Evergreen State College: Collective Psychosis

[Tecmos Deception]

Originally Posted by mickmoranis [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're thinking of LAW

and you're mistaking goverment for law, the goverment facilitates laws, and in our case, allows us to define them.

Taxes pay for roads, and because of Americans inability to manage and understanding critical thinking, they also pay for your goverment.

Which is your fault.

Not the governments.

What?

Laws are words, concepts, etc. A law doesn't show up at my door and drag me off to prison (or kill me) when I refuse to pay taxes; a man armed by, instructed by, and paid by the government does.

Tolstoy, and not you, had it right: "Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us."

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When has a government ever ruled through genuine, explicit consent of the governed? When have taxes been voluntary or non-existent? What state has existed without being destroyed by a war or engaging in war?

Governments are force.

"Governments are force" is a technically correct but functionally useless statement, it's not an argument and it's not a useful observation.

All governments rule through consent of the governed, Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau exactly as much as Kim Jung Un. It is only through the laziness, ignorance, or apathy of the governed that a government appears tyrannical. Basically any time you are following the rules of the social contract, you are submitting to the authority of government. Humanity traded some individual freedom for some benefits of cooperation and law/order, and you are born into this contract whether you like it or not. Yes, it's force, but that force is merely the enforcement of the contract on behalf of all of society. The same force that forces you to pay taxes also stops a syndicate of lowlives from killing you, raping your wife, and eating your children. The rest of society agreed explicitly or implicitly that those are the terms.

You seem to have some animosity toward being "forced" to contribute but I think your animus is toward the terms of the contract rather than the contract itself, in which case it accomplishes exactly nothing to complain about how government is forcing you to do something. Rather, your issue is with the 'idea' that is supported by enough of society (or enough powerful people) to be a mandate for you. If you don't want to pay taxes, vote Republican and get into a higher tax bracket, or vote libertarian.

If you don't want any social contract at all, too bad, basically. Every group of humans numbering more than 100 or so for the last 100,000 years has formed a contract. Anarchy is proto-human.

Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Tolstoy, and not you, had it right: "Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us."

Government is an association of men who do violence on behalf of the rest of us.

...would be more accurate.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What?

Laws are words, concepts, etc. A law doesn't show up at my door and drag me off to prison (or kill me) when I refuse to pay taxes; a man armed by, instructed by, and paid by the government does.

Tolstoy, and not you, had it right: "Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us."

we cant have a discussions bout it because you are not capable of it man, listen to you. You have your mind made up with the doors closed and all the windows sealed shut.

Im simply pointing out that you dont require force to rule a country, you can do so perfectly fine by simply manipulating the masses.

Even in your second question, you are talking about ESTABLISHING a country, not ruling one.

I mean the way you sound man, it sounds like you think paying taxes is tantamount to being forced to work in a north korean prison camp.

Society drives the % of taxes, in the form of a vote. Some how thats rule by force?? I swear its not the kids these days thats the problems its the kids from just a few decades ago that are.

Youre free to do whatever you want here man. If you dont want to pay taxes, dont, just dont use our roads to make money, or youll pay a fine, that WE the people chose.

gimi a break man, all I'm going to tell you there is more to the pie than the crust.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Governments are force" is a technically correct but functionally useless statement, it's not an argument and it's not a useful observation.

All governments rule through consent of the governed, Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau exactly as much as Kim Jung Un. It is only through the laziness, ignorance, or apathy of the governed that a government appears tyrannical. Basically any time you are following the rules of the social contract, you are submitting to the authority of government. Humanity traded some individual freedom for some benefits of cooperation and law/order, and you are born into this contract whether you like it or not. Yes, it's force, but that force is merely the enforcement of the contract on behalf of all of society. The same force that forces you to pay taxes also stops a syndicate of lowlives from killing you, raping your wife, and eating your children. The rest of society agreed explicitly or implicitly that those are the terms.

You seem to have some animosity toward being "forced" to contribute but I think your animus is toward the terms of the contract rather than the contract itself, in which case it accomplishes exactly nothing to complain about how government is forcing you to do something. Rather, your issue is with the 'idea' that is supported by enough of society (or enough powerful people) to be a mandate for you. If you don't want to pay taxes, vote Republican and get into a higher tax bracket, or vote libertarian.

If you don't want any social contract at all, too bad, basically. Every group of humans numbering more than 100 or so for the last 100,000 years has formed a contract. Anarchy is proto-human.



Government is an association of men who do violence on behalf of the rest of us.

...would be more accurate.

also this

and also yes its laughable how kids these days think society is "oppressive dictatorship"

Sure our society is full of reatards, but god made us in perfect balance, there are always enough of the other type of retard to balance your retard and my retard from taking over.

[Tecmos Deception]

Buncha little statists round here [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[mickmoranis]

lol well Im a misanthrope and pretty sure lune is a eugenicist... but a statist, thats a first for both of us.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Buncha little statists round here [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll never understand the alternative. Even the most Jeffersonian of Founding Father rugged-individualist libertarian teapartycrats is a statist in the eyes of an anarchist.

Every time a group of people get together and make a rule, and agree to enforce that rule, they've made a state. It turns out, time and time again, in society after society for tens of thousands of years, from tribes of berry-pickers to worldwide empires, humans prefer to make rules and enforce them.

[mickmoranis]

one thing I bet we all agree on.

fuck this bitch:
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Tecmos Deception]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll never understand the alternative. Even the most Jeffersonian of Founding Father rugged-individualist libertarian teapartycrats is a statist in the eyes of an anarchist.

Every time a group of people get together and make a rule, and agree to enforce that rule, they've made a state. It turns out, time and time again, in society after society for tens of thousands of years, from tribes of berry-pickers to worldwide empires, humans prefer to make rules and enforce them.

I'm not posting in here because I'm trying to deny history. But it's not like humanity's history of life under government has been full of peace and love and prosperity, right? It's only been in the last few centuries (out of so many thousands of years), as government has become somewhat less absolute and personal freedoms have generally been greater, that more than a handful of humans rose above bare subsistence.

You say you'll never understand the alternative to government, and I guess it's your prerogative to either refuse to learn or to believe there's nothing to be learned. But personally, I just can't see any reason why a statement like "all human interaction should be voluntary" can be wrong. Denying anarchy is admitting you want to do violence to others who are doing no harm to you, whether you do it via a state or a gang or directly.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Tecmos Deception [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not posting in here because I'm trying to deny history. But it's not like humanity's history of life under government has been full of peace and love and prosperity, right? It's only been in the last few centuries (out of so many thousands of years), as government has become somewhat less absolute and personal freedoms have generally been greater, that more than a handful of humans rose above bare subsistence.

You say you'll never understand the alternative to government, and I guess it's your prerogative to either refuse to learn or to believe there's nothing to be learned. But personally, I just can't see any reason why a statement like "all human interaction should be voluntary" can be wrong. Denying anarchy is admitting you want to do violence to others who are doing no harm to you, whether you do it via a state or a gang or directly.

It's not that I plug my ears at the mention of anarchism and go "lalalalala", it's just that I see it as logically unsound. Anarchism denies mass cooperation which I think is absolutely integral to human prosperity and progress.

The only issue I have with "all human interaction being voluntary" is you shouldn't be able to enjoy the benefits of society (cooperation, safety, rules), without the responsibilities (taxes, civic duty, mutual aid/defense, rules). Which means if you decided you didn't want to sign the contract, you'd have to leave. Unfortunately, the planet is basically full, and all the world's resources are spoken for. We also share an environment.

By denying anarchy I just admit that violence is the way in which the contract is enforced-- if somebody breaks the rules, that causes harm, and violence (force) is society's recourse. In a perfect world the contract is voluntary, you'd be able to leave and go homestead somewhere in the frontier and make your own rules, but I just don't see it.