me
2020-01-28 01:06
#43
 | 
Canada ProvexPyker 
The only reason people aren't abused in first world countries as they are in third world countries is because we have government. They can enforce regulations, keep up limitations, restraints, laws, that protect us. If not then companies would have their own power with their money and armies.
2020-01-28 04:51
You were trained well.
2020-01-28 04:47
Says the shill, nt JIDF
2020-01-28 18:51
#65
 | 
United States RopzIsCute 
+1
2020-02-01 20:35
#7
HUNDEN | 
Germany Alright1 
no electing sane people to power does mean less corruption
2020-01-28 00:16
#13
 | 
Ukraine ReanuKeeves 
How do you test their sanity?
2020-01-28 00:28
#19
 | 
Denmark Jeffersond 
In Sovjet, you cant
2020-01-28 00:42
#30
 | 
Ukraine ReanuKeeves 
but I'm not in Sovjet
2020-01-28 01:01
Yes
2020-01-28 00:17
No, I want the Government to absolutely control my life.
2020-01-28 00:19
I like your name :)
2020-01-28 01:01
obviously?
2020-01-28 00:19
definitely
2020-01-28 00:19
#14
NiKo | 
United Kingdom lr1015 
-> "Corrupt" = when people in government go against their role for money/other personal gain -> Less government = less people in government -> so less people to be corrupt -> so less corruption /closed
2020-01-28 00:30
#15
NEO | 
Canada chedca 
yes, we elect representation because the system we use had horses and carriages and no cellphones and e-mail , so to tell the bigger population what you wanted to say in democracy you trusted someone to do it for you. Now that every person has technology that communicates instantly there is no need for voting for government to represent us, we could participate in democracy too.. but that would end a lot of corruption though so we keep electing representatives
2020-01-28 00:37
The worst thing is that the world is heading even more into that deep shit with Government controlling everything.
2020-01-28 00:41
#24
NEO | 
Canada chedca 
it depends who develops the best computer in the next decade, that group will be able to break all kinds of encryption and show everybody that there is corruption.. maybe..
2020-01-28 00:51
yes, Less people to be corruped = Less chance for corruption /closed
2020-01-28 00:45
#23
REZ | 
Sweden katt1n 
Yes, by the very definition of corruption xd. People replying no to this thread is why democracy is a bad idea.
2020-01-28 00:45
#27
 | 
Canada Herodionus 
The less government the better
2020-01-28 00:58
Not necessarily
2020-01-28 01:03
Less corrupt politicians but not less corrupt people
2020-01-28 01:07
No, it does not. Corruption is just the concept of renting your power to the people who give you what you want, instead of using it for the interest of the citizens. It's not limited to the government, the private sector knows how to do that perfectly well (in fact even better, because they're not bound to represent the public interest, at least not officially, their official goal is precisely to take care about their own interests). If you don't want to call it corruption just because it happens in the private sector, even though the actions and the consequences are the same, call it "xorruption" or whatever you want, how you want to call it is irrelevant, the actions and the consequences are the same, and living in a society with a small government and powerful companies will have the same problems as one with a big government and small companies as long as the main issue is not addressed: distribution of power. The idea that you'll have a better society because the powerful will be in the private sector is just wishful thinking at best, you're only trading a concentrated power for another. In fact we're currently transitioning towards that, with several companies having more power than small countries, and the power being concentrated into only a few representatives, it's very easy for the private sector to influence them just enough so that the laws are in their favor. And the private sector does not have much interest in getting completely rid of the government, otherwise they would become the biggest targets of criticism (not to mention the lack of precedent in our modern world, where corporations leading a country officially would probably not send the best image), they have an interest in keeping a government, just one that they can easily influence its actions.
2020-01-28 01:23
Great post.
2020-01-28 05:21
#49
REZ | 
Sweden katt1n 
"dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power" A corrupt business man fucks over his business. A corrupt politician fucks over his country. The citizen is 100% irrelevant in the case of the businessman because companies have no social responsibilities. What is a better society or not does not matter, all government is built on oppression and violence and has no right to exist.
2020-01-28 21:58
""dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power" A corrupt business man fucks over his business. A corrupt politician fucks over his country. " Which is not a distinction found in what you quoted: corrupt businessmen hold power, and their behavior can be just as fraudulent and dishonest as the behavior of corrupt politicians, so if that's the definition of corruption you want to use, it's not helping your distinction. Besides, businesses are part of a country as well, as such, businessmen can fuck over countries just as well, in particular if they're very big, like multinationals. In fact they're fine doing so if there's no one to keep them in check, and their power having only grown over time, they currently have a lot more potential for harm. ----- "The citizen is 100% irrelevant in the case of the businessman because companies have no social responsibilities." Not officially, as I pointed out in my original comment. But given that their dishonest and fraudulent actions have the same kind of consequences on other people, whether they're officially responsible or not is irrelevant: the fact is that they're part of society and they want to stay in that society, so they have moral responsibilities towards that society, so the more power they hold, the more responsibilities they have regarding the use of that power, doesn't matter if these have been officially recognized or not. If you want to take out those responsibilities from them, I'm fine with that, but in that case they'll have to relinquish the power that goes with those. ------ "What is a better society or not does not matter, all government is built on oppression and violence and has no right to exist." That's a contradiction. If you think oppression and violence has no right to exist, you're talking about what should not be, compared to what currently is, you're indeed talking about what is a better society, you indicate that it's indeed something that matters. Governments can indeed be responsible for oppression and violence, just as businesses can, but that's not the fact that they're governments that does that, nor is it the fact that they're businesses. This kind of oppression and violence comes from the concentration of power. The fact that our institutions make us give up our power every few years to a few people makes it so that power stays concentrated in a social circle that has an interest in keeping this power, and their interests will not necessarily align with the interests of the rest of the citizens. This concentration of power is the same in standard businesses, except that employees don't even give away their power, they only have the power that is lent to them by their hierarchy. Just as in a government, the social circle who has the power in a business won't necessarily have the same interests as the rest of the people in the business, and as a result oppression and violence can ensue, which is why current working conditions are often perceived as alienating by the workers, while the CEOs don't seem to see any major issues with the way they run their company. Getting rid of governments will not get rid of the kind of oppression and violence you're against, it's not addressing the root cause of this oppression and violence. I don't think it's possible to completely get rid of oppression and violence anyway, because there will always be a difference of power combined with a difference of interests somewhere, sometimes, but there are ways to organize society that distributes power as much as possible, which in turn diminishes the possibility for people to use oppression and violence against others.
2020-01-28 23:04
#51
REZ | 
Sweden katt1n 
You can create whatever societies you want as long as they are voluntary to join. But you have no right whatsoever to force anyone to take part in your society. All governments are inherently violent. It is the only way they get their power. Businesses are capable of violence too, but they get their power from the free market of the people, not by guns.
2020-01-29 00:41
"You can create whatever societies you want as long as they are voluntary to join. But you have no right whatsoever to force anyone to take part in your society. " That's correct. Which is why if those companies don't wish to be part of our society, they can leave to another. Of course those companies WANT to be part of society, which was part of my point. They want to be part of our society, and they hold power, so they have a moral responsibility towards society. If you don't want them to have responsibility, fine, then they have to relinquish their power. Or they can leave, that's an alternative for them I guess, but most of them don't wish to leave. ----- "All governments are inherently violent. It is the only way they get their power." Governments are made of people, people are not inherently violent, they're violent under some conditions. One of these conditions is a difference of power combined with a difference of interests. The reason some governments tend towards violence is because they concentrate too much power in a few people, which creates small social circles that want to keep that power, and which have interests that differ a lot from the rest of the population. The same mechanics apply for companies. Governments (at least those built on humanistic constitutions) don't get their power from violence, they get it from the principles laid out in their constitution, which are then used to build laws. If you disagree with the way power is distributed, what you need to change is the constitution, but getting rid of any kind of government will not solve anything, in fact it's very likely to make it far worse. ----- "Businesses are capable of violence too, but they get their power from the free market of the people, not by guns." It's irrelevant, it's like saying "yes, I'm oppressed, but at least my oppressor was chosen by the free-market". Who cares? It's oppression. The free-market doesn't represent a will of putting people in power anyway, its only goal is to match a need with a provider, that's it. You don't participate in the free-market with the goal of putting people in power, because that's not the function of the free-market. Otherwise we wouldn't even need political systems, we would just let a totally free-market, and whoever gets the richest would get most of the power, then the second richest would get most of the rest, and so on. This is basically what happens organically in areas of the world governed by cartels and mafias, that's where the market is the most free, because there are basically no laws to regulate it, and that's where violence is the most present, because whoever gets on top can use their overwhelming advantage to stay on top, again, concentration of power.
2020-01-29 01:43
#53
REZ | 
Sweden katt1n 
Laws cannot exist without violence. Laws require violence to be enforced.
2020-01-30 17:24
Well to be more accurate, laws require force. Violence is the disproportionate and unnecessary use of force. Laws can be enforced with violence, just like anything can, but they don't have to, there are usages of force that are necessary and proportionate, at least if the goal is to be able to live in society as peacefully as possible. If you're against the use of violence, I'm with you on that, and I think most people are. But if you're against the use of force, I disagree, and I would ask you to provide a way for humans to get along in a society without the use of force to guarantee that laws are being respected. Afaik all of them rely on the use of force. If you reject the concept of laws itself, then I would ask you to provide a way for humans to regulate social interactions in a way that violent behavior is limited and that allows a compromise for different interests to co-exist. Again, afaik all of those rely on some kind of laws.
2020-01-31 00:30
#55
REZ | 
Sweden katt1n 
violence noun behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. Your entire comment is built on a false premise.
2020-01-31 16:40
violence noun Unjust or unwarranted exertion of power; unjust force; force employed against rights, laws, liberty, or the like; outrage; injury; hurt; attack; assault. We can do this all day, there are probably hundreds of various definitions of violence we can find on the internet. OR, instead, we can discuss the ones each of us are using, what we each actually mean when we use the term, so that we understand each other. Personally I prefer the second option. So, when I use "violence", I mean "disproportionate and unnecessary use of force", meaning that violence is a subset of force, not an equivalent. Do you accept this distinction when you read my comments moving forward? You're free to not share that view, but do you accept that it is mine? The definition you pulled also seems to make this distinction: If violence designates, I quote, "behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill", that means that there's also behavior involving physical force NOT intended to hurt, damage or kill, which means that your definition seems to also include violence in a subset of the use of force. Does it sound fair?
2020-01-31 16:56
#57
REZ | 
Sweden katt1n 
Yeah, there is physical force not intended to hurt, damage or kill. Pushing a wheel barrel involves physical force that is not intended to hurt, damage or kill. The physical force that the government uses to enforce its laws is intended to hurt, damage or kill. My definition definitively includes government force. According to your definition, violence is force employed against rights or liberty. When the government uses violence to enforce its laws it is violating my right to liberty.
2020-01-31 17:05
"Yeah, there is physical force not intended to hurt, damage or kill. Pushing a wheel barrel involves physical force that is not intended to hurt, damage or kill. " So it seems we agree that violence is a subset of force then. Which means that we can use force without using violence. ------- "My definition definitively includes government force." You mean it includes government force when it's used for the purpose to hurt, damage or kill (at least per the definition you quoted). I'm fine with including government violence into violence, obviously government violence is indeed a subset of violence. ------- "The physical force that the government uses to enforce its laws is intended to hurt, damage or kill." All of it? Are you arguing that there are no situations where governments can make laws respected either by not using force or using force without the intent to hurt, damage or kill? ------ "According to your definition, violence is force employed against rights or liberty. When the government uses violence to enforce its laws it is violating my right to liberty." You're the one who seems to defend the idea that governments require violence to enforce laws though, not me. I can grant that they can require force (although I'm not sure they necessarily need it in every situation), but I don't defend the position that they require violence. If you think I misunderstood your position, feel free to rephrase it. But this point of the discussion brings me back to what I asked you earlier: are you against the concept of law itself? Or do you think that laws are something that can be used to protect rights? Because if you do think laws can protect rights, then even using violence to enforce laws may, depending on the situation, be beneficial, assuming the law being enforced would protect more rights for more people than it would violate, for example killing a mass shooter would surely violate the shooter's rights, but it would also protect all the rights of many other people, is it a kind of compromise that is acceptable to you, regarding the use of violence? But if you don't think laws can protect rights, then my question is: what do you think protects rights then? What should humans use instead? If your problem is not laws but the government enforcing them, who, or what, do you think should enforce them instead?
2020-01-31 18:12
#60
REZ | 
Sweden katt1n 
Yes, not all forces are violence. Another example of a force that has nothing to do with violence is gravity. Why are you bringing up that forces do not have to be violent? Force used to make someone do something are inherently violent, and that is the kind of force required to enforce laws. It does not matter if people agree to follow some laws because they agree with them, as long as there are violent consequences for breaking the law, the law is inherently violent. If there are no violent consequences for breaking a law, it cannot be enforced and is thus not a law in practice.
2020-01-31 23:10
You have not answered many of my questions. You're free not to do so, but it does not help me understand your point of view, and every time your bring up something that is related to my questions, I risk asking them again. ----- "Yes, not all forces are violence. Another example of a force that has nothing to do with violence is gravity." You're equivocating the term "force" here, we're talking about the context of social interactions between humans, so the force employed will originate from humans towards other humans, gravity is not a force that emerges from social interactions between humans. ----- "Why are you bringing up that forces do not have to be violent?" Because you're arguing that violence is necessary for laws to be enforced, and I disagree, which is why the distinction between the use of force and the use of violence is important. ----- "Force used to make someone do something are inherently violent, and that is the kind of force required to enforce laws." Wait, that's not part of the definition of violence you used before. Force used on someone will obviously make someone do something, that's what using force means right? You said that your definition of violence was the use of force with the intent to hurt, damage or kill. You can make someone do something without the intent to hurt, damage or kill, right? For example that's what parents do all the time with their children, they make their children do something, do you think they do so with the intent to hurt, damage or kill? I don't think so. I'll ask my question again: are you against any type of law then? Because you seem to be against violence, and you seem to consider that any law is enforced through violence? ------ "It does not matter if people agree to follow some laws because they agree with them, as long as there are violent consequences for breaking the law, the law is inherently violent" Really? Don't you think that cooperation is the basis for non-violence? ------ "If there are no violent consequences for breaking a law, it cannot be enforced and is thus not a law in practice." I understand that you think that violence is necessary to enforce laws, even though I disagree, which is why I would like to know whether you're against any type of law or not?
2020-02-01 08:30
#64
REZ | 
Sweden katt1n 
>For example that's what parents do all the time with their children, they make their children do something, do you think they do so with the intent to hurt, damage or kill? I don't think so. If a child disobeys their parents when they make them do something, what are the consequences? No TV? No dinner? The government can only use this kind of power (the power of taking away stuff) if they have money and services that the people are dependent on to begin with. The only way for the government to have these services is by taxing their inhabitants. Taxes can only be implemented if the government has the power to enforce laws about taxation. Where does this power come from if not from the use of violence? To answer your question, i am against the existence of a government.
2020-02-01 20:34
"If a child disobeys their parents when they make them do something, what are the consequences? No TV? No dinner? " That's one example, sure, they can also be grounded. Regardless which example you choose, the consequences will be a violation of their rights. Yet most parents don't intend to hurt, damage or kill, right? On the contrary, it's often because they intend to save them from harm, damage or being killed, such as when a child wants to wander off on the train track for example, parents intervene and violate the child's right to body autonomy, forcing them to stay out of the train track despite their desire to be on it. How do you consider such action? Use of force without being violence? Or would you still call it violence, but justified violence? ------ "The government can only use this kind of power (the power of taking away stuff) if they have money and services that the people are dependent on to begin with. The only way for the government to have these services is by taxing their inhabitants. Taxes can only be implemented if the government has the power to enforce laws about taxation. Where does this power come from if not from the use of violence?" The power of the government comes from the constitution. That's what is used to build laws and the institutions that compose a government. The constitution is a contract made inside a society to determine how society should function, what rights are guaranteed, etc... You could create a constitution without any taxation, or ask for amending the existing constitution so that taxation is removed. Of course then you may have issues financing any kind of public service. ------ "To answer your question, i am against the existence of a government." Ok, so you had several opportunities to say that you're against any kind of laws, and you did not, instead you said that you're against any kind of government. So I'm going to assume moving forward that you're not against laws as a concept, feel free to correct me if that's not your position. Now, how do you plan for these laws to be applied? I assume, since you're against violence, that you don't want to use it. If someone in your society doesn't want to respect a law, what are the consequences for them? Are you going to use force? Violence? Something else?
2020-02-02 06:50
#68
REZ | 
Sweden katt1n 
"they can also be grounded" Yes, but parents can only enforce the grounding with the threat of things like no TV or no dinner. The government cannot make these kinds of threats because of reasons i explained before. The only way for a government to have power over its citizens is with the threat of force intended to hurt, damage or kill. Parents are not allowed to threaten their kids with violence, nor is anyone. With out the threat of violence the constitution is just a document. It grants no power. I will not be magically teleported to prison if i commit a criminal act just because it says so in the constitution. If you define a law as a rule made by a government, i am obviously against all laws. If you consider law a synonym of the word "rule" then it's a different story because rules can be part of a voluntary agreement between two parties.
2020-02-02 15:43
"Yes, but parents can only enforce the grounding with the threat of things like no TV or no dinner." Not at all. Parents can enforce rules in their household by force also (in fact ultimately they always do, because if the child defies parents long enough and hard enough, there will be force being used). Besides, punishments such as "no dinner" are also violations of rights. And if you only make the threat without ever carrying it out, then you won't be able to make your rules respected as a parent, so it's not simply a threat. But that wasn't really my point, my point is that parents use force against children all the time, just as in the train track example: if parents use force to prevent a child from hurting himself or other children, and they can do so without the intent to harm, damage or kill the child, do you consider this violence or simple use of force? If you consider this as violence, is it justified violence? Or do you think it's unjustified? ------ "With out the threat of violence the constitution is just a document. It grants no power. I will not be magically teleported to prison if i commit a criminal act just because it says so in the constitution." Just as rules in a household are not magically enforced either, children are not magically deprived of dinner or magically grounded or magically physically prevented from doing what they want to do. But the point is that the government gets its definition, its function and its means of action from the constitution, without a constitution, there would be no government. That's where they get their power from. Whether this power is legitimate is another story, you could probably make an argument that the power they hold from the constitution is illegitimate, but that wouldn't change the fact that they hold it, and that it comes from there. Now you could of course argue that a constitution is effective only as much as people accept it, but that's true of any set of rules. Rules are only effective as much as people accept them, whether these are house rules or government laws. ------- "If you define a law as a rule made by a government, i am obviously against all laws. If you consider law a synonym of the word "rule" then it's a different story because rules can be part of a voluntary agreement between two parties." So you're in favor of rules, but not rules made by governments, ok. Indeed rules can be made between two parties or more, it could be an agreement made in a country, a city, a family or any group of humans right? Now, how do you plan to enforce rules once they're established? If someone agrees to a rule but fails to respect it afterwards, how do you propose the other individuals should handle this situation? Do you have an idea that would not rely on the use of force?
2020-02-03 12:23
#70
REZ | 
Sweden katt1n 
Parents that strike their children are depraving them of their rights. Not giving dinner to a child is not a rights violation, as a right can never trample the rights of anyone else. Regardless of which parenting body (even though a random group of people claiming to rule over an arbitrary area have no business at all telling other people how to live their lives, and thus should not be considered parenting bodies) we are talking about, violence is never okay. Never. First of all, the government is a random group of people ruling over an arbitrary area. They have no business acting as the parents of anyone, so stop comparing them to parents. If a person were to save someone from suicide by pushing them into a window or whatever, that would not be an act of violence because the force used is not intended to hurt. If the person trying to commit suicide were to pull a gun on the person trying to save him, and the person trying to save him responded by shooting him back, that would be violence, since you now used force to hurt, injure or kill someone. You did not adress my point about the constitution at all. A random document cannot arrest people. A random document cannot execute people. The constitution is just a framework on which the government operates. The government needs to get the power to enforce the constitution from somewhere. It gets that power through the threat of violence. I did not say anything about not relying on the use of force. I said that you cannot rely on the use of violence. That in itself is an oversimplification since you have a right to self defense. How do you enforce a contract? If someone breaks a rule, stop enforcing your side of the contract. If they owe you money, take the money by force. This is okay, since it is your money.
2020-02-03 20:42
I replied in #71 so that we get more space for our replies.
2020-02-04 05:42
Response to #70 "Parents that strike their children are depraving them of their rights. Not giving dinner to a child is not a rights violation, as a right can never trample the rights of anyone else. " Really? Preventing a human being to nourish themselves is not a violation of their rights? So if I prevent you from having dinner, I'm not violating your rights? As for hitting children, I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about physically remove them from a situation that they wish to be into. This does not necessitate to hit them. That doesn't change that it's a violation to their right of body autonomy: they wish to be somewhere doing something, and you prevent them from doing so. Of course a right can be in conflict with other rights, that's the whole point of rules, if all rights could be fulfilled without conflict with other rights, then we wouldn't need any rules to live together... ------ "Regardless of which parenting body (even though a random group of people claiming to rule over an arbitrary area have no business at all telling other people how to live their lives, and thus should not be considered parenting bodies) we are talking about, violence is never okay. Never." So for example, there's a child who's hurting other children, or themselves, and their parent wants to prevent that. Parents do that all the time, would you necessarily call parents violent in their behavior, or would you grant that they can do so without the use of violence? ------ "First of all, the government is a random group of people ruling over an arbitrary area. They have no business acting as the parents of anyone, so stop comparing them to parents. " Just like you didn't choose to be born in a society with government X, you didn't choose to be born in a family with parents X, the justification for their authority over you is just as arbitrary, it's just as random, no matter who your parents are you're going to be subject to their authority, those are just rules that other humans chose for you, and that new people who come into the world are obligated to follow at least for a time until they're independent enough to choose if they want to leave their society or family, or to act inside those communities to change the rules. ------- "You did not adress my point about the constitution at all. A random document cannot arrest people. A random document cannot execute people. The constitution is just a framework on which the government operates. The government needs to get the power to enforce the constitution from somewhere. It gets that power through the threat of violence" I addressed it: your objection is just an objection to any set of rules, any set of rules needs humans to make them respected, without humans to make them respected they cannot be used. And you're not against all rules, you said that you agree to rules if they don't come from a government, the critic you're making which is essentially "laws need people to be enforced" can be used against any version of any society which has any set of rules, it's not specific to our current societies with governments and laws. Either you accept that rules can be used, which implies that some humans will have to enforce them, or you don't accept any kind of rules, as far as I understood you accept some kinds of rules, so you accept that there will be some humans to enforce them. If you don't, then explain how you plan for these rules to be enforced without humans to do so. ------- "I did not say anything about not relying on the use of force. I said that you cannot rely on the use of violence. That in itself is an oversimplification since you have a right to self defense. How do you enforce a contract? If someone breaks a rule, stop enforcing your side of the contract. If they owe you money, take the money by force. This is okay, since it is your money." Ok, so you agree to the use of force to enforce rules then. When you say that you would take the money, are you saying that you would make justice yourself? Are you saying that you would like a society where people would make justice themselves? Or did I misunderstand you? If you have rules established in the community your live in, who gets to enforce them? Who makes the investigation, who makes the trial, who decides the sentence? Can you do justice yourself? Or would it be like in our current societies where we rely on some people specialized in enforcing the rules?
2020-02-04 05:44
#38
 | 
Korea kaiske 
No
2020-01-28 01:24
Not necessarily. But if you truly care about your money being robbed, then you should start hating all types of government.
2020-01-28 04:00
So are you capitalism anarchist? The key point of government is to maintain the order of society. It is the crucial part of keeping 'private-owned' stuff being safe, as from Marxism perspective, private-owned means of production is not necessary to exist in this world and workers have every right to own it. Government in a way also ensuring the investment and agreements being executed. If less government in this society, the huge income gap and uneven distribution of wealth will easily brought up another revolution, every data showed that 'free market' brought nothing but inequality, so thats why even neo-liberlism NEEDS a big government in a way, but then they want little intervention in the market, little taxation, thats a huge contradiction. It's like you want a horse but you don't want it to eat.
2020-01-28 04:14
yes
2020-01-28 04:25
#44
 | 
Brazil feminazi 
ov courze vro
2020-01-28 04:53
#45
 | 
Canada ProvexPyker 
More government means they have the monopoly over the legitimate use of violence.
2020-01-28 04:59
No but it will reduce the dangers if that makes any sense.
2020-01-28 18:52
#61
 | 
Norway Trip^^ 
No
2020-01-31 23:36
less goverment means less centralised corruption
2020-02-01 08:32
No. It’s all about how well does the anti-corruption system goes but not big government or small government.
2020-02-02 07:03
FURIA
2.14
North
1.67
Neverest
1.90
fakeDOSPRO
1.84
AVANT
1.50
madlikewizards
2.53
Bet value
Amount of money to be placed
Winning
Odds total ratio
-
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.