Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 Should we have government?
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

marty
BANNED

63 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2007 :  20:33:11  Show Profile Send marty a Private Message  Reply with Quote

Here is a topic for all of your skeptics out there. Some people believe that we would be better with no government, and most believe that government is necessary. Which one are you and why?

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2007 :  21:42:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Lets see... no government would mean: No laws, no law enforcement, and basically no justice.

Yeah, thats a brilliant idea.

Anyone who believes no government is a good idea hasn't taken 2 seconds to contemplate the consequences of Mr Crowley's dream.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26000 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2007 :  22:22:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Besides what Dude said, assume for the moment that the world overthrows their governments in favor of lawlessness.

Neighbors would band together and form their own impromptu governments to protect themselves from other nearby neighborhoods. And such neighborhood governments will band together for even greater safety, into (say) "counties." And "counties" will group together into "states," and "states" into "countries."

Government isn't necessary, it's human nature. And it makes practical sense, to boot.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 06/30/2007 :  22:33:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dude

Lets see... no government would mean: No laws, no law enforcement, and basically no justice.

Yeah, thats a brilliant idea.

Anyone who believes no government is a good idea hasn't taken 2 seconds to contemplate the consequences of Mr Crowley's dream.




Actually, Crowley wallowed in excesses. He saw the usefulness of governments keeping the public at large in line. Crowley was ejected from the Golden Dawn movement because of the excesses, but he was no anarchist.

Now, to the meat of the OP.

I believe that government is a necessary thing as long as it has checks, balances, and audits to keep it low in corruption.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2007 :  01:45:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Val said:
Actually, Crowley wallowed in excesses. He saw the usefulness of governments keeping the public at large in line. Crowley was ejected from the Golden Dawn movement because of the excesses, but he was no anarchist.


"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

I've always considered that to be a pretty anarchistic stance.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2007 :  03:02:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Am I correct in assuming that this is the Crowley we are speaking of?

As I have stated before, we are a social species, and one form of hierarchal government or another is as natural to us as eating. All social species have one, be they wolves, baboons, or -- 'mooner, are you ready for this -- naked mole rats.



So the question of preferring a government is not really relevant. We have no choice in the matter.

That said, I really hate governments and the political oppression and outright asininity that they invariably spawn!




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Edited by - filthy on 07/01/2007 03:26:10
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2007 :  07:37:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dude

Val said:
Actually, Crowley wallowed in excesses. He saw the usefulness of governments keeping the public at large in line. Crowley was ejected from the Golden Dawn movement because of the excesses, but he was no anarchist.


"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

I've always considered that to be a pretty anarchistic stance.




And the implications of "wilt" in the religious sense of the word has caveats against infringing on other's freewill, causing harm to thoers, etc.

To clear up the confusion, most modern day Neopagans have changed the Wiccan Rede to "An ye harm none, do what thou wilt". (The Golden Dawn movement was a precursor to Wicca.)

Crowley always viewed government as a way to control the "unelightened" so they didn't hurt themselves.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2007 :  07:40:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by filthy

Am I correct in assuming that this is the Crowley we are speaking of?

As I have stated before, we are a social species, and one form of hierarchal government or another is as natural to us as eating. All social species have one, be they wolves, baboons, or -- 'mooner, are you ready for this -- naked mole rats.



So the question of preferring a government is not really relevant. We have no choice in the matter.

That said, I really hate governments and the political oppression and outright asininity that they invariably spawn!






Yup. Aliester. His wife Vivianne and Gerald Gardner purged the budding religion of Aliester's excesses and founded the Garnerian tradition of Wicca.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2007 :  11:15:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Besides what Dude said, assume for the moment that the world overthrows their governments in favor of lawlessness.

Neighbors would band together and form their own impromptu governments to protect themselves from other nearby neighborhoods. And such neighborhood governments will band together for even greater safety, into (say) "counties." And "counties" will group together into "states," and "states" into "countries."

Government isn't necessary, it's human nature. And it makes practical sense, to boot.



Yes, but does not human government always devolve and begin again? Proof that man can not rule himself? If you notice animal societal structures stay static over vast amounts of time, what accountS for this difference?




What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26000 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2007 :  11:28:48   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

If you notice animal societal structures stay static over vast amounts of time, what accountS for this difference?
What accounts for it is your failure to notice reality. Animal societies are just as prone to quiet leadership changes and bloody coup d'etats as human societies. "Alpha" animals can be kind and caring, or mean and tyrannical. There is little that's "static" about them.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2007 :  11:38:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

If you notice animal societal structures stay static over vast amounts of time, what accountS for this difference?
What accounts for it is your failure to notice reality. Animal societies are just as prone to quiet leadership changes and bloody coup d'etats as human societies. "Alpha" animals can be kind and caring, or mean and tyrannical. There is little that's "static" about them.


The changes in "leadership" within these animal societies follows a static form. Human societal changes are very much more dramatic and can turn the society upside down; this does not happen within the animal structure as this society stays intact.




What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26000 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2007 :  11:47:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

The changes in "leadership" within these animal societies follows a static form.
Like what, with ants? They're constrained by their biology.
Human societal changes are very much more dramatic and can turn the society upside down;
Name some examples.
this does not happen within the animal structure as this society stays intact.
Again, you seem to be talking about something about which you know little.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Siberia
SFN Addict

Brazil
2322 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2007 :  11:50:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Siberia's Homepage  Send Siberia an AOL message  Send Siberia a Yahoo! Message Send Siberia a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

If you notice animal societal structures stay static over vast amounts of time, what accountS for this difference?
What accounts for it is your failure to notice reality. Animal societies are just as prone to quiet leadership changes and bloody coup d'etats as human societies. "Alpha" animals can be kind and caring, or mean and tyrannical. There is little that's "static" about them.


The changes in "leadership" within these animal societies follows a static form. Human societal changes are very much more dramatic and can turn the society upside down; this does not happen within the animal structure as this society stays intact.

Humans are more sophisticated than most animals. It's all a question of proportion, bro. Have you ever seen lead stallions fighting for dominance? A colt taking over his father? Colts and fillies being expelled from the herd?

Edit: I almost forgot to answer the topic... sheesh.

Personally, I'm with Fil on this one. Humans are as humans do. Methinks it's inevitable - as herds are in many species. Ideologically, I'd like communism. But I also understand it won't happen anytime soon - at least not in large societies.

"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa

"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
Edited by - Siberia on 07/01/2007 11:57:03
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2007 :  11:55:37   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dave, is not man constrained by their biology?


---Examples of human societal changes that turn society upside down are various revolutions(a sudden, radical, or complete change). Do we see this in animals outside of man? Does the structure change?


---Are you claiming that animal societal structure changes based on new leadership?


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED

2418 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2007 :  11:58:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send JEROME DA GNOME a Private Message  Reply with Quote

Siberia said:
Humans are more sophisticated than most animals. It's all a question of proportion, bro. Have you ever seen lead stallions fighting for dominance? A colt taking over his father? Colts and fillies being expelled from the herd?



Do any of your examples show a change in the structure of the society?


What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26000 Posts

Posted - 07/01/2007 :  12:14:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Dave, is not man constrained by their biology?
Not in the form society takes, no.
---Examples of human societal changes that turn society upside down are various revolutions(a sudden, radical, or complete change). Do we see this in animals outside of man? Does the structure change?
Do we ever see human revolutions in which a small minority of decision-makers is replaced by anything other than a different small minority of decision-makers?
---Are you claiming that animal societal structure changes based on new leadership?
They change at least as much as society here changed after the American Revolution, or at least as much as Chinese society changed after Mao came along: not much. It was your contention that animal societies are "stable" for much, much longer than human societies, so let's see the evidence thereof.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.2 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000