Why are people scared of taxes?

[Kontakt]

So at some points, the government of Russia was stronger than the US government to the americans?

[1714562871]

1714562871

[1714562871]

1714562871

[1714562871]

1714562871

[dank]

They're all a structure to keep control, I don't see the point in differentiating them by countries.

[Severian]

So at some points, the government of Russia was stronger than the US government to the americans?

Fallacious thinking. Governments have sway over their own subjects.

[Kontakt]

So at some points, the government of Russia was stronger than the US government to the americans?

Fallacious thinking. Governments have sway over their own subjects.

I would disagree with that. The US government has considerable sway over many countries, and has influenced many decisions in other countries. Any country that believes that its own government is the only one affecting the populace will shortly be replaced.

[Severian]

I would disagree with that. The US government has considerable sway over many countries, and has influenced many decisions in other countries. Any country that believes that its own government is the only one affecting the populace will shortly be replaced.

The US government is a prime example of the coercive principle that many appear to advocate.

[Richy_T]

I'll ignore the circular argument you're presenting, and ask you this.

Those that argue for coercion are the ones that present circular reasoning.

Why do you think people would cooperate as a whole if left to their own devices?

Because it makes survival more economically feasible. Coercion only makes life cheaper for those with the power to coerce.

I take it you've read no Bastiat?

I think the better answer might be "Because they do".

[Kontakt]

I'll ignore the circular argument you're presenting, and ask you this.

Those that argue for coercion are the ones that present circular reasoning.

Why do you think people would cooperate as a whole if left to their own devices?

Because it makes survival more economically feasible. Coercion only makes life cheaper for those with the power to coerce.

I take it you've read no Bastiat?

I think the better answer might be "Because they do".

Where? I don't see people stepping up to do anything that's necessary if they find it distasteful. I frequently see people perform acts of vandalism or simple negligence that destroys any faith I have that people would be able to cooperate successfully without coercion. 

[Severian]

I think the better answer might be "Because they do".

That's the better answer to those of us that know the power of cooperation over the power to coerce. Others might need some coaxing.

[Severian]

I frequently see people perform acts of vandalism or simple negligence that destroys any faith I have that people would be able to cooperate successfully without coercion. 

With or without government, there will always be a small percentage of people that engage in antisocial acts of various sorts: rape, robbery, murder, fraud, running for office, etc. The larger percentage of people aren't criminals.

[dank]

Not always, Severian, naturally, we would reach a point where nobody acts in such a way.

[Richy_T]

Where? I don't see people stepping up to do anything that's necessary if they find it distasteful. I frequently see people perform acts of vandalism or simple negligence that destroys any faith I have that people would be able to cooperate successfully without coercion.  

You walk around with your eyes closed then. I probably see at least half a dozen at least trivial examples every day. Every time I go to get coffee and there's a full fresh pot, every time someone waves me out into traffic when I leave work. Every time I hold the door or elevator for someone or they hold it for me. There is something deeply humanly fulfilling about assisting others and the government not only takes that away but also damages it when they make it coercive.

I would note that "acts of vandalism" is something that government has taken on itself as its responsibility to resolve. How's that going?

[Severian]

Not always, Severian, naturally, we would reach a point where nobody acts in such a way.

If you're arguing that the majority of people that have ever lived are potential criminals, I'd have to disagree.

[Richy_T]

Not always, Severian, naturally, we would reach a point where nobody acts in such a way.

If you're arguing that the majority of people that have ever lived are potential criminals, I'd have to disagree.

I think he's suggesting that if things were loosened up a bit, the criminal element would find themselves a rapidly diminishing proportion of the population.

[Severian]

I think he's suggesting that if things were loosened up a bit, the criminal element would find themselves a rapidly diminishing proportion of the population.

Ah. I see now. Sorry, dank.

[Arto]

Not always, Severian, naturally, we would reach a point where nobody acts in such a way.

If you're arguing that the majority of people that have ever lived are potential criminals, I'd have to disagree.

I think he's suggesting that if things were loosened up a bit, the criminal element would find themselves a rapidly diminishing proportion of the population.

That's how I read it as well. Heinlein's "an armed society is a polite society" made manifest.

[Kontakt]

Where? I don't see people stepping up to do anything that's necessary if they find it distasteful. I frequently see people perform acts of vandalism or simple negligence that destroys any faith I have that people would be able to cooperate successfully without coercion. 

You walk around with your eyes closed then. I probably see at least half a dozen at least trivial examples every day. Every time I go to get coffee and there's a full fresh pot, every time someone waves me out into traffic when I leave work. Every time I hold the door or elevator for someone or they hold it for me. There is something deeply humanly fulfilling about assisting others and the government takes that away when they make it coercive.

You guys made me delete three paragraphs so I could stay topical. You post too fast.

I see the coercion in those examples. Being that I don't believe in consciousness, I just see different stimuli and their response. I acknowledge the endorphin that is released when you perform an action that you have been conditioned to see as good, and I see the invisible web of threats and concessions that surround us all. We all take the path of least resistance, except for some notable exceptions.

Imagine this, with an open mind.
What would happen if you did not hold the door for someone? They would remember you, and not like you, whereas they would if you held the door. This is a good response, constructive and useful. Try to imagine these little ques your brain is running off of to determine morality and the proper response. The problem is when the benefit of having something someone else possesses outweighs the negative stimulus of theft, or any immoral action.


Government, religion and other forms of authority exist to weight your reactions to the positive side, to make a weight that is more difficult to overcome. If you have enough weight to remain 'moral' without authority, that's wonderful. Many do not.


Severian, he was arguing the opposite.

I'm saying that EVERYONE is a potential criminal. What s crime but a list of definitions provided by authority?
 

asdfjdlbg; You guys posted 5 posts while I was typing. Whatever, not deleting again.

[Richy_T]

I see the coercion in those examples. Being that I don't believe in consciousness, I just see different stimuli and their response. I acknowledge the endorphin that is released when you perform an action that you have been conditioned to see as good, and I see the invisible web of threats and concessions that surround us all. We all take the path of least resistance, except for some notable exceptions.

Imagine this, with an open mind.
What would happen if you did not hold the door for someone? They would remember you, and not like you, whereas they would if you held the door. This is a good response, constructive and useful. Try to imagine these little ques your brain is running off of to determine morality and the proper response. The problem is when the benefit of having something someone else possesses outweighs the negative stimulus of theft, or any immoral action.

1)It happens even in situations which could not possibly have consequences down the line.

2)Social conditioning, built-in reflex and calculated response are *not* the same as coercion. If I fail to make fresh coffee, they will not send a sheriff to my house to take me to a big building with bars on the windows and razor wire at the perimeter.

3)If you do not believe in free will, the whole argument is moot anyway.

[Kontakt]

I see the coercion in those examples. Being that I don't believe in consciousness, I just see different stimuli and their response. I acknowledge the endorphin that is released when you perform an action that you have been conditioned to see as good, and I see the invisible web of threats and concessions that surround us all. We all take the path of least resistance, except for some notable exceptions.

Imagine this, with an open mind.
What would happen if you did not hold the door for someone? They would remember you, and not like you, whereas they would if you held the door. This is a good response, constructive and useful. Try to imagine these little ques your brain is running off of to determine morality and the proper response. The problem is when the benefit of having something someone else possesses outweighs the negative stimulus of theft, or any immoral action.

1)It happens even in situations which could not possibly have consequences down the line.

2)Social conditioning, built-in reflex and calculated response are *not* the same as coercion.

3)If you do not believe in free will, the whole argument is moot anyway.

They all have consequences. Some are trivial and contrived, but the biggest one is that things you don't expect often come back to haunt you. That's a powerful weight.

Social conditioning is exactly the same as coercion, the same has been said as much earlier when multiple people mentioned how the government has staying power because it's been there for a while and is a status quo to the people that grew up there.

And yes, it is all moot in the end, you won't change your mind and I won't change mine. I have nothing better to do than discuss though, so it was either this or start a thread on how pretty the sky is in the fall.

[Severian]

If you have enough weight to remain 'moral' without authority, that's wonderful. Many do not.

My experience of almost six decades on Planet Earth teach me otherwise. I've met some of the most moral people, as well as some of the kindest, in places where "authority" doesn't really reach. On the other hand, some of the most brutal criminals on Earth act with impunity in structures that have been blessed by "authority".

The experience of others may vary. I'm just relaying mine.

[Kontakt]

If you have enough weight to remain 'moral' without authority, that's wonderful. Many do not.

My experience of almost six decades on Planet Earth teach me otherwise. I've met some of the most moral people, as well as some of the kindest, in places where "authority" doesn't really reach. On the other hand, some of the most brutal criminals on Earth act with impunity in structures that have been blessed by "authority".

The experience of others may vary. I'm just relaying mine.

My experience of 1.8 decades leaves me in your shadow, but I see less trustworthy people than I see people who look malicious.