Messages

I hate anyone who doesn't worship the volcano god.

Is it legal for politicians to lie to get elected?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-34190439

Commander Sternhagan.  Best I can find of the Strikehawk ship doesn't have much more detail.


There's also an unused version in Extreme Edition 17...

Now that I think about it, I haven't seen a loveable kitten all day...

Sharky, you magnificent swine...

I certainly didn't mean to imply that I understand or have a hold on how the world works (but you know that).  I don't think anyone does.  I do think, though, that you have a very positive view of the human race at large.  It's always seemed to be your belief that, one day, we shall overcome the things that divide us and just all get along.

I genuinely hope that that is true, but I work everyday for an organization that seeks to protect vulnerable people from those who would steal from them - often their "friends" and families, so no, I don't believe that most people will just co-operate.

We're all just trying to get by.  My attempts to turn your logic (seriously, "volcano God"?) back at you may have been overly harsh, for which I sincerely apologise.

but it's okay to call my "considered viewpoint" nonsense?

You started it.  Would you prefer "magical"?  "Irrational"?.  Both terms you have used in the last page to describe the opinions of others, whose differences of opinion you value and appreciate.

It is in the interests of every butcher to trade in the best quality products for the best prices he can.

Its in the interests of any company to make profit.  I'm sure you could quickly compile a list of companies who have fucked over their customers, polluted the planet and abused their workers.  I'm sure that this list would include a very large number of companies which continue to run at a sizeable profit.

his customers will punish him by shopping elsewhere or suing him in court

Suing him in court would require an acceptance of the authority of that court.  Authority does not exist.

The rest of your argument hinges on the evils of multinational corporations fixated on profit over people. Here we are mostly in agreement

So the butcher stuff was nonsense...sorry, "irrational".

often the greatest supporters of the myth of government are these corporations themselves. They fund election campaigns, throw millions, if not billions, of pounds at lobbying and pen legislation for the high priests of government MPs to push through parliament and generally do everything they can to increase their profits. Remove "government" and suddenly they have to operate on a level playing field.

Because they would suddenly start being nice if they didn't have to pay bribes anymore? 

If a supermarket is found to be putting sawdust in bread, lack of "government" control will allow for a thousand local bakeries to spring up, bakeries owned and run by people from your own community in whose interest it is to bake the best bread they can containing the best ingredients they can procure

Because of all of the legislation currently limiting small businesses.  Free from having to pay a decent wage, meet any standards, or, more importantly, pay any taxes, suddenly the small business man will flourish and work for the benefit of his community. (It's true, just ask all the thriving bakers in Eritrea.) 

Botulism can be cured by modern medicine

if you can afford it.  Since we're not funding a health service through national taxation anymore, you better hope you live in a nice area and the small council running your hospital think you're worth saving.  Failing that, there's always Kickstarter.

Such bodies might be organised through local councils

or "government", as we called it in the Before Times.

Removing the only thing that "government" brings to the table, the threat of immoral violence

or "Acts of Parliament" as we called them in the  Before Times.

In a world without government there will still be leaders - but these will be people who lead by example, with voluntary followers, not people who lead by implied right and threats of violence.

These will be the people with money, who can afford the biggest army.

It has been estimated that the number of people killed by their own governments between 1900 and 1999 is 262,000,000

That article consists mostly of a list of non-democratic, totalitarian governments.  Unelected leaders who seized power through force and fear.  We elect our leaders and have very few concentration camps.

You're entitled to your opinions, Sharky.  But the whole libertarian, free man of the land thing was old when Ayn Rand was selling it.  People aren't disagreeing with you because they are uninformed, or brainwashed, or have a religiously dogmatic learned obedience to authority.  Everyone else has the same reasoning power as you and, as free and reasoned people, we have chosen to agree with the notion of government.

STOP!  Saying his name may summon him.

I don't know what you mean by "worshipping the God of Recidivism."

I was referencing your "worship of State" nonsense.  You also compared the legal and moral argument about accepting the role of government to a strawman believe in volcano gods.  It's not nice when someone compares your considered viewpoint to a baseless religious faith.

government only makes the process more difficult by demanding money for licenses, demanding its cut from wages and profits and purchases of land, building, equipment and vehicles.

and health and safety laws, and food standards, and building roads and schools and hospitals. And paying the nurses and firefighters you compared to slaves. Luckily...

Taxes are not inherently evil and can be used positively to solve a great many problems - just like any societal tool. Like any societal tool, however, taxes can be misused. It's the misuse I object to, not the tool itself.

however, we can't collect them since

Government requires authority otherwise it would not be government - but how do 66.1% of the voting population pass on authorities they do not themselves possess (to take other people's money and push them around) to those they voted for?

because even though a bunch of individuals is happy to decide that they, as a group, should have more power that they do as individuals, and that this acceptance of authority is all that is required for authority to exist...

they cannot delegate rights and authorities they do not possess to anyone else. Government, then, logically has no authority and, without authority, cannot exist.

so we should all just make up our own minds about stuff and do whatever we please.  Buts that's okay since...

A lack of government does not mean that organisation and cooperation cease to exist.

after all...

Take supermarkets as an example

large, multinational organisations run by millionaires who sell food grow by people who often scrape by, working long hours to provide for their families.  There is no contradiction here, since...

There is not one single law forcing anyone to produce a single morsel of food

and without government, there would also be no single law preventing anyone from working in a toxic environment for 18 hours a day, or employing four year olds, or increasing profits by adding sawdust to your bread.

You also said that organization and cooperation would continue.  So presumably there is a "we".  If "I" do something, there is no need for organization.

Out of curiosity, what would prove the authority of government to you?  Because if nothing would, then there's little point in discussion.

The problem Sharky, is that you worship the God of Recidivism. 
You believe that there is a powerful force in the world, which cannot be seen or controlled by traditional mean.  This force controls everything behind the scene, leaving most people in a powerless state. 

You are unwilling to accept the existence of any rules placed upon you which you are not in favour of. 

You are happy to ignore any form of evidence which doesn't agree with your pre-defined beliefs, ignoring experts and science alike.

But you believe strongly that we can all be free...if only we see the light and accept our personal responsibility and believe what you believe.  Only then will a new world be formed, in which everything is fair and good and right (in so far as you have defined it).  And a new dawn will come, and all the people of the world will be free.  And not have to pay tax, which is of course the devil-camerons work and would probably only be spent on war anyway.

Of course, everyone else is entitled to their opinion.  As long as they accept that they are uninformed and that only followers of the God of Recidivism know the true way.  If only they would spend more time on the internet, reading the wisdom of people who truly understand how oppressed we all are.

government and authority can only exist if the are accepted by the people being governed, or who authority is held over.
The last UK general election saw a turnout of 66.1% of the electorate.  Since the number of deliberately spoiled ballots is negligible, I think its safe to assume that at least two thirds of the people in the country accept, in principle, the notion of elected government.

Two thirds are so in favour of the notion of democracy and elected government that they took time out of their day to go to a voting place, maybe stand in a queue, gave their names, and made their mark.  They may not have a huge amount of influence in how the country is run, but if they were unwilling to accept the very principle of authority, I think its unlikely they would do that. 

The acceptance of the notion of government is the acceptance of the authority of that government.  Therefore, government holds authority. 

Sharky, you also didn't answer Kev's question.  What would we do first? 

Yes. Exactly like that.  All government policy is exactly like a predatory necrophiliac rapist paedophile.  Well done. 

Am I the only one who finds the BigBangTheory episode where Sheldon spanks Amy extreeemly disturbing.

The Nhs is run by civil servants.  Hospitals are run by boards, with non political organisations providing oversight.  Politicians organise the budget after consultation with these bodies.  Politicians only exist because someone has to decide policy and provide oversight of the whole country - that's not asking an outside agency to make the decision, that's deciding that the system of elected democracy, whilst invariably flawed, is better than having no leadership.  Just ask the countries that have tried existing without it.

At what stage do we think those locally run hospitals would start telling government that they have quite enough money to be going on with, thank you? 

Would the savings brought about by the sharing of resources and economies of scale perhaps be better organised if there was a body responsible for overseeing the whole deal at a national level?

Does giving authority to a particular local person/doctor/nurse/professional to make decisions over healthcare give those people the right to make decisions I disagree with? Do we hold a vote to decide on this person? How is that different from electing an mp?

Having recently taken up the manly and testosterone filled art of cross stitch, my first original design...


Now I'm off to drink beer and fight a bear. ( and try to figure out how to resize images)