So you believe in god? Who organised the biology of your body? Who
organised the cosmos? What committee sat down and said 'yeah, let's have
jupiter over there and let's make a big shiny thing for it to revolve
around'? They'd still be discussing it.
>> >Are we assuming, at this point, that there are no more states left in the
>> >world?
>>
>> Nope. They would simply be groups of people who own some land. If they
>> have representatives through whom I can deal with that group then all
>> the better for me; makes life simpler.
>
>What I mean is, does our current state, for example, cease to exist, while
>other states, such as America continue to exist. Does your ideal rely on all
>current states in the world being dissolved, and the implementation (if I
>can get away with using that word) of your theory being universal?
America can do what it likes. The fact that they have a govt. makes it
easier for me to deal with them. Note: I am not claiming that they'll
honour that agreement, history does teach some lessons.
>Square one ... here we come.
You have made that point at least three times and each time I have
agreed with you. I'll make it as clear as I can; I consider a return to
govt. to be at least as likely an outcome as anything else. Can we stop
labouring the point now?
>> >Hmmm, it would be interesting, but I'd like a get out clause.
>>
>> You've got one. Identify the person or organisation you feel is best
>> able to protect you and provide for you and cater to your every need,
>> (your mother?) ... and then strike the best deal you can with them,
>> where you give up a certain amount of your freedom in return for their
>> services.
>
>Essentially you've got that situation already. If you don't like the
>state in which you live, go and live someplace else.
Where? See my other post.
>I see the advantage of your system here though, because geographical boundaries
>are no longer a problem. To uproot and leave the country is an effort, and
>not cheap, and involves leaving family and friends. If you can get the
>system to come to you, then things are much better.
That is one of the advantages, yes.
>Language only. These volountary contributions are in the place of current
>taxation, hence the reason I used the word.
No they're not. People donating money to a favoured cause is not the
same as, or a replacement for, taxes. Taxes would not exist, they would
not be replaced.
>How much do you think charities make in comparison to governments?
How much more do you think they'd make if the govt. wasn't nicking 25%
of our wages?
>> Nobody in the
>> world gives cigarettes to homeless people in doorways.
>
>I don't, but then I smoke Silk Cut Ultras.
>
>> Where's the
>> incentive, huh?
>
>There is none.
But people still do it. I rest my case.
>> It couldn't simply be that I might want to share some of
>> my comparative success with those less fortunate?
>
>Maybe, but you might be a nice guy. Mr Mean isn't going to give a fuck.
That's up to him. Who am I to tell him any different.
>> >Is this a majority? If it is, then your model is just degenerating back into
>> >that which you [I assume] despise.
>>
>> I don't know what you assume but it appears to be wrong.
>
>I assume (from reference to previous posts) that you are unhappy with the
>effectiveness of democracy. Democracy is done by majority which seems to
>be what you're suggesting here. That's what I picked you up on.
There's a big difference between 'unhappy with' and 'despise'. You're
putting words in my mouth again.
>Do you really think the banking industry couldn't survive
>> without government?
>
>It could now, but if government did not exist before banking, then it wouldn't
>have been pretty.
I disagree. The need to interact commercially is a fairly potent driving
force. I think it would have muddled by.
>> Why don't you go your way and I go mine? (sounds like a song) Wouldn't
>> that be nice.
>
>Ahah. Now, I talked about this in the Foetal stages of this thread. About
>the setting up of the social contract. Remember? I was told it wouldn't
>work, but I don't see why it can't.
I don't have the early part of the thread to hand, can you remind me
what you said so I can see why I disagreed with you (if indeed it was
I).
>> >> >Where does this money come from?
>> >>
>> >> >From whatever talent or resource I sell for a living, of course.
>> >
>> >Are all individuals private self-employed people, contracting their services
>> >out, or can you work for someone?
>>
>> We're all working for ourselves Richard. We do so by selling our
>> services for the best price we can get.
>
>This was a serious question, concerning the nature of your state, 'cos I'm
>trying to build up a fairly definitive picture of it. There's no need to
>sound patronising.
I'm sorry if the tone seems patronising but it was nonetheless a serious
answer. We would all work for ourselves, just as we do now.
-- Martz martz@martz.demon.co.ukFor my public key, <mailto:m.traynor@ic.ac.uk> with 'Send public key' as subject an automated reply will follow.
No more random quotes.