|
|
#91
08-27-2007, 04:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
[ QUOTE ]
My knowledge of the late 1800s is not strong, but post ww2 saw a dramatic DECREASE in regulations and centralized control when compared to the 1930s and ww2 years. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think you are correct about that. The amount of centralized regulations has rapidly increased ever since the Supreme Court's famous "switch in time" during the 1930's. If measured by number of laws in the U.S. Code or regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, that number has perpetually increased. It is true that some of the draconian price control and other economic regulations were removed after the war, but the overall trend of the 20th Century was a massive increase in centralized power and regulation. At the same time, there was an explosion of wealth and technological progress. I am not saying the increased regulation is a necessary cause of all the progress. Indeed, I am sure that much of it is not; but the overall point I made was not about incremental differences in the amount of regulation. The issue raised by OP is anarchy v. state, which is a much bigger distinction than some regulation v. more regulation. It may well be true that the ideal amount of regulation is far less than we have today, but it is also almost certain that some regulation is preferable to no regulation (i.e., anarchy). [ QUOTE ] England, Rome, and Ancient Greece all had strong central governments in place during the periods of greatest innovation in arts and sciences. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Periods of greatest innovation is misleading. The 1990s was a period of phenomenal innovation, and those innovations were far more complex than the much simpler agricultural innovations that turned Europe around after the dark ages. Crop rotation, proper fertilization and irrgation, proper breading and selection, these things are "simple" when compared to the wealth of knowledge and capital that is required to build a computer. Yet the agricultural innovations are what built up enough capital to allow that beginnings of the industrial revolution by freeing people from having to farm and allowing their labor to be put to use elsewhere. [/ QUOTE ] This is a fair point, but it does not detract from my main argument. Even the "simple" innovations you describe were made and widely used in areas with governments, not in anarchies. 
|
|
#92
08-27-2007, 09:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
if you are religious... you should be an anarchist.
because you already believe in an all-powerful being/concept that can provide everything neccessary, is for some reason inherently good, and cannot be questioned.
|
|
#93
08-27-2007, 10:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
[ QUOTE ]
if you are religious... you should be a statist. because you already believe in an all-powerful being/concept that can provide everything neccessary, is for some reason inherently good, and cannot be questioned. [/ QUOTE ] FYPLDO.
|
|
#94
08-28-2007, 09:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] . . . then you should be an anarchist. Do you see why? [/ QUOTE ] Nope. The very first evolved humans were "cooperative". Anarchy would not have worked in any way, shape or form. [/ QUOTE ] wait... you think that there would be no cooperation in borodog's form of anarchy?
|
|
#95
08-28-2007, 09:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
[ QUOTE ]
Agree with you 100% Phil. Boro just doesn't understand the 'real' world. It is usually pointless to argue so I have pretty much stopped - just read his and the other ACer's posts and laugh to myself. [/ QUOTE ] yeah, i thought he would have taken this post back when he sobered up though...
|
|
#96
08-28-2007, 11:25 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you are correct about that. The amount of centralized regulations has rapidly increased ever since the Supreme Court's famous "switch in time" during the 1930's. If measured by number of laws in the U.S. Code or regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, that number has perpetually increased. It is true that some of the draconian price control and other economic regulations were removed after the war, but the overall trend of the 20th Century was a massive increase in centralized power and regulation [/ QUOTE ] The regulations during the depression and ww2 were on the order of things like price controls and wage setting which are far more difficult for businesses to deal with than conforming to a new page of ohsa standards. Sending 10 million men in the prime of their productive lives cannot really be quantified by a number of pages of regulations. The harshest of the rules (read: the most economically harmful) that were implemented during these periods were eliminated after the war. [ QUOTE ] At the same time, there was an explosion of wealth and technological progress [/ QUOTE ] Real wealth has not increased dramatically for people living in the US over the last 50 years. Virtually every study that comes out points to mean real wages stagnating (several have been posed in the politics forum in the past year). The debt level of the average American is so high that for many people they own no real wealth, their 401ks and their homes are offset by their credit cards, student loans, and car payments. [ QUOTE ] The issue raised by OP is anarchy v. state, which is a much bigger distinction than some regulation v. more regulation. It may well be true that the ideal amount of regulation is far less than we have today, but it is also almost certain that some regulation is preferable to no regulation (i.e., anarchy). [/ QUOTE ] This is the problem with these discussions, basic definitions are not used in common. The society boro and I would like to see is not one devoid of regulations, but one in which there is no central monopoly on regulations.
|
|
#97
08-28-2007, 02:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] . . . then you should be an anarchist. Do you see why? [/ QUOTE ] No, I don't. Care to ellaborate? (I do understand evolution) [/ QUOTE ] A big problem for evolutionists
|
|
#98
08-28-2007, 05:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
i entirely disagree
we are no longer subject to natural selection. also economic evolution is not the same as genetic evolution. furthermore, anarchy, just like all other types of gov't/social structures, will not solve all the world/social/economic problems and i would argue it would make things worse
|
|
#99
08-28-2007, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
[ QUOTE ]
This is the problem with these discussions, basic definitions are not used in common. The society boro and I would like to see is not one devoid of regulations, but one in which there is no central monopoly on regulations. [/ QUOTE ] I don't follow. An anarchy is a region with no government or regulation according to the dictionary and common usage. What exactly do you guys have in mind -- competing governments? Wouldn't that quickly degenerate into sectarian violence? Historically, power has tended naturally to aggregate into territorial monopolies via war.
|
|
#100
08-28-2007, 09:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If you are an evolutionist . . .
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This is the problem with these discussions, basic definitions are not used in common. The society boro and I would like to see is not one devoid of regulations, but one in which there is no central monopoly on regulations. [/ QUOTE ] I don't follow. An anarchy is a region with no government or regulation according to the dictionary and common usage. What exactly do you guys have in mind -- competing governments? Wouldn't that quickly degenerate into sectarian violence? Historically, power has tended naturally to aggregate into territorial monopolies via war. [/ QUOTE ] It would be awesome until one voluntary regulatory organization won. Then we would be back where we started.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
