rexxz wrote:
You missed th entire point, congratulations. The feeling of happiness is not subjective, if you need me to clarify that for you. I never said what makes an individual happy isn't.
And for the record, global happiness trends have drastically improved, and that is absolutely due to better living conditions which are brought on by superior and efficient forms of governing.
Don't use a base rate fallacy when trying to argue that, either.
For those lacking literacy, let's first establish a few things: Happiness constitutes a noun with the following denotations:
1. the quality or state of being happy.
2. good fortune; pleasure; contentment; joy.
Secondly, when it is said that
happiness is subjective, it doesn't mean that the neurochemicals that result in happiness are, or that the denotation is, but stimuli that cause happiness, yeah, they're subjective. And I still fail to see how they can accurately and honestly be objectively measured. Polls are problematic for a few reasons: they always target demographics and samples of a population, and never represent the entire population, and the context is easily lost. Simply put, polls are the only method of "objectively measuring happiness", and at that they are very weak.
rabid_death wrote:
I'm dying to see him give us a realistic alternative to the current form of government that would make everyone better off since the current one is so badly flawed (apparently).
It's a thing called liberalism, but it's apparently alien and all liberals should be shot. Minimal government, with only enough to appease those who need government (I surely do not). A police force, fire fighters, small military, public hospitals, maybe universal healthcare and public schooling, and nothing else.
Morrigan wrote:
Noobbot wrote:
Let's establish a few terms then. You have modern warfare, and general warfare. With modern warfare, there is organization and global strategy with regards to all parties; with general warfare, it is merely engaging in some massed conflict. Considering these definitions, modern warfare is possible only with the existence of states, and the latter, well, football hooligans engaging each other would fit that definition.
I fail to see your point. You said that there was no war before the arrival of government. Then you said tribal wars somehow "don't count", but why not? People still die and tribal wars are just as horrible than modern wars. The difference is in the size of the population. When the population increase, you inevitably get government, and bigger wars too. Different societies but in the end, humans will kill each others whether there's a government or not. The difference is that civilisations are built around societies with government, and it's those civilisations that created culture, science and technology.
We're saying the same thing here. Only you claimed that I said that violence would cease with anarchism, when I actually never made such a statement. And I relish technology and science, but almost all science and technology have been created by individuals, universities, and corporations, all entities ideally separate from the state, and all of which cannot be identified as any part of the state. And I'm afraid to say that you're a poor soul if you believe that culture, language, literature, and science would not have developed if not for government. If nothing else, government serves more often to cause atrophy or at least to serve as some barrier for most of those.
Morrigan wrote:
The only fallacy here is your obvious strawman. I made no such correlation (though I arguably could but that's another discussion). You said that you didn't care about universal healthcare and public education - which ARE indicators of higher standards of living, and were what I was referring to.
Do you deny that universal healthcare and public education contribute to higher standards of living?
Strawman? I think not. It was far more than an insinuation that you made, and you don't deny that you believe that. How, pray tell, is that then a strawman? Where is the ficticious or irrelevant target that I am ravaging, as opposed to your arguments?
And healthcare and education do contribute to higher standards of living, but that can all be achieved just as well if people actually had more money to spend rather than using anywhere from thirty to fourty-five per cent of their income solely on the various forms of taxes (even in the US).
Morrigan wrote:
Quote:
You're good at this debating thing, aren't you?
Better than you, yeah, but that's hardly an accomplishment.
Your skill at sarcasm is at best dubious, however.
Morrigan wrote:
Quote:
No, you've danced around the argument, instead highlighting fallacies (and often oddly doing so erroneously).
Coming from the person who completely ignored the facts raised in the video posted earlier and who instead attacked the person presenting them, and who is indeed posting one fallacy after the other, you'll pardon me if I join in the laughter at such a preposterous accusation.
I've watched the video before, and his arguments are that:
1. The state encourages economic development.
- That's odd - the state has direct involvement in the current economic recession in the US. Bullshit claim here.
2. The state discourages violence.
- Because the largest war in recorded history wasn't between states, was it? That one war that resulted in over fifty million deaths? Bullshit. Police are more often bullies than they are good, honest law bringers. Politicians are more likely to abuse the system for their benefit than to use it for the masses' benefit.
3. The state is like a panacea, warding away all disease and filth.
- Yeah, okay.
He made a few other claims, but they were minor in comparison to those. And once again, he's a terrible speaker. It was difficult enough enduring it the first time, so a second time would likely result in what little sanity I have left disintegrated before my eyes.
Morrigan wrote:
Quote:
I've seen no evidence that collectivism is somehow globally beneficial while minimalistic in harming individuals in most anyway. In fact, quite the contrary is the reality in all instances I've seen; collectivism harms the majority while benefiting a few - the impoverished and the government/extremely wealthy. I'm not against the impoverished being aided in some way, and I'm not opposing charity, but benefiting a few while hurting a majority is retrograde. And how does it help the government/extremely wealthy? Government expands, and as it does, the wealthy get wealthier, and of course liberties are reduced to ash. If you can provide a solid counter-example, I'll gladly renounce this train of thought, but I cannot summon one myself.
I'm starting to wonder what the hell you mean by a collectivist society, anyway. Canada, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Germany - all those nations have high taxes, a lot of government aid programs, universal healthcare and/or strong public education, and enjoy high standards of living. None of them are without their flaws, but I'm dying to see what majority is "harmed" by the government in those countries.
Oddly enough, you mentioned many of collectivist societies right there - your general welfare states. Like I said, I'm not entirely opposed to the two constantly mentioned socialist "fruits", but I am opposed to overly large governments. All of the above represent that, and as a result, while they may have the highest per capity GDP, they still manage to live in small hovels with rather few personal possessions. And none of them are known for being great havens of civil liberty.
Evil_Johnny_666 wrote:
I'm no anarchist, but I agree that the government that our ''diplomacy'' is flawed. We vote for parties but then it's up to them, to do exactly what they want no matter what everyone thinks about it. Irak anyone? There's people for, there's people against but they never asked anyone on such a big thing as that war, the war that's bringing us closer to a recession, to the high prices of oil and all. No government want wars except when it benefits them, they would absolutely not otherwise.
Speaking of oil, don't you think it's a bit strange that our cars still need oil to run? Have you ever heard of cars running with electrecity? That we send a man on the moon in '69, can send probes at the far end of our solar system and send robots on Mars but we still run on oil? The same oil when the first cars were made? Those who have the power won't change if it doesn't give them at least the same ammount of power they have and that's why we're still stuck with oil in our cars and a government that will do as they please. When you taste power or money, you never can get enough. Even if you got billions of billions, you still need to make the most profit possible. And never ask me about the laws of the market...
We can even compare governments to some ''selling-out'' bands. When they proved their worth and got their share of power, they tend to make false promises or make nothing new and doing some questionnable things.
And you don't become a politician by being a real gentleman who will listen to his precious people (maybe if you want to be a mayor), you need to be in the high class of the society in the first place, you're already wealthy and when you talk about taxes, wars and things like that, it's like if you were playing a risk game, it's strategy and tactics, you don't care if you loose some, you only look at what you will get in the end. They do campaings that cost them millions and then ask for taxes for making roads or things like that? Hey has Bush ever fought in a war? I guess not as he certainly knows he doesn't want to and has enough of loyal followers and don't tell me he cares about those who dies. He just has to sit back in his office with his cup of tea and make some decisions.
You said it pretty well. And that is another reason I am opposed to government. It is invariably and necessarily aristocratic, and I dare anyone to TRY to raise a counter-example. You can't, you won't, and you will never. Government has never comprised of the working class, but of the so-called "upper-class".