The Political Thread

[Steven Denton]

"Groups have the authority that groups decide they have that they can then enforce. A group or individuals ability to enforce their rules or social structure is the limit their authority."
.
Good heavens! So, how many people does it take to form a group with the right to enforce their views on people outside that group? 2? 5? 17? And if the only means they have to apply their rules is enforcement, does that mean you believe that might makes right? Those with the biggest stick get the moral right to rule whomever they can, regardless of what the ruled think?

I can't tell if this is a genuine argument or if your just that stupid

There is a probably apocryphal story that Hitler, when told the Pope disagreed with his policies, snapped, 'and how many tanks does the Pope have?' Is that the only yardstick for the right to rule you can come up with? Really?
.
The latest ONS analysis shows that the population of the UK is 64,596,800. There are 650 UK MPs. So, 99.998994% of the population are ruled by 0.00100624% of the population (if my maths are correct, which they may not be because I'm shit at it).

Basic error (probably intentional). We are governed by elected representatives. SO your numbers should be every one who has a vote. Not every one who DID vote, every one who Could vote.

This forum has 24,295 members. This means that I (as 0.004116% of the forum population) could declare myself the Ruler of the Forum and have over four times more legitimacy than the UK "government." As your ruler, I could then demand you pay me money, to spend as I wish, and to do as I say. If anyone disobeys, I have the right to send my enforcers to your door to take your money and force you to act as I decree. If you still refuse, my enforcers have the right, given to them by me, to hurt you - but if you hurt them, even in self-defence, you'll be in deep shit. I can do this because I'm representing you and assuming your authority. That's how it works, right?

Yes if, for example, you choose not to pay your rent then fight the bailiffs/police when they turn up. that's exactly how that works.

All your arguments are the same. Giant wall of rambling anecdotes filled with a bespoke pseudo religion designed to absolve you of responsibility for some of the bad choices you have made.

[The Legendary Shark]

Heh, of course I would never attempt to replace the Right Honourable Thryllseeker (or anyone else) in any way. But you bring up an important point, Tordels - Thryllseeker may have been elected on the understanding that he wouldn't raise any revenues out of it.
.
When it comes to "real" politics, how many times have leaders been elected on the understanding that they won't do this and will do that but end up doing this and not doing that? Yet even after broken promises, these people are still believed to have authority? Is this not madness on a huge scale?
.
Oh, and before anyone complains (thanks for the email) - I am not comparing anyone to Hitler. That was simply a story to illustrate a point.

[The Legendary Shark]

It's a genuine argument. Do you believe that might makes right? It's a simple enough question.
.
And your basic error is confusing the method of assuming authorities which you and I do not have with the enforcement of authorities which you and I do not have. It doesn't matter whether one assumes these authorities by birthright, coup, declaration or election - the authority of anyone to initiate force over others exists in nobody. Unless, of course, you believe that might makes right. Do you think this?
.
And your arguments are all based on assumptions with no logical basis.

[NapalmKev]

/quote]

Yeah, because comparisons with "Volcano Gods" is Logic in its purest form.

This "all helping collective" you believe can be established (without a form of Government) is still reliant on people doing the right thing.

Remember "Black Friday"? People getting trampled to death trying to buy cheap TV's. Imagine that was the last few tins of food on the shelf, what do you think would happen then?

The Human Race has a long way to go before your Utopia can be established.

Cheers

[NapalmKev]

.
And your arguments are all based on assumptions with no logical basis.

Yeah, because comparisons with "Volcano Gods" is Logic in its purest form.

This "all helping collective" you believe can be established (without a form of Government) is still reliant on people doing the right thing.

Remember "Black Friday"? People getting trampled to death trying to buy cheap TV's. Imagine that was the last few tins of food on the shelf, what do you think would happen then?

The Human Race has a long way to go before your Utopia can be established.

Cheers

Apologies for the double-post, my phone went haywire

[The Legendary Shark]

The helping collective already exists. Look around you. For example, no one person could possibly know everything there is to know about organising, running and maintaining a postal service - from making envelopes to printing stamps to maintaining vehicles to knowing the delivery foibles of every delivery address, to name but a few - but countless letters and parcels get delivered all over the world every hour of every day. And nobody has to force anybody into making this work.
.
Not all my arguments come in the form of logic but they are based in logic: Nobody has the authority to coerce another human being into acting against his or her will. Therefore no person can pass on to another authorities he or she does not possess. Therefore "government" has no authority to make demands under threat of violence. Even if 100% of the population vote for a prime minister. 65,000,000 times nothing is still nothing.

[Hawkmumbler]

Finding this diagram oddly relevant right now.

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

Not all my arguments come in the form of logic but they are based in logic: Nobody has the authority to coerce another human being into acting against his or her will. Therefore no person can pass on to another authorities he or she does not possess. Therefore "government" has no authority to make demands under threat of violence. Even if 100% of the population vote for a prime minister. 65,000,000 times nothing is still nothing.

There's no such thing as society, eh? That sounds familiar.

[The Legendary Shark]

"Government" and society are not the same thing.

[Steven Denton]

It's a genuine argument. Do you believe that might makes right? It's a simple enough question.
.
And your basic error is confusing the method of assuming authorities which you and I do not have with the enforcement of authorities which you and I do not have. It doesn't matter whether one assumes these authorities by birthright, coup, declaration or election - the authority of anyone to initiate force over others exists in nobody. Unless, of course, you believe that might makes right. Do you think this?
.
And your arguments are all based on assumptions with no logical basis.

no. I never mentioned force. (Force of will force of argument or force of military might) you made an assumption and fell fowl of Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies.

Also excellent use of the 'no you are' defence. followed by cycling back to your same argument that has failed even the most basic of logical test so many times on so many levels.

[Dandontdare]

It's a genuine argument. Do you believe that might makes right? It's a simple enough question.

No consensus makes right - and however flawed, democracy is the best method we've come up with for gauging that consensus.

no one person could possibly know everything there is to know about organising, running and maintaining a postal service - from making envelopes to printing stamps to maintaining vehicles to knowing the delivery foibles of every delivery address, to name but a few - but countless letters and parcels get delivered all over the world every hour of every day. And nobody has to force anybody into making this work.

Good example - to use this service we must all accept certain conditions - the post is collected at certain times and delivered at certain times, you have to put a stamp on it, the cost of which I have no control over. I can't just waylay a postie and demand he take my letter to someone, I have to play by the rules of the system.

[I, Cosh]

The helping collective already exists. Look around you. For example, no one person could possibly know everything there is to know about organising, running and maintaining a postal service - from making envelopes to printing stamps to maintaining vehicles to knowing the delivery foibles of every delivery address, to name but a few - but countless letters and parcels get delivered all over the world every hour of every day. And nobody has to force anybody into making this work.

There's a fairly large contradiction in that at least part of the security and reliability of this service comes from the relatively serious legal sanctions for interfering with the mail. Or, to put it in your terms, the exercise of unwarranted force by an agency with no authorisation or basis for doing so.

And that's just if you don't subscribe to the broader notion that we live in a society which effectively coerces us all into undertaking jobs which we don't really want or need to...

[The Legendary Shark]

Steve, if you'd been following my argument you'd know that it's the "government's" assumed right to use coercive force to make people do as they say and give them money that's at the root of its illegitimacy. If it's okay to force people to act against their will (the people who voted for the losers or didn't vote at all) then "government" is legitimate. If it isn't, it's not. This is not a difficult argument to grasp, is it?
.
Would anyone advise their children, on their first day at school, to form a gang in order to push the other kids around and steal their dinner money, and to call themselves "government" to legitimise their bullying and theft?
.
It was consensus that killed millions of Jews, Gypsies and other groups in 1930s and 40s Germany. Consensus is no guarantee of rightness.
.
The Post Office doesn't send uniformed goons 'round to hurt you if you don't want to use it.

[I, Cosh]

The Post Office doesn't send uniformed goons 'round to hurt you if you don't want to use it.

But what right does it have to expect the state to stop me from opening someone else's letter if I want to and how is that not the exercise of force by your definition?

[Steven Denton]

And he busts out another Nazi analogy and another 'if this then that' anecdote in an attempt at an emotional appeal.