Why is the world as messed up as it is?

Post Reply New Topic

That's good to know since I find both champagne and caviar neither tasty nor worth the expense. I do lust on occasion for a nice piece of ass but that falls outside the basics of food, clothing and shelter and my current sexual capabilities.

It doesn't make sense to say you need anything, without qualification.

So, you might need caviar if 1) you want to eat food that tastes nice and 2) you think that caviar tastes nice.

What's that quote? "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Even if a government starts out with the people's best interests in mind (ie: communism), power breeds corruption. As long as our world functions with such huge systems, it will fail.
America is too big, Russia is too big, China is too big, etc. Let alone the scale problems (a couple people are never going to accurately represent several million people), but such a large economy/structure can't survive for long without becoming incredibly corrupt.

I'm very pro state government. If we ran ourselves more independently, and the turn over rates for politicians increased, corruption would be manageable, and the laws would represent the people who live there.
I personally believe marijuana should be legal, no question. But if, say, kentucky wants to make it illegal, oh well, that's them. They have the right to do what they want. They have different views, which I don't agree with, but it doesn't give me the right to control what they do. And the great thing about this sort of system is that if you don't like the laws, you can move to another state. Vermont could turn communist if they want, and as long as it doesn't affect me, I don't care. Let them try it out, maybe it'll work!

I'm rambling, so I'll leave it at that.

That's an interesting argument, because most people who are against drug prohibition would say something like 'they (drug users) do things I don't agree with, but that doesn't give me the right to control what they do.'

The idea that you can just move if you disagree with the laws presumes that 1) it's easy to move, when for some people it may not be, 2) there are areas whose laws you largely agree with, and 3) you are not prevented from moving by your state, and are allowed in by the other. I don't think, in practice, it would be as simple as you make it sound.

That's how I feel, too. I don't think I should have the power to dictate what someone else does with their own life, just as I feel other people should allow me to make my own choices.

And yes, this is true. Though with a correctly implemented system, the people who live in a region would get more say over what happens to them (smaller area = each vote counts that much more), so it would breed less extreme disagreements. The people who disagree in MA, disagree with each other less than the people in MA disagree with the people in AK, for example. Also, no one is ever going to completely agree, but I think having a more fair, run-by-the-people sort of government is better than what we have now. Now we have an extremely polarized nation, playing the "good guys, bad guys" game. You'd probably still get that at the state level, but it would be no where near as intense, and more people would have their voices heard.

Yet you're okay with governments forcing people not to use certain drugs (as long as it isn't the government who claim to rule over the location you live in)?



I can see that a system like this might solve some problems, and I can't say it would be worse than what it's like now. On the other hand, I'm quite skeptical of democracy in general.

"The flawed nature of people, period."

My thoughts exactly.

No, not at all. I think you're misunderstanding. I don't mean that there's a looming bad guy called "the government." I mean that with faster turn over rates for elected officials, and a smaller area, that things like town counsel would have more of a say in what's allowed. District courts, co-ops, all those kinds of systems would gain more power, so it wouldn't be THE GOVERNMENT (dun dun duuun) regulating everything, it would be the people themselves outlawing and legalizing what they themselves want. Say one district or state wants to outlaw talking on the phone while driving, but another thinks that's silly, and keep it legal. That's perfectly fine. I know quite a few people who think talking on the phone while driving is dangerous and terrible and needs to be illegal. If they really want to vote on it and outlaw it, then so be it. They decide what they do.



I'm not at all against democracy, if it's done right. Full democracy is bad (ancient greece, for example, or the quakers) because you never get anything done, and American "democracy" is horrible, because it's not true democracy. People confuse what we have (which is a republic) with a democracy. Smaller-scale democracy with free market capitalism is a fairly decent system. And of course, with that system, it doesn't impose anything. If, say, connecticut is against capitalism and democracy, they would have the freedom to use socialism, or any other system of their choosing.

Need would be best defined as a necessity in order to survive. Caviar isn't necessary in order to survive, though it could be if used as fish bait.

Most people certainly view it that way, but I don't think you can compel anybody to favour that qualification over any other.

The thing about people is that it is truly impossible to compel anyone absolutely. Some dictators use force to compel, but they only get an outward show. In argumentation, you wont even get that. It is easier to convince than to compel, because convincing people is reasoning along with them. Attempting to compel people to accept something tends to just draw out abject hatred regardless of the truth or falsity of the matter.

If I think drug prohibition is wrong, it doesn't make much difference to me who authorizes it. My point would stand whatever you choose to call the people in power. I don't use the word 'government' to refer to any particular system of control - I use it as a catch-all to refer to (to quote the opening lines of the wikipedia article on the subject) any kind of organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises its authority, controls and administers public policy, and directs and controls the actions of its members or subjects.

You don't see yourself as being in any position to force people not to use marijuana, on the basis that 'I don't think I should have the power to dictate what someone else does with their own life, just as I feel other people should allow me to make my own choices.' Yet you're okay with governments (town counsels, district courts, co-ops, etc - whatever your system relies on) forcing people not to use certain drugs. This seems strange to me.

It's misleading to claim that 'it would be the people themselves outlawing and legalizing what they themselves want.' No. In any place where drugs are outlawed, there are going to be people who don't want drugs to be outlawed. Similarly, in any place where drugs are legal, there are going to be people who don't want drugs to be legal. Your system may be better, but it will never be the case that a viewpoint held by 'the people' speaks for every individual within that group.

It's worth mentioning, by the way, that although I'm something of a philosophical anarchist (in that I think anarchism is desirable, and society will, eventually, probably become anarchist), I'm not so resistant to some kind of government at the moment. The main requirements I would make of it: 1) that much, much more money is sent to third world nations, 2) that animals have far more rights/protection, 3) that people are basically left alone to do what they want. Obviously, they wouldn't be able to do entirely whatever they want - some of their money would be stolen from them as taxation, for example. But things such as drugs, guns, prostitution, etc, would all be legal. I'd also encourage communities to organize themselves however they want, so in that way, I can hardly deny that democracy would be a significant feature. Coming back to the third point, though, that people are basically left alone to do what they want, one of the main purposes of government would be to preserve individual freedom against the possible tyranny of organizations on a more local level.

You've misunderstood me. I will add a word that may make what I was saying more clear: most people certainly view it that way, but I don't think you can rationally compel anybody to favour that qualification over any other. So you say that 'need would be best defined as a necessity in order to survive'. But why must a 'need' be something that's a 'necessity in order to survive'? Why not 'necessity in order to satiate a desire for tasty food', when talking about caviar?

I wasn't saying anything significant, by the way. It was just a rather pedantic about the meaning of the word 'need'.

Prescriptively I would define a need as, "a necessity in order to survive" and I would define a want as "a necessity in order to satiate a desire." The nuance difference between "need" and "want" is similar in nuance difference as between the words "can" and "may", or the words "shall" and "will".

No. You'd have to use a 'want' to qualify any 'need'. So somebody could say something like 'I need that bread because I want to continue living.' Eating the bread is necessary for that person to continue living.

Equally, though, somebody might say 'I need the caviar because I want to satiate my desire for tasty food.' Eating the caviar is necessary for that person to satiate their desire for tasty food. Sure, you could say 'but why do you need to satiate your desire for tasty food?' On the other hand, why do you need to continue living? To say that you need anything is meaningless unless you qualify what you need it for. In general, I don't think you can rationally compel people to favour one qualification over any other.

And then there is the act of eating MREs.