No, actually, they aren’t. Most of them are backed up by the threat of some sort of repercussions if you don’t comply, not necessarily violence. See, that’s the price of living in a civilized society. Sometimes you have to do things you don’t want to do.
Yes, I am denying that.
Also, what are the issues for which you will accept violence, and why?
Bob the pacifist anarchist against health care because it’s violence. Isn’t any medical law violence then? Do you feel laws requiring doctors to be licensed are violent laws?
List of things this argument also works against:
the fire department
safety regulations for food, labor, traffic, etc.
Libraries
Schools
Social Security
Medicare and Medicaid*
Anything the government does ever unless it’s manned by volunteers and complied with voluntarily.
*This one is particularly interesting. Do you feel it’s violent that the poor elderly aren’t dieing in the streets?
Don’t forget taxes. You forgot taxes!
I suppose it doesn’t really matter, because it’s all fiat money anyway.
Now if we were to go back to the Gold standard, and only use government power to enforce civil contracts…
Yeah, that’s the Ticket!
any and all repercussions can only be enforced through violence or the threat thereof. Ultimately the root of all government power is weapons and violence.
Your denial of this fact that all government action is backed up by violence is insane.
One of you mention taxes, that is the most clear example of what I am saying, and actually really what causes all government action to be violent. Government gets money by taking it from people through the threat of violence if they do not pay thus government is based on violence.
I believe it is perfectly okay to use violence to prevent violence
Toa, interestingly enough I am against all of those things that you mention, but I disagree with your conclusion. For instance if there is a problem with the ederly dieing in the streets why dont We as individuals help that them? Instead of voting in such a way that causes violence to be used on one group of people to another why dont you help them? I am here right with you in that, I do not like the idea of old people dieing in the street, because of this I help them, just not through violent means.
Futhermore I am neither an Anarchist nor a Pacifist (I specifically stated I was not a pacifist) I believe that the government should only be involved in the protection of life, liberty a property, and in essence the only action of government should be to stop violence, and theft. Violence is acceptable in a very narrow range of situations. Healthcare is not one of them.
Have you ever read the Constitution? The government has several powers besides the ones you’ve stated deliberately delegated to it.
I have read the constitution, does that mean I automatically think they got everything right?
edited to add: by that I am speaking ethically and morally not legally. The government may have legal powers that they should not exercise for ethical or moral reasons.
I will admit that I think the united states would be better off if they followed the constitution, but in my perfect world the government would have even less power than that, and significantly less violence would happen.
The opening chapters of Harry Brownes “Why government doesnt work” has a very good explanation of everything in the government being back up by violence.
(Note: I do not agree with everything in the book, but I would suggest a read)
Pro tip: if you’re arguing that the Constitution is substantially wrong, don’t assume that everyone agrees with you.
Bullshit. In Somalia, there is virtually no government, and plenty of violence. Anarchy does not lead to peace.
My own ultimate world government consists of me being hailed as God King with a large throne and a significant number of scantily clad females to peel me grapes, keep me well fanned with those palm frond thingies…and do various other undisclosed duties…
That’s just me though.
-XT
Ruling the world tends to mean a lot of work, though.
Huh, my own ultimate world government matches yours in every detail, save one.
We could always flip a coin or arm wrestle for it…
-XT
Silly, it’s not without help from me, it’s with active oppostion from me.
I would agree that complete anarchy would lead to violence. I am not an anarchist. I think that it a government needs to exist and to defends its people from violent actions.
I think that the constitution has some really good stuff in it. Their are parts that I disagree with but I also think that almost all people in politics today disagree with parts of the US constitution.
I am not a constitutional scholar but im having trouble placing healthcare into the constitution as a power that the us government has.
Nothing in the Constitution about internet porn. either. “Health care” such as we experience it did not exist, indeed, could not have been imagined.
Thank you so much for trying to kill people.
Well, it’s not in the Constitution, but I’d say it would fall under the pursuit of happiness clause of the Declaration.
If not…well, I’m all for an Amendment to rectify the situation!
-XT
I’m not trying to kill people, twit. How is that your mind is so warped, that you think that UHC is a right guaranteed by the Constitution of The United States of America?
Now, I understand you that the it should be, but your thinking it doesn’t make it so. Don’t you have final exams, or something?
You realize that people die because they can’t afford to get health insurance or can’t find a provider who’s willing to ensure them, right?
Oh, and my finals ended a while ago.
That’s doesn’t mean I am trying to kill them.
Ensure is available at grocery stores everywhere.
Since your finals ended last week, why don’t you get a job?
:rolleyes:
What makes you think I don’t have one?