(Untitled)

[bashow]

I have a theory which is counterintuitive to most people: the more government there is, the more crime and less security there will be; the less government there is, the less crime and more security there will be

Comments

[brightflashes]

heh me and my brother were JUST chatting about the Hobbesian theory online hehe.

[brightflashes]

oh and by the way, I really enjoyed reading this. Very well thought out and good points. : )

[zipideeedooda]

I have had many harsh feelings toward the government lately. And I apologize ahead of time if what I say really has nothing to do with your post

[brightflashes]

It's interesting that you apologized beforehand saying that what you were to say may not have anything to do with the original post and yet it is very connected. You have just served to reiterate exactly what bashow stated before. To put it simply according to my understanding of his main point (which could be wrong), the bigger the government, the more mistakes it can make + the more forceful it will be and thus the more angry the citizens will feel being constantly violated and let down by their government. Now, given that psychology was right when it stated that anger leads to violence, then that's the remaining link here yet to be seen. Now of course I don't think you're going to go rob a bank and shoot a bunch of people over your stimulus check being screwed up by tax brackets and marital status, but the seed has been planted

[greg_kennedy]

Since a company also arises from individuals in a society, how is it different from a government? Aren't they all subjected to the same violent and selfish goals?

If you're going to take the position that at the core people are violent, selfish brutes, you must at least accept that ALL the groups they create will be violent selfish orgazinations. The only difference is the degree to which those groups are able to inflict harm on everyone else.

[greg_kennedy]

If they are violent, they will form government. If not, they will not form government or less of one. If a company is violent, then it is not a company any longer but a government, which is what I'm arguing against. My point is that the more violent people are, the more government there will be. So government doesn't prevent or protect against violence, it merely institutionalizes it.

[greg_kennedy]

But if people are at the root uncivilized and violent, why should their company hold morals that they themselves don't? I suggest that the government is different from a company only on a scale level - i.e. any company is simply a government that hasn't gotten big enough to push people around. Neither one really cares about rights.

[brightflashes]

I don't think you're understanding that a company is not violent. Even if it's formed by violent people, a company is not violent. You're missing the main point which is the government is violent while companies are not.

[brightflashes]

I keep meaning to tell you that you NEED to friend mlfoley. I think you'd enjoy each other's blogs, though they will most likely be similar, you have some basic differences that might spark debate.

[bashow]

Thank you. I will do that.

Red rover red rover

[variablerush]

Hello.

Saw your post in an old post of mine. Brightflashes sent you? Cool, glad to have you.

You have to friend me in order to see the more recent posts I've made. I've friended you.

I agree with your stance on government. While reading your comments about the government of China (and the rest), I'm reminded of the Golden Shield Project (The Great Firewall of China).

If you poke around where you're not allowed to online, you'll receive a visit from the police asking what you're doing.