Orogun01

Now that's a good question We need order and structure because many people are incapable of doing the right thing, like paying tax, unless they are forced to So governments represent a collective system that allows things to function like the maintenance of institutions, examples of these include healthcare and education, and without institutions you will have countries and there citizens living in a benighted state where they just don't progress That's one of the biggest failures in Africa, the failure to maintain institutions in both the private and public sector So paying tax to your overlord(s) is 'doing the right thing'? You choose 'paying taxes' of all the examples in the universe one could come up with as doing the right thing? And you need your overlords to make sure you pay taxes to them? There's some circular logic fail for ya. Also, paying taxes has as much to do with doing the right thing as God has to do with choosing and blessing monarch X that claimed 'divine right'. Taxes are a primary way a government is able to maintain institutions and invest in the growth of a country I don't consider the government overlords but the custodians of ensuring a country is functional What would be your suggestion for a government to generate revenue and before you answer that consider this, every single government in the world uses some form of tax system because taxes work and are relevant to what governments need They could lower government spending while offering incentives to create free market alternatives.

Huh? What don't we know, are you saying Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother aren't responsible ? I think he clearly said "we don't know"

On hindsight I probably should have spent time splitting the thread up into two but my supper was starting to burn... Was it hot dogs?

Mysterious plague, people going crazy, you are a doctor. What else is there to discuss?

Classes, in the sense of privileged groups, arise as a result of two principles: accumulation of wealth (be it land or capital) and force. It has absolutely nothing to do with one's profession being more or less useful, as throughout history, the "profession" of landowner has consistently accumulated the most privileges and power, while at the same time being, arguably, the most useless to the community. Nowadays landowners have lost clout relative to "financiers" and other equally useless "professions", while those who do the heavy lifting in the world, i.e. teachers, doctors, engineers etc. just get by. The society we have today is the result of using those two principles as the cornerstone of human interactions. Marx was starting from the point of a civilized society after they have gained a concept of currency and capital ownership. In a tribal setting there is no way to accumulate wealth but there are desired status within the group for which all members vie. It is not the people who choose what is necessary and in demand but rather the nebulous thing called society, a necessary profession will raise in value (both socially and economically) when there is a scarcity of practitioners. Redundant and obsolete professions are the only ones that are culled. There are however, artificially inflated professions that only exist and are in demand because either their relation to other more useful ones or because of popularity. I do agree with your last point about losing human interaction, in a society where all your needs can be met in an impersonal matter there is no need for it. Rather it becomes a commodity to be sold for those that want it.

A plague outbreak of boneitits during which all societal notions of decency begins to unravel and it thrust the country into chaos? You know Pathologic: Chiropractor edition.

Anarchy is the only rational form of association. Note that anarchy is not mutually exclusive to law or cooperation. Absent a compulsory state, anarchy actually fosters cooperation, civilization, and society. Unfortunately, humans are by and large too lay and gullible to avoid falling for the tired, millennia old lies of narcissistic sociopaths that claim we need to coercively organize through murder, theft, and violence in order to prevent those very crimes. Anarchy is just closer to a state of nature it just removes the consolidation of power from the few to a larger number. Humans naturally come together to make up for their weaknesses, when groups reach large proportions then individuals begin specializing. Since some professions are more sought out or useful than others then they gain privileges within the group, that's the foundation of society and classes. When different groups of people that are this stage encounter each other the larger one will assimilate or destroy the smaller one, only when the number is similar is diplomacy necessary. The society we have today is the result of clashes between different groups over the course of time. Going back to an earlier point because you don't like the present state is futile, it just invites chaos and can only benefit those that seek to restructure society and place themselves at the top. Also; >seriously believing Anarchy to be a solution How's high school treating you?

The pendelum is slowly turning back to sanity. Brace for the next wave of hypersanity.

...Not really? I'm saying a classless system would perform better. But currently that is unfeasible due to the moral crisis induced by capitalism. A classless system is impossible in our current economical models, as there is capital there are those who own it and rise above the rest. The only difference is the distribution of capital but its possession will always create a preferred class.

While I find the comparison agreeable I don't think that its accurate, Socrates criticism was of direct democracy. His belief regarding representative democracy was that the elected officials would become corrupt or couldn't adequately understand perspectives other than their own (e.g: rich man trying to find a solution to help the poor)

The point I tried to make was that their training seems less focused on diffusing situations rather than responding with full force. There's a world of difference with making mistakes while doing your job and having been trained wrong. @Hurlshot: While I'm all for freedom of speech I can understand why a police department might not want to be associated with them, still the problem should be handled at a Federal level (which my conspiracy sense tells me that its the whole point of publicizing these transgressions) Edit: I just realized that that last part could be misinterpreted to mean that the racist's cop case should be handled at a federal level. I meant to say that the police brutality and investigations into police corruption should be handled at a federal level rather than by IA. Absolutely not. I'm not sure if there is a worse case scenario than that. Putting aside the fact that the Feds have no authority to do such a thing, centralizing that kind of power would be worse than letting the foxes in the hen house. There is no simple solution in regards to fixing the police brutality and abuse issue. There's a myriad of causes and different departments/localities have different problems. The solution is at the local and state level. The only thing to be done at the Federal level in regards to local police forces would be to amend the Constitution to forbid the oodles of immunity and special privileges laws that have been given to public officials and police over the last century. That isn't happening anytime soon. But the problem is the local and state levels; politicians want to show results and buff their graphs to show decrease in crime, so they put it to the departments to redouble their efforts. Hence quotas which are handed down from the top down to prove that they are doing something about crime.

Heh, "social programming". It almost sounds like you accept the premise that people's thinking can be influenced by unquestioned and widely held societal norms. I wouldn't be too surprised if there are workshops out there talking about changing attitudes and behaviour through gaming....[snip] I'm just surprised you guys are capable of recognizing the phenomenon but still think patriarchy as an idea is insane. What can I say? I'm a cat person. Seriously though, I have no idea what you're getting at. I'm talking about conditioned reflexes and how you can program animals to response in a particular way to stimuli. That said, what discredits the notion of a Patriarchy is both the lack of direction and intent (there is no one really trying to demean women) and the amount of competing information (women's representation that are not demeaning). The absurdity is that under the idea of Patriarchy subjective reason dictates that due to the tainted nature of the source every content must be tainted as well. So unless a feminist priest decides that it's Kosher then it must be corrupt because of reasons. It is a thought model that they want to force on everyone because they believe that it will achieve their ultimate goal of feminist equality; so less of a science and more of a religion. It ultimately comes down to this; what carries more influence in dictating human behavior, reality or fiction? Most of us believe that people are rational and will form opinions and thought models based on their life experiences rather than fiction. Fiction only creates thought models when its the only source of information, if they don't have any other input then it would lead to misguided notions.

Heh, "social programming". It almost sounds like you accept the premise that people's thinking can be influenced by unquestioned and widely held societal norms. Said Pavlov's dog (or cat if your avatar is an actual picture of yourself)

Its hard to beat that social programming that tells you that if you believe in conspiracies you're a nut and people will shun you. I've no problem with an idea just because its a bit far out there, I just need some evidence that supports it.

I imagine this is the "support Obsidian during this trying time thread" If so count with me.

This latest chapter has me hating GG, really they are becoming the next wave of SJWs (albeit a bit more argumentative). It is getting to the point where the bad seems to be outweighing the good and I'm almost ready to drop it.

It's not fat, it's fluffy.

The point I tried to make was that their training seems less focused on diffusing situations rather than responding with full force. There's a world of difference with making mistakes while doing your job and having been trained wrong. @Hurlshot: While I'm all for freedom of speech I can understand why a police department might not want to be associated with them, still the problem should be handled at a Federal level (which my conspiracy sense tells me that its the whole point of publicizing these transgressions) Edit: I just realized that that last part could be misinterpreted to mean that the racist's cop case should be handled at a federal level. I meant to say that the police brutality and investigations into police corruption should be handled at a federal level rather than by IA.

All i know is that training and experience help to push through, however, some people can't comprehend that, thinking that its just about being decent. That despite the well known fact that policing is high stress job with a lot of ambiguity in work encounters. And statics showing that cops have higher rate of mental and physical issues like: blood pressure and related problems, PTSD, depression, etc I might be optimistic but I doubt there are a lot of toddlers and pregnant women shooting cops. There are a lot of situations that don't require using your gun, quite frankly all you shown is that they need better training that doesn't focus on using guns.

How could it be prevented from growing when government tend to be self regulatory? We vote these people into office over and over again. A decent start would be to clean house. Funny how despite being against the state the solution seems to be to purge the state and establish another one. Like a smoker that quits and then starts overeating. Also, I doubt anyone that finds the current status quo favorable will be keen to have it change and people who want change are not willing to take the level of measures necessary to enact change. No, this is their win as everyone who goes against them within the constrains of system is engaged in a Sisyphean task. The most enduring solution would be to crush the mountain and enjoy whatever you can before it grows again, rather than to push that rock uphill.

I recall some controversial training targets that had "unconventional" assailants, pregnant women, children, etc. etc. Unless you're policing a war zone where children carry grenades and commit suicide bombings I can't really understand the need to be prepared to shoot them. I wonder how much of the stress is just anxiety over perceived dangers rather than real ones.

I agree but it seems like these consequences aren't enough to give them pause and think before they act.

How could it be prevented from growing when government tend to be self regulatory?

Point 2 - maybe, although I am happy that there are review boards, that deal with such things in a non black and white manner. Edit: btw in my experience, frontal service was by far easier.. I'm not making generalizations, the lack of self policing and poor culture within police department is the main cause of brutality incidents. It is a problem with the Department not with every cop. The thing is that I don't believe that there is anything in place that passes as a consequence for cops, on the other hand there some clear predatory practices such as establishing quotas.