Difference between Republican and Democrat

Post Reply New Topic

thank you for saving me my rant, now for the "moral" verison of it
marraige involves the goverment as long as the goverment has a different set of laws and rules for couples, such as power of attorney, child custody, jointly filed taxes, death benefits and the like.

But why not leaving this to legal contracts between two people or more and handling those people from the state's view as strangers (e.g. in respect of taxes)? Or replacing the marriage laws in this respect with cohabiting-laws: If live people live a certain time together respective claims would raise, but outside a special legal construct and the tax-law?

Ok, but the issue is that we are unlikely to be able to stop anyone from getting these weapons. People get them without our desires all of the time, and we usually cannot make them give it up. Heck, we basically just accepted the fact that India had the nuke. What more could we do about a terrorist organization except hope that they suck at weaponizing it, like North Korea was?

I don't see why states have to care too much. After all, those who do trade with us benefit. Those who do not trade with us stay in the economic abyss.


Yeah, I don't see that happening, and I don't see the benefits. I mean, your argument is that "terrorist groups can exist", ok, but can we realistically send conventional military forces to fight guerrilla fighters to take away their weapons? I have my doubts. What is more likely is that these efforts get embroiled in conflicts that cannot reasonably be won, even with the US's military budget.


Yes, terrorist attacks. The kind of a fighter that would use guerrilla warfare and basically organize themselves into small cells rather than having conventional bases or anything like that. So, basically, the kind of enemy we cannot fight using military forces, that is willing to die to hurt us is also the kind of enemy that can do a significant amount of damage to us.

Honestly, I'd imagine our efforts would be better placed in defensive measures.


No, it probably won't change quickly at all. I mean, brutality won't really get you that far, as it will just piss people off and later not be enforced by anyone. Sure, you'll kill some people, but you will be "the enemy", the reason why we tolerate it when our states do this, is because they are not "the enemy".

Actually, I disagree with your stand. I am not a Hobbesian, and I don't think that's how society works. That's a very fundamental difference, it is one we've talked about before and not gotten very far with, and I doubt we'll go much further if you press it this time either. The fact of the matter is though, that no government has unlimited power, but rather are always limited by the willingnesses of their agents, and if you have a society where your agents are corrupt and also bound by the traditional culture, single one-shot actions aren't going to have much effect.

If you ask me what will benefit these people though? Trade. If it is in their self-interest to trade with us, they will stop looking at us as opponents, they will be more willing to adopt our cultural norms, they will adopt better cultural norms on their own to enrich themselves as they will have more merchants to do this, a larger percent of the population will have better opportunities than terrorism, etc. But I think the driving force of civilization is the adoption of norms that are suited to trade. I don't think you can force trade though.

There I disagree, not because people are saints, but rather, I imagine that the norms on this are probably more important than the fact that the government does these things.

Such low-level organisation do not rely on highly organized societies. They are based on relative autarkic primitive societies - see Somalia or Afghanistan. Setting up states will such societies into the world trade. This trade is of extreme importance of upholding peace: It disables war fare. Germany and France are not keeping peace because of the Elysee-Treaty or because Merkel and Sarkozy are that much more clever than Bismark and Napoleon III, but because the economy of both countries is interlink that a war would just not possible.

To archive such a level of economy you need a state to provide the framework.



Therefore state-structures must be imposed worldwide: The military has only one task: The make the first clean-up. Than the bureaucrats, judges and police men must follow. A working state can keep terrorist well under control. This has been proven in Europe since Sir Francis Walsingham. Without such a state control is not possible.



We forget in the western world that this concept of an all-powerful legalistic state has been introduced also here in Europe as a novelty. We do forget this, because this process happened mostly in 16th century, so beyond the historical horizon of the most people. This concept is a success story and had been proven prior in China and other cultures as the best way to maintain a peaceful society. I do not see any reason not to impose this in the general interest of mankind.

Any norm, law or rule without a power behind the law to impose the law is a mere piece of paper.

Well, yes, but the issue is that I reject your idea of state building as even being possibly effective.

In any case, I don't see states as necessary for trade either, I see pro-trade norms as necessary.


Yes, but the issue is that the problem isn't just the infection, but rather it is in the culture itself. There cannot be a working state that prevents terrorism where people don't generally care. We cannot inflict punishment on people to an extent that will make them care though. Nor will our bureaucrats, judges, or policemen be of much use given that these people don't care, or where they are corrupt. So, I don't see much point to your suggestions.


Umm.... the issue is that the "all-powerful legalistic state" is a fiction and has always been a fiction. Not only that, but I am an American, we've never believed in an all-powerful legalistic state, and our society has generally desired to have as small of a government as is possible and emerged from the patterns of colonies that left England to go their own way. So, Hobbesian assertions just don't make sense to me. Not only that, but honestly, I disagree. I think that the real foundations of society comes from the culture and the fact that people think the culture works for them.


Power is not a term that requires a state though, it requires power, social sanction. I mean, most norms are upheld because people think they'd look bad if they violated these norms, this "looking bad" is a social sanction against these actions. In any case, the "power" is always constrained by social rules, which exist before legal rules, and as such, one's power never extends to that which seems unnatural for society or unnatural for the people to obey.

Care to explain the backlash against state power that resulted in the destruction of those states and/or examples of those who were oppresed by those empires rebelling or eventually winning? (e.g. Russia)



I counter with Jefferson, Thoreau and Rousseau (and IIRC Tao and some other chinese philosophers who went into something similar to individualist anarchism). Arguably the state is the limiting factor on humanity and its' abilities to improve things.



that didn't stop the UK and Germany before WWI however..



Something that is being eroded with the rise of non-state actors as you mention. I consider that a good thing as it prevents the power that be from quashing dissent.

may I point out something rather interesting? Take the chans or image boards of the web, they act like mini states at times and since little law is imposed, its a rough troll or be trolled place, and frequent wars amongst the chans happen. HOWEVER! when pressed into action by certain events (dusty the cat, COS, the no cussing club) they band together into a loose, confederacy that dissolves after the war is done, with the exception of Anonymous for COS. These places are the online equivelent of countries, each with its own uinque rules and punishments, yet is functions somehow!

Are you referring to the Jefferson who wrote "All men are created equal..." and who also owned slaves? As to Rousseau, who was a useless idealist who believed that savages were as good as civilized men. Anarchism has never worked. We have a living example in Somalia even as we converse. Tell me how good anarchism is working there. A close second is Hataii.

Government is a necessary evil (which, of course, makes it an evil). There are no good government, nor have there ever been any good government. There are only bad government and worse governments. But some bad government is better than no government at all.

Rome was the prime example of Bad Government that worked. They kept the peace and order during the Pax Romana and they had running water and flush toiliets. Without Rome you have the Dark Ages until a New Rome can be built.

ruveyn

"There are only bad government and worse governments. But some bad government is better than no government at all."

This small bit here almost makes it sound like that you'd support even the worst of regimes for the sake of there being a government. =.=

Actually, Somalia is doing reasonably well, all things considered. On several measures, they're performing better than neighbors such as Ethiopia and Kenya even without a state, so anarchism hasn't exactly devastated Somalia. Of course, all this proves is that anarchy can be better than some of the crappiest governments in the world.

I am repelled by this false sense of equivalency.

But first, I want a bit of clarity. What do you mean by "liberal Democrats"? Do you mean...

1) The Establishment Left: New York Times, Foreign Policy Magazine, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, etc. This group of people have advocated what, in the very narrow spectrum of US Policy, is considered "leftwing". The liberals advocated military intevention for US strategic interests (i.e. extracting resources and capital from foreign states) only when it was "practical" or "tactical". All opposition to military interventions by these liberals seem to be "tactical" rather than moral. On domestic policy they support what, in a country as fiscally reactionary as the US, are considered "leftwing": piecemeal increases in social welfare. This seems not so radical: not even Ted Kennedy's plan includes single-payer healthcare.

2) Left-Progressive Activists: People like Progressive Democrats of America, groups that support single-payer healthcare, full withdrawal from Iraq, drug decriminalization, union empowerment, and a social welfare state (as opposed to corporate welfare) state.

Please tell me which of these groups, frequently without distinction classified as "liberal Democrats", constitutes the evil of the party.

I've heard that Republican states tend to be more religious than their democratic counterparts. Also, they have higher rates of violent crime.

and higher rates of drug and porn use.

Is there a higher rate of denial regarding this?