Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 23-03-2013, 06:40 PM   #1
lu__
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default Is Government Immoral? Video debate.

"TragedyandHope.com presents a debate between Stefan Molyneux and Tom Wilcutts on the question, "Is government by its very nature immoral?" The debate is hosted by James Corbett of The Corbett Report."

__________________
The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8
lu__ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2013, 06:53 PM   #2
picklez01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,358
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Isn't that a bit like asking "does 1+1 = 2?"

Why do we need a debate on something, very very obvious?
picklez01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2013, 06:58 PM   #3
lu__
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by picklez01 View Post
Isn't that a bit like asking "does 1+1 = 2?"

Why do we need a debate on something, very very obvious?
Perhaps I'm just indulging my biases.
I though you would have argued that Government is necessary for equality.
Necessary and Immoral?
I'm putting word in your mouth though, perhaps we have different definitions of Government.....
__________________
The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8
lu__ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2013, 07:12 PM   #4
picklez01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,358
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I don't think we will ever understand each other; same for the whole free will debate I suppose.

I will say, as I have many times before, whether a free market must have a government or not is completely irrelevant to the overall mechanics. Whether without state or with it, it's still doomed IMO.

Even if you have this magical free market, unemployment is inevitable because of technological unemployment.

On top of that, even if you managed to have everyone who was able, working consumerism would lead to environmental destruction.

Even if all of this was overcame, you still have the very big issue of disabled, old people and all the rest of the people that aren't able to work who will invariably have to rely on the charity of others.

By 2030, we will need the equivalent of two planets just to maintain current levels of consumerism. The majority of the earths population are doomed.

Last edited by picklez01; 23-03-2013 at 07:15 PM.
picklez01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2013, 11:04 PM   #5
picklez01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,358
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lu__ View Post
"TragedyandHope.com presents a debate between Stefan Molyneux and Tom Wilcutts on the question, "Is government by its very nature immoral?" The debate is hosted by James Corbett of The Corbett Report."

Is Government Immoral? Stefan Molyneux vs. Tom Willcutts - YouTube
I watched this and I pretty much agreed with both of them all the way through.

Last 15 minutes though, stefan completely and utterly fell apart in my opinion. He couldn't actually refute what tom said about insurance companies, so started rambling on about how bad the government is right now; nobody disagrees with him on that, so I don't know why he kept on about that pretty much all the way through.

Stefan is right about the use of force etc, being immoral, sure. But what you propose lu, what stefan proposes would be an absolute and utter disaster.

Last edited by picklez01; 23-03-2013 at 11:05 PM.
picklez01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-03-2013, 11:28 PM   #6
lu__
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by picklez01 View Post
I watched this and I pretty much agreed with both of them all the way through.

Last 15 minutes though, stefan completely and utterly fell apart in my opinion. He couldn't actually refute what tom said about insurance companies, so started rambling on about how bad the government is right now; nobody disagrees with him on that, so I don't know why he kept on about that pretty much all the way through.

Stefan is right about the use of force etc, being immoral, sure. But what you propose lu, what stefan proposes would be an absolute and utter disaster.
Thanks for the reply picklez01.
I thought it was a pretty bad debate actually, as tom did not define terms, then stefan did and then tome refused to engage, it's not really a debate from that point because they can't agree on the language, we know what stefan is talking about but not tom. It seems odd, as tom is a Laywer and was involved in a debate last week. I have to agree with stefan on every point but it really looks like tom had decided not to have a proper debate before it started, which disappointed me because I'd like to see a stronger argument put up against stefans position, which I share...

I want to disagree with you when you say "what stefan proposes", because he is proposing an absence of certain actions, as opposed to following certain prescribed actions. "Do not do this", as opposed to "Do this".

Stefan didn't give a good response to the question of insurance companies, he didn't describe his position well at all, I think he was quite put off by toms refusal to engage in the terms of the debate.

Here's a question though, I'm still not clear where you stand on it.
Given that you have accepted "the use of force etc, being immoral", are you prepared to move forward in a manner that reflects that?
If so, how?
If not , why not?
Eh, that's more than one question, isn't it....
__________________
The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8
lu__ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2013, 03:21 PM   #7
picklez01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,358
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lu__ View Post
Thanks for the reply picklez01.

Here's a question though, I'm still not clear where you stand on it.
Given that you have accepted "the use of force etc, being immoral", are you prepared to move forward in a manner that reflects that?
If so, how?
If not , why not?
Eh, that's more than one question, isn't it....
Not sure where you are going with this, I have never said the government as it exists today with all it's power and force it uses is OK.

I don't want to speculate so I'll ask.. So many reasons why, but lets go with this and just ask two questions..

1) in this "free market", could anyone set up their own police force and thus give people the choice of which police they want and which laws they want. Different laws/courts/police?

2) For the sake of argument, let's go with a ridiculously low number of 1 million who are too disabled to work, can't find work, too old to work or can't get work for any other reason and do not have family to support them financially.. Within the UK.

Are these people to rely on charity? If yes, do you not consider that force/violence, do you not consider that just another form of structural inequality?

Last edited by picklez01; 24-03-2013 at 03:23 PM.
picklez01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2013, 03:37 PM   #8
kaibraine
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by picklez01 View Post
I don't think we will ever understand each other; same for the whole free will debate I suppose.

I will say, as I have many times before, whether a free market must have a government or not is completely irrelevant to the overall mechanics. Whether without state or with it, it's still doomed IMO.

Even if you have this magical free market, unemployment is inevitable because of technological unemployment.

On top of that, even if you managed to have everyone who was able, working consumerism would lead to environmental destruction.

Even if all of this was overcame, you still have the very big issue of disabled, old people and all the rest of the people that aren't able to work who will invariably have to rely on the charity of others.

By 2030, we will need the equivalent of two planets just to maintain current levels of consumerism. The majority of the earths population are doomed.
Employment is a joke. Slavery by another word.

If everybody "employed" by a corporation were "partners" (getting their fair share) instead of "employees" (being used) then the technological advancements would simply lead to less working hours per partner.

5 hour work week sounds fine by me. Leaving plenty of time over for a TRUE occupation.
__________________
Believe Nothing!

No matter where you read it, or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.

-Bhudda
kaibraine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2013, 03:42 PM   #9
picklez01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,358
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaibraine View Post
Employment is a joke. Slavery by another word.

If everybody "employed" by a corporation were "partners" (getting their fair share) instead of "employees" (being used) then the technological advancements would simply lead to less working hours per partner.

5 hour work week sounds fine by me. Leaving plenty of time over for a TRUE occupation.
It seems so obvious but lu just doesn't appreciate it at all.

As I have said before, we can't possibly have everyone working for a decent, living wage on 20 hours a week, regardless of how much technological breakthroughs we have.

It will always be far more profitable for employers to employ 20-30% of the population and have them work 40+ hours.
picklez01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2013, 03:45 PM   #10
dolores1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Over the hill and round the bend
Posts: 14,891
Likes: 15 (13 Posts)
Default

Do you need governed?

D.
__________________
The ‘you’ that exists beyond these stubborn entanglements is a silent, serene, being-ness; a free, wise and child-like ‘you’ that has always known the way to the secret garden, and that has always recognised the nature beings with whom we share this gracious planet.

Never have a battle of wits with an unarmed oponent!
dolores1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2013, 04:00 PM   #11
lu__
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by picklez01 View Post
Not sure where you are going with this, I have never said the government as it exists today with all it's power and force it uses is OK.
I know, I wasn't trying to infer that, I'm assuming that the ZG/VP people will either use force to redistribute wealth/ centrally plan resources , or try to convince everyone to go along with it freely, second option is not realistic, which leaves force.
I'm guessing I have an incorrect assumption here but can't figure it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by picklez01 View Post
I don't want to speculate so I'll ask.. So many reasons why, but lets go with this and just ask two questions..

1) in this "free market", could anyone set up their own police force and thus give people the choice of which police they want and which laws they want. Different laws/courts/police?
Yes and no, a police force as it exist could not exist as it IS a violation of the non agression principle and interferes in markets, it's funded by taxtation/inflation and it claims to have rights that others do not.
You can employ private security, private security already outnumbers State Police by 2 or 3 to 1 depending on what figures you look at, so all we're removing here is people claiming to have rights that others do not.

Contracts could be dealt with in the way described in the debate, using DROs,Insurance and Databases of previous interactions made available to people. (Violent) Crime could be handled through this system to, punishment is idiotic,prevention is the way to go, molyneux described the mechanics of this quite well in the debate even though the delivery was quite off putting, I'm talking about the recording dropped in by tom at the end.

Here's molyneux's description of DRO that I am referring to, he did not coin the phrase and other people are using the term to mean slightly different things that end up not being consistent, so if you read other descriptions of DRO's that's likely not what I am referring to.

Understand that I'm not asking you to accept these solutions though, and I think people would work out better ones as society adapts and grows psychologically to freedom, what I'm getting at is whether you think that unless someone produces a system that you are happy with you will accept the initiation of force, or however it has been worded, government is immoral etc.



Quote:
Originally Posted by picklez01 View Post
2) For the sake of argument, let's go with a ridiculously low number of 1 million who are too disabled to work, can't find work, too old to work or can't get work for any other reason and do not have family to support them financially.. Within the UK.

Are these people to rely on charity? If yes, do you not consider that force/violence, do you not consider that just another form of structural inequality?
Well, what's the other option?
Do we turn society into a war zone because to look after people?

Within a free society most (not all) of these things would be worked out, older people would have worked, not had 90%+ of their earnings stolen and would be inclined to save, I think employment would be much higher and I am accepting technological unemployment, things move on and people have desires which creates jobs which distributes wealth if left unimpeded.

Do you care about these people?
Do others?
Either people are good and will help, or are bad and won't, neither is an argument for Government though, bad people = bad people in government, good people = no need.

I'm not sure what "structural inequality", if it is something akin to "income equality" I can't support that.

What keeps me awake at night is the road from here to there, I wouldn't be comfortable with pulling the plug instantaneously with so many dependents created by this system going to suffer.
__________________
The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8
lu__ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2013, 04:12 PM   #12
lu__
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

I have never made an argument for the virtues of employment/work, if somebody has a better idea I'm all for it. Some tasks will always need to be done while we are confined to this planet and haven't reached a technological singularity, machines can do a lot but they still require human control/design etc.
__________________
The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8
lu__ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2013, 04:35 PM   #13
picklez01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,358
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lu__ View Post
I know, I wasn't trying to infer that, I'm assuming that the ZG/VP people will either use force to redistribute wealth/ centrally plan resources , or try to convince everyone to go along with it freely, second option is not realistic, which leaves force.
I'm guessing I have an incorrect assumption here but can't figure it out.
There wouldn't be any "wealth" as such in a resource based economy.

One way or another, a degree of force will be used regardless of what system comes next because whatever does come next will be after a lot of violence and destruction. I don't think most people really care what comes next, as long as they have access to goods and services.

If todays system slowly turned into a resource based economy naturally, there wouldn't be any violence or force needed. Same goes for free market, probably although less likely IMO.

People seem to be under the illusion that in a RBE all resources would be sent to mexico and then decide where to send those resources. Or, everyone would have everything taken away from them and then it's decided what they get. Obviously this is not true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lu__ View Post
Yes and no, a police force as it exist could not exist as it IS a violation of the non agression principle and interferes in markets, it's funded by taxtation/inflation and it claims to have rights that others do not.
You can employ private security, private security already outnumbers State Police by 2 or 3 to 1 depending on what figures you look at, so all we're removing here is people claiming to have rights that others do not.


Contracts could be dealt with in the way described in the debate, using DROs,Insurance and Databases of previous interactions made available to people. (Violent) Crime could be handled through this system to, punishment is idiotic,prevention is the way to go, molyneux described the mechanics of this quite well in the debate even though the delivery was quite off putting, I'm talking about the recording dropped in by tom at the end.
Not talking business disputes here. rape/violence/ etc etc etc.

I don't understand, who would have the authority of a police force? Any single person, or any group of people that decide they want to be a police force?

Up to the victim to decide which police they want to use, which courts they want to use??




Quote:
Originally Posted by lu__ View Post

Well, what's the other option?
Do we turn society into a war zone because to look after people?

Within a free society most (not all) of these things would be worked out, older people would have worked, not had 90%+ of their earnings stolen and would be inclined to save, I think employment would be much higher and I am accepting technological unemployment, things move on and people have desires which creates jobs which distributes wealth if left unimpeded.

Do you care about these people?
Do others?
Either people are good and will help, or are bad and won't, neither is an argument for Government though, bad people = bad people in government, good people = no need.

I'm not sure what "structural inequality", if it is something akin to "income equality" I can't support that.

What keeps me awake at night is the road from here to there, I wouldn't be comfortable with pulling the plug instantaneously with so many dependents created by this system going to suffer.
wow, I'm a little stunned, I expected something different to this to be honest, not sure why though.

I tell ya one thing, would be fucking shitty to be disabled in this free market system wouldn't it? Having to rely on charity, just like billions on the planet today have to rely on charity. Strange you do not consider this violence.

One thing about the existing system is, it has vasts and vasts amount of wealth, yet we still have billions starving to death.

Surely, you believe then that the only reason we have starvation and billionaires is because of governments and banks? Seems, naive to me.
picklez01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2013, 04:37 PM   #14
kalliades
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 915
Likes: 254 (95 Posts)
Default

It is evil, but sometimes a small amount of necessary evil is required. Certainly nothing like the outrageous evil going on today though.
kalliades is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2013, 04:41 PM   #15
picha
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,382
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Governments and its employees think they have the right to tell us what we can and cant do even though there's no difference between them and us.

There are people living in remote parts today without any governments making the rules for them just like we used to do.

Last edited by picha; 24-03-2013 at 04:41 PM.
picha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2013, 04:42 PM   #16
picklez01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,358
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kalliades View Post
It is evil, but sometimes a small amount of necessary evil is required. Certainly nothing like the outrageous evil going on today though.
You mean like, people starving to death evil or what?
picklez01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2013, 05:07 PM   #17
lu__
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Not talking business disputes here. rape/violence/ etc etc etc.
I addressed that.

Quote:
I don't understand, who would have the authority of a police force? Any single person, or any group of people that decide they want to be a police force?
Nobody, Police forces don’t have any authority. It’s not logically possible for one person to have the right to do something another cannot.

Quote:
Up to the victim to decide which police they want to use, which courts they want to use??
You don’t want crime happen, you use your power to engage with a DRO that provides services to that end without initiating force against others. If most people are good or even want to be seen to be good they will do the same, criminals will not have access to a DRO, can’t get a “reference”, can’t trade with these people, that’s the DRO solution. This DRO doesn’t perform that function well then there’s going to be a lot of people competing to provide it in a better manner, no monopolies, no state interference and the better DRO’s do more business. No theft, no criminality in the prevention of crime.
Quote:
I tell ya one thing, would be fucking shitty to be disabled in this free market system wouldn't it?
I doubt it could be worse than how things are today and freedom doesn’t rule out any number of peaceful solutions to these problems, if people actually want to help and are not impeded by the illusion of authority I think we would see good solutions.

Quote:
Having to rely on charity, just like billions on the planet today have to rely on charity. Strange you do not consider this violence.
This looks like we are using different definitions.

The first definitions startpage turns up for ”charity” and “violence”are in line with the definitions I am using. Both from wikipedia.

“Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.”

”The practice of charity means the voluntary giving of help to those in need who are not related to the giver.”

I can’t see how they are the same or how charity is violence, using those definitions.
__________________
The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8

Last edited by lu__; 24-03-2013 at 05:08 PM.
lu__ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2013, 05:34 PM   #18
picklez01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,358
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lu__ View Post
I addressed that.


Nobody, Police forces don’t have any authority. It’s not logically possible for one person to have the right to do something another cannot.


You don’t want crime happen, you use your power to engage with a DRO that provides services to that end without initiating force against others. If most people are good or even want to be seen to be good they will do the same, criminals will not have access to a DRO, can’t get a “reference”, can’t trade with these people, that’s the DRO solution. This DRO doesn’t perform that function well then there’s going to be a lot of people competing to provide it in a better manner, no monopolies, no state interference and the better DRO’s do more business. No theft, no criminality in the prevention of crime.
Doesn't make sense to me. I'm probably missing something

So if I kill someone, nobody can put me in prison or have any authority over me because they would be using force/authority?

Just, my reputation would be bad, I couldn't find a job etc??


Quote:
Originally Posted by lu__ View Post
I doubt it could be worse than how things are today and freedom doesn’t rule out any number of peaceful solutions to these problems, if people actually want to help and are not impeded by the illusion of authority I think we would see good solutions.
Yuk. It might be a bit better than today but only marginally, no doubt. In all honesty, I see it being worse than today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lu__ View Post

This looks like we are using different definitions.

The first definitions startpage turns up for ”charity” and “violence”are in line with the definitions I am using. Both from wikipedia.

“Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.”

”The practice of charity means the voluntary giving of help to those in need who are not related to the giver.”

I can’t see how they are the same or how charity is violence, using those definitions.
I guess it could be termed as indirect violence.

Well, I would say the greatest form of violence in society today isn't taxation or authority. Structural hierarchy/inequality or income inequality is just as violent, if not more so.

Indirectly, income inequality has been responsible for... millions if not billions of deaths.

Millions having to rely on charity... Can be somehow justified as OK, necessary, seems.. bad to me..

Last edited by picklez01; 24-03-2013 at 05:43 PM.
picklez01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2013, 05:41 PM   #19
belial
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,403
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by picklez01 View Post
Isn't that a bit like asking "does 1+1 = 2?"

Why do we need a debate on something, very very obvious?
I've noticed this a lot on this forum,

And cue the idiot that quotes me as I already used my amazing logic and guessed what they are going to say next

Of course, they could say nothing... which would be smart
belial is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-03-2013, 05:54 PM   #20
lu__
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,130
Likes: 4 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
So if I kill someone, nobody can put me in prison or have any authority over me because they would be using force/authority?

Just, my reputation would be bad, I couldn't find a job etc??
You couldn’t trade, you couldn’t buy food, electricity etc.
There could be other options, treatment options for violent criminals, therapy etc.
Primarily DRO’s would find it more econimical to prevent crime and would provide lower cost solutions to lower risk clients and be inclined to help clients to become lower risk, so they would give discounts for parents who took effective parenting courses, drivers who took driving courses etc. If envoirenment is the factor and can be changed, then that would be taken into account and treated similarly.

And of course that's only one possible solution coming from the minds of people who were raised in a top down criminal society.

Quote:
I guess it could be termed as indirect violence.

Well, I would say the greatest form of violence in society today isn't taxation or authority. Structural hierarchy/inequality or income inequality is just as violent, if not more so.

Indirectly, income inequality has been responsible for... millions if not billions of deaths.
Yes, I see ,I would argue that actions that come from the belief that some people have the right to do that which others do not that leads to this for the most part, Monopoly Fiat currency for example, dollar losing 97% of it’s value for example.
__________________
The Ultimate History Lesson: A Weekend with John Taylor Gatto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQiW_l848t8

Last edited by lu__; 24-03-2013 at 05:57 PM.
lu__ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:13 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.