Thought experiment: Where does authority come from?

**markw76** · 12-11-06, 02:19 AM

If everybody Ian's bunch complains about quit showing up for work, you'd find out exactly where the authority comes from and damned fast. I think their problem is they don't participate fully in society and therefor find themselves unrepresented. Complaining is easier than changing something.

**Coloradocop** · 12-11-06, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by Rhino

What I find most amusing about your logic, Ian, is that you trust large corporations to govern themselves. Which means if that ideology were used today, they'd be handing out cigarettes in the Phillip-Morris Kindergarden Smoke Break. They'd be little brightly-colored cigarette packs with Mickey Mouse on them.

Your idea of government regulations- or lack thereof- is like communism: Sounds good in theory, but is catostrophic in practice.

All of this is very true Rhino... but let me add this thought to the mix:

As Jackalope pointed out previously, and Ian hinted at himself, authority ultimately comes from the will of the strong, and is thrust upon the weak. Without a democratic government to protect the weak, another strong body will surely rise to power over the masses of newly liberated individuals.

Right now the citizens have a say in their government... In a dictatorship they do not. Removing our government won't stop your liberties from being "violated", Ian... It will just pave the way for another force to come to power. You can watch this happening in the third world almost continuously (the Middle East, Africa, Central/South America): One government is eliminated and another one rises in its place to fill the vacuum. Since the dawn of time our species has attempted to conquer itself... Therefore, this idealistic view of a utopian anarchy is inherently flawed. You may not like the government, but if you eliminate it you'll eventually be ruled by warlords instead.

And, going out on a limb here:

Perhaps these new "leaders" will come in the form of the large corporations who you've just deregulated (and who can no longer be stopped by the government). Microsoft certainly has enough money to fund a sizeable army, as does Phillip Morris, Citicorp, etc.

You will probably say that the "will" of the free market will stop such a takeover, but this has never worked for the rest of the world... The will of the people often breaks as they are trampled by an army of tyrants. And, even if we ignore that reality, you'll be hard pressed to convince me that an unorganized (non-governed) group of individuals will be able to take on a "fight" of any kind against an unregulated corporation the size of some of our fortune 500 companies.

This isn't to say that I'm some conspiracy theory nutjob who thinks that the corporations are going to take over the world... Of course, I also don't believe that the government is going to be eliminated, as per your point of view. This is just my hypothetical view of your "perfect world" in action.

**esfisher** · 12-11-06, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Rhino

What I find most amusing about your logic, Ian, is that you trust large corporations to govern themselves.

Actually, it would be the consumers of their service that would regulate them.

Consider for a moment that you have a choice of 3 protection services in your area, A, B and C. You choose A, because you have friends that use them and they enjoy their services. Later on, company A is found to be corrupt and protects the interest of the rich while ignoring their other customers who pay for their services.

People who know this will move away from company A and purchase the services of company B or C. They are likely to inform their friends and encourage them to do the same, just like in any other business.

Additionally, these companies would be bound by the contract they sign when their services are purchased. I don't believe that people should be able to sue LEOs if they don't show up within 'X' number of minutes when a crime occurs, simply because there aren't enough police out there to be everywhere all the time. However, a private company could be contractually obligated to arrive within 10 minutes and face legal consequences if they are not.

Originally Posted by Rhino

Which means if that ideology were used today, they'd be handing out cigarettes in the Phillip-Morris Kindergarden Smoke Break.

In order for this to be true, one of two conditions would have to exist:
1) Parents are sending their kids to schools which allow their kids to smoke
2) Schools are forcing the kids to smoke on their breaks.

In either case, you could send them to a different school or home school them. I'm sure the smoking school would run out of students pretty quick.

Originally Posted by Coloradocop

Perhaps these new "leaders" will come in the form of the large corporations who you've just deregulated (and who can no longer be stopped by the government). Microsoft certainly has enough money to fund a sizeable army, as does Phillip Morris, Citicorp, etc.

One look at our defense budget would give you an idea of how long a company like Microsoft or Citicorp could maintain an army.

Also, the government has every right to stop a company from infringing on the rights of others. You can deregulate their business operations, but you can't give them the right to rule over others.

You also have to assume that people would join the Microsoft Army for the purpose of taking territory form the American people.

**BigDawg** · 12-11-06, 04:43 PM

I told you that no matter what you write he (Ian) would have some answer for it. Also incase you haven't figured it out, no matter what argument you give against any argument it wont be right. Why you ask? Because its against thier logic and beliefs, so there is no way it can be correct. Only their thinking is correct and everybody else is wrong.

Just look at one of the biggest examples anybody can point out to them. They advocate that there would be no public property, everything would be private, everything. And by it being private the owners can set what ever limits they want, if its to restrictive and you dont like it you can choose to go somewhere else.

Well what they dont seem to get it this site is privatly owned. We (Mods, Owners etc) have the right to allow who we want here. If we dont like someone we send them on their way (banned). But then they whine and complain when they get banned. Why?? Because its against them, they dont like that. They somehow see their world as being perfect for them if they had their way. But when something theyadvocate goes against them they get upset and resort to name calling and crying on their site or radio show.

I could go on with more, but why bother they will just turn it around somehow to fit their thinking, and its not always worth the hassel.

**esfisher** · 12-11-06, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by BigDawg3533

I told you that no matter what you write he (Ian) would have some answer for it. Also incase you haven't figured it out, no matter what argument you give against any argument it wont be right. Why you ask? Because its against thier logic and beliefs, so there is no way it can be correct. Only their thinking is correct and everybody else is wrong.

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

I personally came to this site after listening to FTL. I understand that this is a privately owned site.

There are millions of forums out their that I could have registered at, but I came here. I understand that it is the right of the owners of this site to let whomever they want stay here and post. It is also the right of anyone who gets banned from here to complain about getting banned. It doesn't mean that they don't "understand that this site is privately owned."

If this site was owned by the government, it'd be garbage. You'd have to get permission from your superior and then wait for a committee to decided if even a spammer should be banned.

Clearly, this place operates much smoother as a privately owned operation (no, I'm not being sarcastic). That's a good thing, and it helps prove that private ownership is more efficient.

By the simple fact that they don't ban people, the FTL forums would be an idea place to complain about things like getting banned from here. This is especially true considering the relationship between these two forums.

I didn't come here to bicker, I came here to discuss and debate various issues. You probably won't see me starting threads, only contributing to existing discussions. I respect the established standards here and do not want to start threads for the purpose of forcing an ideology down your throats (and I'm not saying Ian starts threads for this reason).

Here's another fallacy for you:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

An association fallacy is a type of logical fallacy which asserts that qualities of one are inherently qualities of another, merely by association. The two types are sometimes referred to as "guilt by association" and "honor by association." Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and are often based in an appeal to emotion.

Guilt by association, also known as the "bad company fallacy" or the "company that you keep fallacy," is the logical fallacy of claiming that something must be false because of the people or organizations that support it.

This means that not all cops are bad (as some FTL listeners would assert) and not all FTL listeners are drug-using anarchists who will twist and distort everything you say (as some people here would believe).

**TheOldRhino** · 12-11-06, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by esfisher

In order for this to be true, one of two conditions would have to exist:
1) Parents are sending their kids to schools which allow their kids to smoke

Yes, because although smoking was prohibited at my schools growing up, that kept kids from smoking in the bathroom.

Originally Posted by esfisher

2) Schools are forcing the kids to smoke on their breaks.

Yes, because they never do anything unhealthy or unwise unless they are forced to.

Your logic- and Ian's- means that large corporations are more trustworthy than the government- and that's just not the case.

**BigDawg** · 12-11-06, 05:57 PM

Can you say Enron??? Thats one example.

**esfisher** · 12-11-06, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by Rhino

Yes, because although smoking was prohibited at my schools growing up, that kept kids from smoking in the bathroom.

Yes, because they never do anything unhealthy or unwise unless they are forced to.

Your logic- and Ian's- means that large corporations are more trustworthy than the government- and that's just not the case.

Ok, I think I interpreted your response incorrectly. I thought you were saying that the school would have sanctioned a "Phillip-Morris Kindergarden Smoke Break".

If a school says that they don't allow smoking on their grounds, it's obvious that the rule itself won't keep kids from doing it. But most parents realize the dangers of smoking and they wouldn't send their kids to an institution that would encourage them to smoke.

What Enron did was illegal, obviously. A lot of people lost their pension because if it. Market solution? Pension insurance. I bet I could make a killing with a Pension Insurance company, largely due to the fact that most private companies make good on their pension, so the monthly payments would be small and would go to ensure that the folks at places like Enron who lost their's can get their money.

**Coloradocop** · 12-11-06, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by BigDawg3533

I told you that no matter what you write he (Ian) would have some answer for it. Also incase you haven't figured it out, no matter what argument you give against any argument it wont be right. Why you ask? Because its against thier logic and beliefs, so there is no way it can be correct. Only their thinking is correct and everybody else is wrong.

Just look at one of the biggest examples anybody can point out to them. They advocate that there would be no public property, everything would be private, everything. And by it being private the owners can set what ever limits they want, if its to restrictive and you dont like it you can choose to go somewhere else.

...

I could go on with more, but why bother they will just turn it around somehow to fit their thinking, and its not always worth the hassel.

How right you are. Our points are never addressed completely, because it disproves this happy little Utopia that they have created in their minds.

I still stand by my argument from another thread about how privatization of all property (ex: roads) would screw most people, yet these guys never fully addressed that point either... because it deflates this "hot-air" balloon upon which these ideas are based

**Piggybank Cop** · 12-12-06, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by FTL_Ian

If you have it, from where did it come, and how did you get it?

Along with all the other answers:

My weapons systems and my ability, expertise, knowledge of when to, and willingness to use them in a just cause.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

**Staci** · 12-12-06, 09:02 PM

Authority is obtained by those willing to convince the majority that they are acting in the best interest of the majority, held by those able to hold it and delegated to others who are willing to assist in the maintainance of that authority.

People in authority aren't necessarily the kindest to their constituents- e.g. Hitler, they aren't necessarily the best for their country - e.g. Saddam Hussein, and they aren't necessarily worthy of the honor bestowed upon them - e.g. Castro... They just have to convince the populace that what they are doing is best for the majority.. and cow the rest...

A minister once was asked what he thought of the Nazi pogrom. He stated: "When the SS came for the Jews, I said nothing because I was not a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I said nothing because I was not Catholic. When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything.."

Do not let something continue if you know it to be wrong. Silence is not condemnation, action is. Another thought - a majority concensus is achieved, not by numbers, but by silencing the people who would object.

**BigDawg** · 12-12-06, 09:34 PM

So if this about how drug laws are bad and we should stop enforcing them, let me say this.

I dont agree with drugs, dont agree with what they stand for, or what they do to people. I dont care if its your right to put anything you want in your body or not. I still dont agree with it, the laws were made to protect the majority and your the minority here sorry thats life.

so since I agree with the war on drugs, and the current laws I will continue to enforce them. I will continue locking up the people who break those laws. When your life gets ruined remember its thedrugs that did that, not me. I think anybody who uses, sells, or otherwise is connected to drugs deserves every day they get in jail, and every fine they have to pay. There is nothing that you will say that will change my mind, here on this forum or in person when I arrest you.

So if you dont like my way of thinking your invited to take your views and postings elsewhere. This site is for the police and police supporters, not the libertarians, sorry but its true.

**Piggybank Cop** · 12-12-06, 10:01 PM

Sir, yes sir.

You got my vote and back up.

**TheOldRhino** · 12-13-06, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by BigDawg3533

so since I agree with the war on drugs,

Oh. So you think it's possible to win the war on drugs?

Originally Posted by BigDawg3533

So if you dont like my way of thinking your invited to take your views and postings elsewhere. This site is for the police and police supporters, not the libertarians, sorry but its true.

And I could say the same. I'm the police, and a libertarian. So does that mean I should leave?

This post is very totalitarian, and it's attitudes like this that make the "so-called" libertarians of FTL hate the police.

**BigDawg** · 12-13-06, 06:44 AM

Yes Rhino I flew off the handle and got very upset. Im sick of hearing how we the police need to stop enforcing the laws that they dont like. As I have said before no I dont think we will win the war on drugs as it srands, but I dont believe making them legal is the answer either. How about since its a supply and demand business. Stop buying the drugs!! If there is no more demand, supply goes away, war won. And no Rhino Im not putting that remark to you. I know you dont buy drugs. But think about it, that has just as much of a chance of happening as does making them legal. And I did mean it when I said I thin they (drug users, sellers, etc) get everything they deserve with court fines, jail time etc. And yes I will continue doing what I can by arresting them. And when their life is ruined as they like to point to, thank the drugs for that, not me.

**FTL_Ian** · 12-27-06, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Rhino

Your logic- and Ian's- means that large corporations are more trustworthy than the government- and that's just not the case.

Incorrect. Corporations only exist because of government. They are meant to protect the owners and operators from liability. Without government, we'd only have businesses run by individuals.

Do I trust business more than government? Yes. Because I get to choose which businesses to trust. If I have doubts about one, I can go to the competition or open my own.

With government the choice is obey or else. There are no other options.

**BEK** · 12-27-06, 11:37 AM

you could always move

**FTL_Ian** · 12-27-06, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by BEK320

you could always move

I did, 4 months ago. So have others. We're all moving to the same state to achieve Liberty in our lifetimes and put an end to big government.

**CountyFourteen** · 12-27-06, 12:09 PM

yea too bad it is in the usa, lol....I guess the concept is "good" except for all the people who were natives will be over run by "outsiders" who want to change the way THEY live....oh well...at least trying to make change within the law is/was a good idea for your move I guess...

**FTL_Ian** · 12-27-06, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by CountyFourteen

yea too bad it is in the usa, lol....I guess the concept is "good" except for all the people who were natives will be over run by "outsiders" who want to change the way THEY live....oh well...at least trying to make change within the law is/was a good idea for your move I guess...

We can't make changes without the involvement of the NH natives. Luckily, many of them "get it" and are welcoming us. After years of "massholes" invading and bringing big government with them, the Liberty-minded NH natives are happy to have the backup.