Author Topic: “If I had my way, I’d destroy all the mosques and spread the whores around..."  (Read 30091 times)

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
Because an unhappy man would never cheat without legal prostitution?
 :rolleyes:


Save your snark.  freedom lover was suggesting marital infidelity as a solution, and that's what I'm responding to.

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Save your snark.  freedom lover was suggesting marital infidelity as a solution, and that's what I'm responding to.

Before this I thought you were responding to me, and had a whole rant lining up.  Darn.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
I was responding to you, but I'm not saying that the availability of prostitutes (legal or illegal) is going to wreck a marriage.  freedomlover said:

I feel bad when I read the letters in the paper from older men who don't get enough sex. That should never have to be a problem.

I'm disputing the idea that going outside the marriage for sex is helpful.


And again, I'm ambivalent about the idea of legalizing prostitution, so I'm not arguing against it.  I just don't see any economic benefit from having more brothels.  Now could we save money by ceasing to prosecute it as a crime?  I suppose, maybe.  But the economic benefit of MORE prostitution has not been demonstrated, I think. 
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
Quote
I feel bad when I read the letters in the paper from older men who don't get enough sex. That should never have to be a problem.[/quteo]

I don't see any implication here that these men are married.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

doczinn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,205
Quote
there would be no power structure in place in order to enforce certain basic societal rules regarding interaction, as in "don't beat Steve over the head with a large rock, rape his wife, then steal all his stuff."
Are you saying no-one would defend themselves? Or their friends? Or hire a security agency to protect their property? Or their neighborhoods? I'd say you're wrong.

Quote
In other words, it requires that everyone believes in the non-aggression pact in order to work.
No, it requires that people take responsibility for their own safety and security, and if not capable of defending themselves they either purchase protection or have a lot of friends.

Quote
Now, I have heard many different proposals from anarcho-capitalists that claim to rectify this problem, but each of them seems suspiciously like a government.
Yes, many of the arrangements that would arise would look and act a lot like governments do. But the difference is that it would be truly voluntary. My friends and I buy some land, build a neighborhood, and make the rules in that "city," and no outside agency is going to tell us what the rules must or may not include, and we can't claim to make the rules for property we don't own.

Quote
I have yet to see anyone sufficiently explain how to avoid these problems without either resorting to a government-like structure, or having everyone magically believe in the NAP.
So you admit that it doesn't involve some sort of utopian thinking."Government-like structures" probably. But on a purely voluntary basis.

D. R. ZINN

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
And again, I'm ambivalent about the idea of legalizing prostitution, so I'm not arguing against it.  I just don't see any economic benefit from having more brothels.  Now could we save money by ceasing to prosecute it as a crime?  I suppose, maybe.  But the economic benefit of MORE prostitution has not been demonstrated, I think. 

Good point.  We'd save money by not trying to put the hookers in jail.  Personally, I think we'd also save money on the health care end - fewer people end up with STDs needing medical treatment.  Hookers with a powerful incentive to stay away from drugs, johns with incentives to go to the legal places, so on and so forth.

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
Good point.  We'd save money by not trying to put the hookers in jail.  Personally, I think we'd also save money on the health care end - fewer people end up with STDs needing medical treatment.  Hookers with a powerful incentive to stay away from drugs, johns with incentives to go to the legal places, so on and so forth.

Assuming the same people who are willing to work as pimps and whores will be likely to rationally pursue what is in their best interest is funny, but not in a "haha" way.

No, it requires that people take responsibility for their own safety and security, and if not capable of defending themselves they either purchase protection or have a lot of friends.


Until the guy with even more friends comes and kills most of you and enslaves the rest. It's a nice fantasy, and under theoretical perfect circumstances it might work. But proposing it seriously for America is laughable. And yeah, I know. One ancient culture did it for a while. Yay.
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Assuming the same people who are willing to work as pimps and whores will be likely to rationally pursue what is in their best interest is funny, but not in a "haha" way.

The 'pimps' are out of business, much like how legalized drugs would put most of the illegal drug dealers out of business.

Basically, beings a legal provider of services has powerful economic advantages over the illegal ones.

Those that CAN'T stay clean, well, they're looking at even less income/customers than right now.

doczinn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,205
Quote
Until the guy with even more friends comes and kills most of you and enslaves the rest.
And that's different than now....how, again?
D. R. ZINN

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
Why would pimps and prostitutes suddenly change careers, after legalization? 
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

Balog

  • Unrepentant race traitor
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,774
  • What if we tried more?
And that's different than now....how, again?

Because there is the certain knowledge that if you and a few dozen of your buddies get together and try to take over a town and rape and pillage, a whole hell of a lot of guys with guns and tanks etc will come kill you.

Most people don't have that "pioneer spirit" of being alone with no defense from the Indians but their own strong right arm. So the majority of people would flock to a strongman, and you've got the Africa/Afghani situation of tons of little warlords doing whatever they want. Human nature assures some form of governance. All any "anarcho-whatever" system does is insure that the system that comes up will be more prone to tyranny. Like I said, a nice fantasy but not compatible with actual humans in the actual world. 
Quote from: French G.
I was always pleasant, friendly and within arm's reach of a gun.

Quote from: Standing Wolf
If government is the answer, it must have been a really, really, really stupid question.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
It would quickly evolve into a system of patron-client relationships, with strong leaders becoming petty tyrants or warlords, court intrigues, weaker people dependent on the good will of the stronger, etc. 
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
It would quickly evolve into a system of patron-client relationships, with strong leaders becoming petty tyrants or warlords, court intrigues, weaker people dependent on the good will of the stronger, etc. 

[/quote

True, the empirical data looks like s**t, but it looks great on paper!

fistful, what you have described is analogous to feudalism...which is what the warlords in places like Somalia have set up in lieu of a central government or min/an-archy.  Some of them don't have the muscle to control more than a coastal town, so they go off a-pirating to make their living.  Randian heroes, they ar enot.

Power abhors a vacuum, so Hoover Aideed steps in with a band of goons to promise a falafel in every pot and to keep the kids off the lawn dirt.

Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
It would quickly evolve into a system of patron-client relationships, with strong leaders becoming petty tyrants or warlords, court intrigues, weaker people dependent on the good will of the stronger, etc. 


Historically, that's just not what happened in the few anarchic societies we know.

Now, understand I am not a supporter of anarchy per se. Just like Nozick, I am a believer in minarchism as the superior method of securing individual rights. But I do not believe that anarchy equals a stone-age free-for-all. That is a utopian (in the original sense) conception of the nature of the beast.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
Historically, that's just not what happened in the few anarchic societies we know.

But that is what happened in every other society.  There's a reason why anarchy is rare-to-nonexistent; human nature doesn't support that particular operating system. 
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
But that is what happened in every other society.  There's a reason why anarchy is rare-to-nonexistent; human nature doesn't support that particular operating system. 

When you take into account the last 99,800 years of human history, Federal Democratic Republics are also rare-to-nonexistent.

Look, anarchy is not my political goal.  However, I believe that in history/political science, we must at least sometimes contemplate it as a thought experiment, because our beliefs on what people would do in an anarchy reflect our fundamental beliefs on human nature.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Regolith

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,178
Are you saying no-one would defend themselves? Or their friends? Or hire a security agency to protect their property? Or their neighborhoods? I'd say you're wrong.

No.  What I'm saying is that those who want to be left alone will not outnumber those who want to rule others, in some form or another.  Thugs will build themselves into warlords, and then as soon as they've got enough people, they will come after you.  Unfortunately, being that us "leave us the ^&#$ alone" types are so few, we will easily be outnumbered, and even if we aren't outnumbered, getting "leave us alone" types to organize into an effective resistance without a government-like system would be like herding cats.

So, again, it comes down to getting the vast majority of the populace to believe in the NAP, which is not likely.

No, it requires that people take responsibility for their own safety and security, and if not capable of defending themselves they either purchase protection or have a lot of friends.

Which again requires a lot of people to believe in the same things, things that the majority of people currently do not believe in. 

Yes, many of the arrangements that would arise would look and act a lot like governments do. But the difference is that it would be truly voluntary. My friends and I buy some land, build a neighborhood, and make the rules in that "city," and no outside agency is going to tell us what the rules must or may not include, and we can't claim to make the rules for property we don't own.
So you admit that it doesn't involve some sort of utopian thinking."Government-like structures" probably. But on a purely voluntary basis.

Purely voluntary governments are still governments.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 12:12:21 AM by Regolith »
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. - Thomas Jefferson

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt the Younger

Perfectly symmetrical violence never solved anything. - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 62,152
  • My prepositions are on/in
When you take into account the last 99,800 years of human history, Federal Democratic Republics are also rare-to-nonexistent.

Touche.   =)  But I'm not sure that really helps your argument.  It just further demonstrates how bad people are at the whole freedom thing.  And one might also point out that none of these anarchist societies of which you speak have changed the world like this particular FDR has.  Have they lasted as long?  Made human rights/personal freedom into concepts that are, if not universally followed, respectable and desirable?  Have they produced world-transforming technologies? 
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 12:59:20 AM by fistful »
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
--Thomas Jefferson

MicroBalrog

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,505
...I've always argued human beings are awful at the whole freedom thing.

(Of course, Icelandic anarchy has lasted as long, if not longer, than the United States. But I don't see what that imparts on my argument where I myself said, repeatedly  through this thread that I believe a Federal Democratic Republic is the best form of organization so far).

Where we differ - again - is our basic interpretation of what human nature is. Which is probably tied with differences of our differences of what morality is.
Destroy The Enemy in Hand-to-Hand Combat.

"...tradition and custom becomes intertwined and are a strong coercion which directs the society upon fixed lines, and strangles liberty. " ~ William Graham Sumner

Firethorn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,789
  • Where'd my explosive space modulator go?
Why would pimps and prostitutes suddenly change careers, after legalization? 

I said pimps.  Didn't say that the prostitutes would change careers.

The pimps would lose out because they're no longer needed.  Any given prostitute/matron can set up their own shop. Some pimps might be able to make the transition into more of an 'agent' role, but not all.

On the whole anarchy thing - there's a reason I'm, at most, a moderate minarchist.  Government is good, in moderation.  I want to be able to report crimes to the police, have the courts determine guilt, etc...

I just want it to be really common knowledge as to what's a crime, and committing said crime to actually require a victim.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 12:22:35 PM by Firethorn »

Werewolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,126
  • Lead, Follow or Get the HELL out of the WAY!
It would quickly evolve into a system of patron-client relationships, with strong leaders becoming petty tyrants or warlords, court intrigues, weaker people dependent on the good will of the stronger, etc. 

In other words - Feudalism. Yes. Makes sense. There is probably a historical precedent. Dark ages are about as close to anarchy as civilization ever got and feudalism evolved from that situation or maybe devolved from the Roman collapse.
Life is short, Break the rules, Forgive quickly, Kiss slowly, Love
truly, Laugh uncontrollably, And never regret anything that made you smile.

Fight Me Online