5 ms·

> We're really interested in getting feedback on how future campaigns can be better I'd recommend addressing the actual problem, which the all-encompassing sur

> We're really interested in getting feedback on how future campaigns can be better I'd recommend addressing the actual problem, which the all-encompassing surveillance is a symptom of. The actual problem is that there is a government in place. For more information, look up Stefan Molyneux, Larken Rose, Michael Huemer, Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, etc.

mildtrepidation 13y ago
And the actual problem that cancer is a symptom of is that we have bodies. So we should really be working towards the Matrix, not doing dead-end research on curing or treating diseases.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  You're not following, but that's expected. It's not exactly difficult to see reasons for why governments should not exist. They're all around you, and there are countless of them. As a very simple example, why are laws like SOPA and CISPA passed in secret, unless there's a massive uprising against them? Obviously, they're passed in secret, or stealthily, or all of a sudden - they're just rammed through exactly because they know the people would be against these laws if they only fucking KNEW ABOUT THEM. Did you think defeating SOPA would be meaningful in the grand scheme of things? If they're passing one law that's harmful to the masses and against their will, why wouldn't they pass another? .. and another, and another? Well, if they're passing harmful and unnecessary laws all the fucking time, do you think they just might not be on your side? I mean, how difficult is it to figure out that "your" representatives don't actually represent you? They're constantly passing laws that are against your will, after all. Oh, and they're extorting you too! (It's called "taxation" to make it more palatable) Now then, since it's obvious that the government and its legislators are not on your side - contrary to what people commonly believe, strangely enough - doesn't it make you wonder whether having a government is a good idea in the first place?
  - j2kun 13y ago
    Yeah, having roads and running water are just awful. Schools, sanitation, energy, parks, rights for minorities and laborers. I just HATE that stuff.
    - poly88 13y ago
      It's pretty sad that you and others have been indoctrinated into thinking that only government can provide those things.
    - whatevsbro 13y ago
      Ah, this again. Is there something special about all those services that makes them impossible to provide with money that has not been extorted from millions of people?
      - westward 13y ago
        Yes. It's called a coordination problem: http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#coordination_problems http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#coordination_problems
        whatevsbro 13y ago
        That FUD is not relevant to my question, and I don't have the time and energy to dissect his contrived, unrealistic fearmongering scenario now. But for example, why would other people let Mike pollute the water despite everyone else having signed the "Filter Pact"? Mike's selfish actions would directly affect other people making a living, and therefore, some kind of intervention would be warranted - and would happen too! After that, everything is fine again. Even if you're silly enough to argue against your own freedom, you can't just leave things at presenting a problem, expecting it would not get solved, and thinking you've proven that freedom "doesn't work".
  - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
    It's not difficult to see that government should not exist ... Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? No one should take you seriously; I don't see what espousing that ideology is going to get you.
snowwrestler 13y ago
Government exists for all animals. It is an immutable fact of the universe. Ants have government. Termites have government. Naked mole rats have government. Wolves and caribou have government. It's not up to us. All we can do is decide what structure the government will take.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > Government exists for all animals. It is an immutable fact of the universe. Ants have government. Termites have government. Wow. At least you're being original :p > All we can do is decide what structure the government will take. Actually, as long as we have rulers, we can't even do that. You may be aware of the US quickly turning into a nasty police state. Do you think the people being "governed" had a say in that? The only possible solution is to have no rulers.
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    Saying "let's get rid of rulers" is like saying "let's get rid of the ends of a piece of string." It's a logical impossibility. All you can do is replace rulers.
    - whatevsbro 13y ago
      All it takes is for the belief in political authority to dispel. Unfortunately, that's a massive change from where we are today.
      - snowwrestler 13y ago
        And how does massive social change come about? Via organized campaigns. Which have leaders. Who become the new rulers if they succeed. In the last century the Chinese and Russians collectively agreed to give up concepts of property and privilege for the betterment of all. Except, some of them only pretended to do that. So they ended up with everyone else's property and privilege. It's not hard to convince every single person that they should not be ruled. It's impossible to convince every single person that they should not rule. There's always someone who thinks they could do it better if they were in charge.

mildtrepidation 13y ago

And the actual problem that cancer is a symptom of is that we have bodies. So we should really be working towards the Matrix, not doing dead-end research on curing or treating diseases.

whatevsbro 13y ago
You're not following, but that's expected. It's not exactly difficult to see reasons for why governments should not exist. They're all around you, and there are countless of them. As a very simple example, why are laws like SOPA and CISPA passed in secret, unless there's a massive uprising against them? Obviously, they're passed in secret, or stealthily, or all of a sudden - they're just rammed through exactly because they know the people would be against these laws if they only fucking KNEW ABOUT THEM. Did you think defeating SOPA would be meaningful in the grand scheme of things? If they're passing one law that's harmful to the masses and against their will, why wouldn't they pass another? .. and another, and another? Well, if they're passing harmful and unnecessary laws all the fucking time, do you think they just might not be on your side? I mean, how difficult is it to figure out that "your" representatives don't actually represent you? They're constantly passing laws that are against your will, after all. Oh, and they're extorting you too! (It's called "taxation" to make it more palatable) Now then, since it's obvious that the government and its legislators are not on your side - contrary to what people commonly believe, strangely enough - doesn't it make you wonder whether having a government is a good idea in the first place?
- j2kun 13y ago
  Yeah, having roads and running water are just awful. Schools, sanitation, energy, parks, rights for minorities and laborers. I just HATE that stuff.
  - poly88 13y ago
    It's pretty sad that you and others have been indoctrinated into thinking that only government can provide those things.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    Ah, this again. Is there something special about all those services that makes them impossible to provide with money that has not been extorted from millions of people?
    - westward 13y ago
      Yes. It's called a coordination problem: http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#coordination_problems http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html#coordination_problems
      - whatevsbro 13y ago
        That FUD is not relevant to my question, and I don't have the time and energy to dissect his contrived, unrealistic fearmongering scenario now. But for example, why would other people let Mike pollute the water despite everyone else having signed the "Filter Pact"? Mike's selfish actions would directly affect other people making a living, and therefore, some kind of intervention would be warranted - and would happen too! After that, everything is fine again. Even if you're silly enough to argue against your own freedom, you can't just leave things at presenting a problem, expecting it would not get solved, and thinking you've proven that freedom "doesn't work".
- dinkumthinkum 13y ago
  It's not difficult to see that government should not exist ... Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? No one should take you seriously; I don't see what espousing that ideology is going to get you.

snowwrestler 13y ago

Government exists for all animals. It is an immutable fact of the universe. Ants have government. Termites have government. Naked mole rats have government. Wolves and caribou have government. It's not up to us. All we can do is decide what structure the government will take.

whatevsbro 13y ago
> Government exists for all animals. It is an immutable fact of the universe. Ants have government. Termites have government. Wow. At least you're being original :p > All we can do is decide what structure the government will take. Actually, as long as we have rulers, we can't even do that. You may be aware of the US quickly turning into a nasty police state. Do you think the people being "governed" had a say in that? The only possible solution is to have no rulers.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  Saying "let's get rid of rulers" is like saying "let's get rid of the ends of a piece of string." It's a logical impossibility. All you can do is replace rulers.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    All it takes is for the belief in political authority to dispel. Unfortunately, that's a massive change from where we are today.
    - snowwrestler 13y ago
      And how does massive social change come about? Via organized campaigns. Which have leaders. Who become the new rulers if they succeed. In the last century the Chinese and Russians collectively agreed to give up concepts of property and privilege for the betterment of all. Except, some of them only pretended to do that. So they ended up with everyone else's property and privilege. It's not hard to convince every single person that they should not be ruled. It's impossible to convince every single person that they should not rule. There's always someone who thinks they could do it better if they were in charge.