Uneducated Police

[Msigroeg]

Underhanded business tactics leave you with no suppliers and no customers.

So you continue to bleat.

Whats the difference between my example and the U.S. government?

For one, the 'two party' system was not created. It evolved.

[Bendira]

So you continue to bleat.

For one, the 'two party' system was not created. It evolved.

So your entire argument is that "The two party system naturally evolved". That dosn't disprove the system is immoral/

[Msigroeg]

So your entire argument is that "The two party system naturally evolved". That dosn't disprove the system is immoral/

That clearly isn't my entire argument.

[Bendira]

So your entire argument is that "The two party system naturally evolved". That dosn't disprove the system is immoral/

That clearly isn't my entire argument.

Care to tell me the rest of it then?

[Click and Stand]

For one, the 'two party' system was not created. It evolved.

So your entire argument is that "The two party system naturally evolved". That dosn't disprove the system is immoral/

You haven't really proved the system is immoral in the first place...just that you don't like it. If they people wished, it could be a 200 party state. The people continually vote for two parties, so there are two parties. The system is geared towards two parties only because the people allow it to be that way, you may not like it, but the majority do.

[Msigroeg]

Care to tell me the rest of it then?

The police force is neutral, and acts on the laws created by the government - a government which, in your nation, was elected by the majority of citizens who bothered to get up and vote. Therefore, that government has a mandate to govern the nation in the way they see fit provided that certain rules (the US constitution) are kept to (which is regulated not by the government but by The SCOTUS). Thus the Police are said to have the consent of the governed to do their job, which is to keep the peace and uphold the Law.

[Sibirsky]

Because its going to be rather hard to sustain your giant murderous gang without any money or food isn't it?

Why do you need money or food when you have a giant murderous gang? You can just take it. The problem with anarcho-capitalism is that its proponents think that people are actually motivated by money. They're not. Almost nobody is. The greed principal (if that's what we're naively assuming drives people) boils down to people just trying to get what they can get. In a system like the one we currently live in, that finds expression in money. Money only has value because there is a central government claiming it does and enforcing that claim. In your quasi-anarchist slave state that you propose, there is no government, so things require actual practical value to motivate people. Nobody would care about your representational wealth. They'll let you keep your stack of dollar bills while they collect all the guns, and then collect all the food.

You're a child, playing at political philosophy. Your debating skills could use some serious work, too.

The value of money has nothing to do with the government claiming it has value. The value of money is derived from people's trust that it has value. If you owe me $50, and you give me $50, I will accept it because I know I can exchange it for something that I need or want. It is possible to lose this trust, Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe and many more examples of that.

[Bendira]

So your entire argument is that "The two party system naturally evolved". That dosn't disprove the system is immoral/

You haven't really proved the system is immoral in the first place...just that you don't like it. If they people wished, it could be a 200 party state. The people continually vote for two parties, so there are two parties. The system is geared towards two parties only because the people allow it to be that way, you may not like it, but the majority do.

Actually the reason there is only two parties is because the two parties actually control the means to enter the elections, and they do anything they can to bar third party entry. Also the media refuses to cover third party candidates.

Also, just because the majority likes something, means its right?

[Msigroeg]

Also, just because the majority likes something, means its right?

No, which is why you have the constitution.

[Sibirsky]

Whats with this "young" argument? You realise that there are 80 year old men who are anarcho-capitalists right? You know that anarcho-capitalists aren't the same anarchists that bomb shit and destroy private property at the G20? Seriously, rid yourself of this ignorant stigma of anarchism.

Yes, all police do is break into peoples homes, shoot them and imprison them. Thats their job. What the hell else do they do?

Edit: Also, electoral politics and voting is immoral. And so is the idea of democracy. So even though I have a "right" to make a change in that way, id prefer not to.

The idiots who smash windows during protests are more respectable than you are. They, at least, have the courage of their convictions.

Once again, you have every right to think the democratic process is unjust and every right to refuse to participate. If you exercise those rights, however, you don't get to complain that the system doesn't represent you. You can't have it both ways.

Enough of these personal attacks

[Bendira]

Care to tell me the rest of it then?

The police force is neutral, and acts on the laws created by the government - a government which, in your nation, was elected by the majority of citizens who bothered to get up and vote. Therefore, that government has a mandate to govern the nation in the way they see fit provided that certain rules (the US constitution) are kept to (which is regulated not by the government but by The SCOTUS). Thus the Police are said to have the consent of the governed to do their job, which is to keep the peace and uphold the Law.

The police don't have my consent, and im part of the governed. What now?

[Neo Art]

Underhanded business tactics leave you with no suppliers and no customers.

Which is why that after basically theft, witness intimidation, bribery, corruption, and coercing false testimony that almost certainly lead to the execution of an innocent man in Nigeria, Shell Oil is completely out of business

....fuck.

[Sibirsky]

How do you know what I do?

Call it an educated guess.

Call it bullshit, because you have no idea of what he does except post on NSG.

[Bendira]

Also, just because the majority likes something, means its right?

No, which is why you have the constitution.

Can the constitution block bullets? Because peoples constitutional rights are violated all the time by the police, and nothing happens to them. A piece of paper isn't going to stop a monopolistic gang with a bunch of guns from doing whatever they want. Its irrational to think otherwise.

[Neo Art]

The police force is neutral, and acts on the laws created by the government - a government which, in your nation, was elected by the majority of citizens who bothered to get up and vote. Therefore, that government has a mandate to govern the nation in the way they see fit provided that certain rules (the US constitution) are kept to (which is regulated not by the government but by The SCOTUS). Thus the Police are said to have the consent of the governed to do their job, which is to keep the peace and uphold the Law.

The police don't have my consent, and im part of the governed. What now?

I'm guessing "what now" pretty much doing nothing to change the system, doing nothing to advocate for political change, doing nothing to extract yourself and relocate to another enviornment, but does involve whining about it on an internet forum.

Holy shit I was right!

[Bendira]

Underhanded business tactics leave you with no suppliers and no customers.

Which is why that after basically theft, witness intimidation, bribery, corruption, and coercing false testimony that almost certainly lead to the execution of an innocent man in Nigeria, Shell Oil is completely out of business

....fuck.

Is Shell Oil Company in a free market? Nope, they are in a socialistic one, where they are a government backed coercive monopoly.

[Msigroeg]

The police force is neutral, and acts on the laws created by the government - a government which, in your nation, was elected by the majority of citizens who bothered to get up and vote. Therefore, that government has a mandate to govern the nation in the way they see fit provided that certain rules (the US constitution) are kept to (which is regulated not by the government but by The SCOTUS). Thus the Police are said to have the consent of the governed to do their job, which is to keep the peace and uphold the Law.

The police don't have my consent, and im part of the governed. What now?

You either vote against the government and hope that enough people do the same, vote against the government and actively campaign against them, put up with it, or move to Somalia: land of the Free ^TM.

[Bendira]

The police don't have my consent, and im part of the governed. What now?

I'm guessing "what now" pretty much doing nothing to change the system, doing nothing to advocate for political change, doing nothing to extract yourself and relocate to another enviornment, but does involve whining about it on an internet forum.

Holy shit I was right!

How do you know what I do outside of this forum?

[Bendira]

The police don't have my consent, and im part of the governed. What now?

You either vote against the government and hope that enough people do the same, vote against the government and actively campaign against them, put up with it, or move to Somalia: land of the Free ^TM.

What if I feel voting is immoral, because im imposing my will on others by way of force?

[Neo Art]

Which is why that after basically theft, witness intimidation, bribery, corruption, and coercing false testimony that almost certainly lead to the execution of an innocent man in Nigeria, Shell Oil is completely out of business

....fuck.

Is Shell Oil Company in a free market? Nope, they are in a socialistic one, where they are a government backed coercive monopoly.

Holy shit I can't even SEE the goalposts anymore.

[Click and Stand]

You haven't really proved the system is immoral in the first place...just that you don't like it. If they people wished, it could be a 200 party state. The people continually vote for two parties, so there are two parties. The system is geared towards two parties only because the people allow it to be that way, you may not like it, but the majority do.

Actually the reason there is only two parties is because the two parties actually control the means to enter the elections, and they do anything they can to bar third party entry. Also the media refuses to cover third party candidates.

Also, just because the majority likes something, means its right?

But if people decided they didn't like that system, they would vote for candidates to change the rules regarding party entry. It hasn't happened because people don't want it to happen. You act as if the two parties don't need to get elected at all...

And no, just that when the majority likes something, that is the way the law is going to be. No right or wrong, just the way it is. I'd take this system that balances the needs of the minority with the will of the majority over any other. So even if the majority supports something that would take away the rights of the minority, there is a system in place to protect them.

[Msigroeg]

Can the constitution block bullets? Because peoples constitutional rights are violated all the time by the police, and nothing happens to them. A piece of paper isn't going to stop a monopolistic gang with a bunch of guns from doing whatever they want. Its irrational to think otherwise.

Sources.

And then come up with something that can actually make it better.

[Neo Art]

What if I feel voting is immoral, because im imposing my will on others by way of force?

Then your belief system is silly.

[Bendira]

Is Shell Oil Company in a free market? Nope, they are in a socialistic one, where they are a government backed coercive monopoly.

Holy shit I can't even SEE the goalposts anymore.

Im not moving the goalposts by pointing out that your metaphorical example is fundamentally flawed, because the conditions within your example are not those of a free market. Thats like trying to compare the physical state of your hair in a wind storm, and in a period of calm.

[Msigroeg]

Im not moving the goalposts by pointing out that your metaphorical example is fundamentally flawed, because the conditions within your example are not those of a free market. Thats like trying to compare the physical state of your hair in a wind storm, and in a period of calm.

You're as bad as those people who claim that "True Communism" will work whilst shrugging off all evidence to the contrary because the theory is nice and technically it hasn't been tried yet.