bishal Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 "Everything good is due to good government and everything bad is due to bad government." "The food we eat are of quality due to good government programs and the food that are of bad quality is due to bad government." "Russia had crisis coz Stalin was in charge but if Trotsky was in charge if would be better". I often get these argument but anyone, How to refute these good-bad argument?
ribuck Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 How to refute these good-bad argument? If a good government is so great, why can it only achieve its goals by using force? Is it still a good government for those against whom it is using (the threat of) violence?
Rick Horton Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 It's the toughest argument. I don't think there is a good answer yet.
Mcattack Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 I'd ask for a definition of "government." Get them to break it down to its essentials, what they believe it to be, then you stand a better chance at understanding what is motivating them to say phrases like that.
Victor Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 Well, in the argument of Good Rapist vs. Bad Rapist, I would choose no Rapist.
Jose Perez Posted February 18, 2013 Posted February 18, 2013 These are not arguments but mere assertions that "government is good" (force) regardless of the people it is composed of. There is nothing there to "refute" other than putting the onus on them. Still, you can reply to them that, by the same "argument", people can also be good and perform good actions by themselves without the need for a government: "if John Doe had been the one with the money he would have given it to the poor"... In any case, the state – as something that obviously cannot exist without it being composed of people – has been long ago logically invalidated by Stef ---> Disproving the State
bishal Posted February 19, 2013 Author Posted February 19, 2013 I think asking them to define Government would be better. But they will simply say if there was another guy in charge things would be different. Anyway I like to be universal (like: no can just choose good things or bad things happened and both parties arguing should consider both sides) in dealing with government fans. Means due to government society improves, ok fine with that, but crimes grew, poor are poorer, etc. are also during the the same government time. For the sake of argument, i will accept government increased prosperity (i nkow its not) but you must accept it also increased crime (and many other problems) as it happend during the same time. I don´t know how effective it would be. Anyway they will just say there was not enough regulation so its bad Its hard job to convience grown ups.
Rick Horton Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 These are not arguments but mere assertions that "government is good" (force) regardless of the people it is composed of. There is nothing there to "refute" other than putting the onus on them. Still, you can reply to them that, by the same "argument", people can also be good and perform good actions by themselves without the need for a government: "if John Doe had been the one with the money he would have given it to the poor"... In any case, the state – as something that obviously cannot exist without it being composed of people – has been long ago logically invalidated by Stef ---> Disproving the State Right, but there is a State, so it does exist. The State exists as an idea. The idea shapes people. The people we interact with change our reality. So we have to deal with the idea, thus the idea is real. Thus the State is real. As real as anything else in reality is. Denying that the State exists in reality is really troubling. Yeah, it's not a physical thing, but it has more influence on my life than a lot of physical things do, so it's very real. This is one of the areas that I can't get passed with the argument that governments don't exist. YES THEY DO. They are implimented ideas, and the ideas are very real BECAUSE they do affect reality. There is absolutely NO WAY around my argument. It's a strange voodoo move that sounded good for a moment, but left me unsatisfied within an hour. Like Chinese food, lol. The idea that States don't really exist is LESS REAL than the idea that they do. The idea that States don't exist doesn't affect reality at all. The idea that States do exist HELLA affects reality, since reality is HELLA affected by the existence of the idea of the State, and the implimentation OF those very real ideas. So we really need to drop that argument, entirely, like a bad habit. It's a philosophical "loop hole" argument, that doesn't go anywhere. Not that I've seen anyhow.
nathanm Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 Until people recognize that there's no such thing as being a little bit pregnant or that having a little bit of cancer is healthy there's not much you can do. Yes, there are degrees of less evil and more evil within the system but if a person can't understand that the whole thing is wrong it doesn't pay to split hairs. Take anything the government does to the individual and have the individual do the same thing. Ask them what the difference is. Then give up when they don't get it, cause they'll probably never get it. There's a patch cable wired to their shitty high school history class, mainstream media and their lemming family members and their brains and not many other signals are getting though. Seems like there has to be some kind of seed of skepticism planted early in your life, otherwise you'll never get it.
Rick Horton Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 Until people recognize that there's no such thing as being a little bit pregnant or that having a little bit of cancer is healthy there's not much you can do. Yes, there are degrees of less evil and more evil within the system but if a person can't understand that the whole thing is wrong it doesn't pay to split hairs. Take anything the government does to the individual and have the individual do the same thing. Ask them what the difference is. Then give up when they don't get it, cause they'll probably never get it. There's a patch cable wired to their shitty high school history class, mainstream media and their lemming family members and their brains and not many other signals are getting though. Seems like there has to be some kind of seed of skepticism planted early in your life, otherwise you'll never get it. Y'know, the world is a messy place. Now, let's say that we can get rid of Government in the next decade. What are the possible problems that we would run into if there was no government. I know it's hard to predict, but I'd be interested in the possible problems involved with not having a Government.
Rick Horton Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 Until people recognize that there's no such thing as being a little bit pregnant or that having a little bit of cancer is healthy there's not much you can do. Yes, there are degrees of less evil and more evil within the system but if a person can't understand that the whole thing is wrong it doesn't pay to split hairs. Take anything the government does to the individual and have the individual do the same thing. Ask them what the difference is. Then give up when they don't get it, cause they'll probably never get it. There's a patch cable wired to their shitty high school history class, mainstream media and their lemming family members and their brains and not many other signals are getting though. Seems like there has to be some kind of seed of skepticism planted early in your life, otherwise you'll never get it. Y'know, the world is a messy place. Now, let's say that we can get rid of Government in the next decade. What are the possible problems that we would run into if there was no government. I know it's hard to predict, but I'd be interested in the possible problems involved with not having a Government. But more importantly to me, is the understanding that I can't live my life in shoulds and woulds but cans and is's. So the point is to minimize the negative affects of force in your life, as a personal priority, and not to demand force go away. That's not efficient, and life is short. It's immoral to be a sacrifice to your own philosophy by wasting the only reality you'll ever have.
Magnus Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 "Everything good is due to good government and everything bad is due to bad government." "The food we eat are of quality due to good government programs and the food that are of bad quality is due to bad government." "Russia had crisis coz Stalin was in charge but if Trotsky was in charge if would be better". I often get these argument but anyone, How to refute these good-bad argument? Ask him to supply the factual support used to reach these conclusions, and then ask yourself if the response sounds like a regurgitation of fairy tales -- narratives that have been spoon-fed to them since childhood. Food safety? OK, what's your evidence? Don't cite Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. That's a novel. Show me the rates of exposure. Show me the cost/benefit calculations. Show me where voluntary mechanisms (property rights, reputation, etc.) are objectively inferior. If the person has such certainty about his political conclusions, then he should have an equally solid grasp of the predicates for those conclusions. Ask him to explain the causal mechanism behind any cited "improvement." Remind him that he has to explain not only the "seen" but the "unseen" -- the good things that never occurred because of some action. It's never taken me more than a couple of exchanges to determine whether a person who espouses pro-State talking points has any interest in rationality and reality, or is merely a captive of the State's narratives. However, in my experience, these "discussions" don't lead anywhere useful.
nathanm Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 Worrying about problems in a post-government world is like worrying about what health problems you might have in the old age home after the polar bear stops chewing on your head. The problem now is that way too many people either cannot see the polar bear or think that getting mauled by a bear is good and necessary; or if you're lucky, they think it would be better if the bear didn't bite so hard. We're at a place where there is instant offense taken at any sign of conventional slavery or racism, but equally vile government behavior is completely denied and covered up. When people start having a gut reaction against the concealed violence as they do with palpable violence we can start moving onward to more advanced ideas of organization.
DoubtingThomas Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 Y'know, the world is a messy place. Now, let's say that we can get rid of Government in the next decade. What are the possible problems that we would run into if there was no government. I know it's hard to predict, but I'd be interested in the possible problems involved with not having a Government. The world is a scary place. Lets say I let you out of your cage and stop feeding you thin gruel tomorrow. What are the possible problems you might run into on your own? You might get mugged. You might skin your knee on a rock. I know it's hard to predict, but I would be interested in the possible problems involved with not keeping you caged in my basement.
Rick Horton Posted February 19, 2013 Posted February 19, 2013 Y'know, the world is a messy place. Now, let's say that we can get rid of Government in the next decade. What are the possible problems that we would run into if there was no government. I know it's hard to predict, but I'd be interested in the possible problems involved with not having a Government. The world is a scary place. Lets say I let you out of your cage and stop feeding you thin gruel tomorrow. What are the possible problems you might run into on your own? You might get mugged. You might skin your knee on a rock. I know it's hard to predict, but I would be interested in the possible problems involved with not keeping you caged in my basement. exactly.
Recommended Posts