Cracked
New member
Me too. It made me want to remove my eyes with a melon baller.
toldailytopic: The best form of government is...
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Me too. It made me want to remove my eyes with a melon baller.
csuguy
Well-known member
:chuckle:
Nydhogg
New member
I'll fix it for ya:
The best kind leaves you alone. If they leave you alone, the form is irrelevant.
There is a thing called "The common good".
There is need for the vulnerable to be protected and nurtured.
There has never been a form of governance which is fair to women.
In general, the more equality there is between the sexes in a society, the more humane becomes that society.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Well, it very well could. I'm linking this Anarchy in the streets and posting the thrust of it here. Let me know what you think according to what actually the result was.
For a number of years now, a number of cities in Europe have been experimenting with the removal of all traffic signs — including traffic lights, stop signs, speed limit directives — and with surprising results. Various towns in the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, New Zealand — even the UK! — have joined in the experiment. Contrary to the expectations of those who might expect multi-car pileups throughout the cities, traffic accidents have been dramatically reduced (in one town, dropping from about eight per year to fewer than two). Part of the reason for the increased safety relates to the fact that, without the worry of offending traffic sign mandates, or watching for police speed-traps, or checking the rear-view mirror for police motorcycles, drivers have more time to pay attention to other cars and pedestrians.
The architect of this experiment, the late Hans Monderman, attributed its success to the fact that "it is dangerous, which is exactly what we want." "Unsafe is safe" was the title of a conference held on this practice. Monderman added that this effort "shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to the driver being responsible for his or her own risk." Equally significant, drivers now focus more of their attention on other motorists — taking visual cues from one another, informally negotiating for space, turning into an intersection, etc. — instead of mechanistically responding to signs and electronic machines. Monderman stated: "When you don't know exactly who has right of way, you tend to seek eye contact with other road users. You automatically reduce your speed, you have contact with other people and you take greater care." He added: "The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior." In words so applicable to the rest of our politically-structured lives, he declared: "The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles." Monderman expressed the matter more succinctly in saying: "When you treat people like idiots, they'll behave like idiots."
Formal rules divide us from one another; the more rules that are imposed upon our conduct, the greater the distances among us. Of course, this is the logic upon which the state always acts: to insinuate itself into our relationships with others, substituting its coercively-enforced edicts for our interpersonal bargaining. We become conditioned to look upon strangers as threats, and to regard political intervention as our only means of looking after our own interests.
One sees this mindset of social impotence expressed throughout our lives. I am fond of asking my students why they do not negotiate with retailers for groceries, clothing, and other consumer items. They look at me as though I had suggested they attend movies in the nude. "You can't do that," they instinctively respond. I then offer examples of persons I have known who make a habit of such bargaining, managing to save themselves hundreds or more dollars each year. Incredulity still prevails. On one occasion, a student raised his hand to inform the class that he had been an assistant manager of a major retail store in Los Angeles, adding "we did this all the time."
How easily we give up on our own social skills, and at what costs. These experiments with traffic-sign abandonment remind us how much we rely upon informal methods of negotiating with other drivers, and the socially-harmonious benefits of our doing so. My own freeway driving experiences provide an example: if another driver signals to move into my lane, or I signal to move into his, more than a simple lane-change takes place. From that point on, there is nothing this other motorist can do — short of intentionally crashing into my car — that will cause me to feel anger toward him. He's "my guy," and I will feel a sense of neighborliness to him that will generate feelings of protectiveness toward him. "Neighborliness" is a good word to use here: how many of us could honk our horn or make angry hand-gestures at another driver we recognized to be someone that we know?
This is one of the unintended consequences of taking the state out of the business of directing our traffic: we regain our sense of society with others; strangers lose their abstractness, and become more like neighbors to us. If you doubt the pragmatic and social benefits of these experiments, try recalling those occasions in which a traffic light goes out at a major intersection. Motorists immediately — and without any external direction — begin a "round-robin" system of taking turns proceeding through the intersection. One of my seminar students related her experience in this connection. She was parked at the curb, waiting to pick up her mother. She noted that traffic was flowing quite smoothly, and without any significant delays. Then a police officer showed up to direct the traffic, with gridlock quickly ensuing.
A number of years ago, someone wrote an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles newspaper, reporting on a major Beverly Hills intersection where some six lanes of traffic converge. There were no traffic lights governing the situation, with motorists relying on the informal methods of negotiating with one another. The writer — who lives in the area — commented upon the resulting orderliness, going so far as to check police records to confirm just how free of accidents this intersection was.
How counter-intuitive so much of this is to those who have become conditioned to think that the state is the creator of order in our lives. In much the same way that people are discovering how widespread gun ownership reduces violent crime in society, putting power back into the hands of individuals is the most effective way of fostering both the responsible and harmonious relationships we have so childishly expected to arise from our dependence upon, and obedience to, external authorities.
What if the idea of living without coercively imposed rules was to spread from the streets into all phases of our lives? What if we abandoned our habits of looking to others to civilize us and bring us to order, and understood that obedience to others makes us irresponsible? As government people-pushers continue their efforts to micro-manage the details of our lives — what foods and drugs we may ingest; how we are to raise and educate our children; the kinds of cars we may drive and light bulbs we may use; the health-care we are to receive; our optimal weight levels; how we are to provide for our retirement; ad nauseam — might we summon the courage to end our neurotic fixations on "security?"
Might the quality of our lives be greatly enhanced by the transformation in thinking implicit in these traffic experiments? Might they offer flashes of insight into how the individual liberty to assess our own risks and freely act upon the choices we make provide the necessary basis for a life that is both materially and spiritually meaningful? As our institutionalized subservience and dependency continues to destroy us, can we learn that what we and our neighbors have in common is our need to negotiate with and to support one another as autonomous and changing people in a changing and uncertain world?
(Those interested in reading more about this experiment, can google "european cities remove traffic signs," and find links to many articles on the subject.)
Nydhogg
New member
Nah, elective tribal monarchy works better than theocracy.
Instead of a committee of priests with absolute power, answerable to the Gods, you have a single man, with not much power except influence and moral authority, answerable to the tribe.
Still, anarchy according to the mutualist/agorist model beats any form of government.
Why a horde? A legislature is unbiblical. Morality is not a voting contest. The King hires a constuction company when a road needs fixing.
For being so interested in politics and really only theology, you sure make some silly statements.
Thanks for the quote verifcation. While you're on "quote check.com", look up who said this:
Outside Independence Hall when the Constitutional Convention of 1787 ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked.....,
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, .... responded,
"A republic, if you can keep it."
The same man made the following quotes as well:
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. ”
(Newman and Nydhogg need to read that quote a couple of dozen times; quiz at 11).
And here's the the crux of this entire thread:
“Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature.”
That's what made our Constitutional Republic so unique: rights didn't come from men, as men can take rights away as fast as they give them to you.
Our rights came from God.
Our rights still come from God.
drbrumley
Well-known member
I noted the bold Nick. Are you suggesting that didn't happen?
If we could only get those that are responsible for passing "Hate Crime Laws" to acknowledge that.
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/HateCrimes.pdf
Yet people from every nation on earth have fled their homeland (often times leaving everything behind) to come to the United States.
It sounds like our Constitutional Republic whose laws were once based on "Rights from God" "fit" people from all over the world.
Nydhogg
New member
It's a stupid quote. People have no need of masters EVER.
That you consider what they do immoral gives you no authority to take dominion over them.
drbrumley
Well-known member
All I can say when I saw him say this was if he wants human masters, he should go to China. he may be comfortable there.
And this post proves he is a flaming Facsist!!!!! A leftist scum.
Yet you have the "need" to get high daily (more like hourly), worshipping your "master": recreational drugs.
The standard for morality isn't set by me. Our Constitutional Republic and the laws established by the men who started it realized that those that didn't follow the laws of God would eventually live under tyrannical rule.
Now I realize that you and your little Libertarian buddy that responded after you think that tyranny is not being able to get hiiiiiiigh, murder your own baby when it's inconvenient to have him or her, have promiscuous sex in a public restroom toilet stall, or look at porn on the internet, but freedom has a different meaning for Christians, as the Founding Fathers so wisely noted and legislated.
Speaking of abortion: The annual "March for Life" rally will be held at the State Capital in Olympia in a couple of hours. I encourage anyone that lives in the area to attend. (This will be my 4th).
http://washingtonmarchforlife.org/
http://washingtonmarchforlife.org/
Newman
New member
Because that's what we have.
Agreed.
Ok, my question still stands. Why a king? Why not let roads be run by private companies just like any other good or service? Why are roads different?
Let's ask our friend, Ben, shall we?
And another...
And finally...
The reason I am conservative is not because I believe that liberal-minded folks are deceitful and against change. It is precisely because they are true to their principles that I can never, in good conscience, be one. In my opinion, the Left does an excellent job of destroying everything that I value in this great nation. And they do it all with the very best of intentions.
Both sides, it seems to me, desire the same thing. They desire for each of us to be able to live the way we want to live. The Left, however, chooses to do this by controlling everything so that we are guaranteed our freedoms. In other words, it is a forced liberty. Liberals often erroneously believe that being liberal makes them better people. They believe it makes them more tolerable. They believe that they can change human nature by controlling it.
If I want to eat french fries, buy my children a kid's meal with a toy inside, enjoy a red velvet cake, buy Nyquil without a prescription (from illegal...er, um, undocumented I mean...homosexual doctors practicing medicine in green-certified offices located on Hopi Indian reservations) never exercise a day in my life, and smoke 20 packs of cigarettes a day, that is my choice. Do I find wisdom in refraining from the aforementioned activities? Of course. Do I believe that it is my government's place to tell me how to live? I do not.
And I cannot stomach when a great many liberals with whom I have held conversations tell me that, if I don't support such and such, I must hate___________ (fill in the discriminated against group of your choice here).
"You don't believe in granting women their right to do with their body as they see fit and allowing them to murder unborn babies?? You are a terrible person! How can you hate women so much? Not to mention that you must love to see poor people suffer!"
or
Try telling some liberals that you believe in upholding laws and requiring immigrants to come through the front door in a legal fashion for citizenship and you will inevitably hear something along the lines of "What?! You hate Mexicans??"
That's right. Conservatives hate everyone except rich people.
:vomit:
Not all Lefty types are this way, of course, and for me to say they all fit into such a nice stereotype would be disingenuous. :e4e:
Government is a necessary good, in my opinion. And there is none better than the one created by the Founders of the United States. For all its faults, it has stood the test of time and will continue to prove its mettle.
And now that I've shared the facts, I shall go on to my opinion... :chuckle:
And another...
And finally...
The reason I am conservative is not because I believe that liberal-minded folks are deceitful and against change. It is precisely because they are true to their principles that I can never, in good conscience, be one. In my opinion, the Left does an excellent job of destroying everything that I value in this great nation. And they do it all with the very best of intentions.
Both sides, it seems to me, desire the same thing. They desire for each of us to be able to live the way we want to live. The Left, however, chooses to do this by controlling everything so that we are guaranteed our freedoms. In other words, it is a forced liberty. Liberals often erroneously believe that being liberal makes them better people. They believe it makes them more tolerable. They believe that they can change human nature by controlling it.
If I want to eat french fries, buy my children a kid's meal with a toy inside, enjoy a red velvet cake, buy Nyquil without a prescription (from illegal...er, um, undocumented I mean...homosexual doctors practicing medicine in green-certified offices located on Hopi Indian reservations) never exercise a day in my life, and smoke 20 packs of cigarettes a day, that is my choice. Do I find wisdom in refraining from the aforementioned activities? Of course. Do I believe that it is my government's place to tell me how to live? I do not.
And I cannot stomach when a great many liberals with whom I have held conversations tell me that, if I don't support such and such, I must hate___________ (fill in the discriminated against group of your choice here).
"You don't believe in granting women their right to do with their body as they see fit and allowing them to murder unborn babies?? You are a terrible person! How can you hate women so much? Not to mention that you must love to see poor people suffer!"
or
Try telling some liberals that you believe in upholding laws and requiring immigrants to come through the front door in a legal fashion for citizenship and you will inevitably hear something along the lines of "What?! You hate Mexicans??"
That's right. Conservatives hate everyone except rich people.
:vomit:
Not all Lefty types are this way, of course, and for me to say they all fit into such a nice stereotype would be disingenuous. :e4e:
Government is a necessary good, in my opinion. And there is none better than the one created by the Founders of the United States. For all its faults, it has stood the test of time and will continue to prove its mettle.
And now that I've shared the facts, I shall go on to my opinion... :chuckle:
- Status