You are confusing separate issues as one. The threat of punishment is to deter crime. A person does not need to be mentally I'll to commit a crime. Quit demonizing the mentally ill.
I'm not demonizing the mentally ill. I'm well aware that you can have mental problems without committing crimes.
You are confusing separate issues as one. The threat of punishment is to deter crime. A person does not need to be mentally I'll to commit a crime. Quit demonizing the mentally ill.
If you commit real crimes, like theft, assault, rape, murder, you have serious mental/behavioral issues. Whether all criminals qualify according to some DSM manual isn't that relevant.
Almost. The UN has no real enforcement ability though. They give a strongly worded letter to nations that break the rules. Also they dont give jurisdiction on international waters.
I think you have to make up your mind. Either one of the global government or the nation state needs to have final say.
You say enslaving when there is no enslavement. A competition requires A andBto be doing something against one another. It isn't competing if the actions of each are not related.
Majority rule (democracy) means enslavement if the majority says so. YouTube and Vimeo doesn't have to be at war to compete.
Which has nothing to do with mental illness. That is punishment.
It's punishment too, but one of the points (maybe the main point) of prison (or forced psychological care) is to remove people with irrational (insane), destructive behaviour from soc.
Making a bad choice is not a mental illness. The person can take part in society. I think you are using the term mental illness wrong. Evil is more often done by the sane.
Violent criminals are usually removed from society, for good reason.
Technically burglars compete against security.
A majority enslaving the minority is not "competition" in any reasonable meaning of the word. Competition means A doing their thing, and B doing their thing.
Global laws would likely only apply to nations, and global entities. Things done of oceans, etc.
It seems we already have that, with the U.N. and similar treaties.
You can have nations under a global government the same way you have provinces and states under a federal government. It would just be an additional layer.
Sort of like the UN then, but with more power over nation states? What areas of life would it dictate? If a religion gains global majority, could it impose religious law globally?
It isn't normal, but that doesn't make it a mental illness. A mental illness is a problem that makes it hard for you to participate in society.
Punching people in the face for no reason tends to make it hard for you to participate in society... Well, in a sane society anyway.
Competing to have the public want you to represent them. How is that not competition? Competing to have a greater majority consider you a viable representative.
With that definition of competition I suppose even a burglar is engaged in "competitive activity", "competing" against other burglars.
If it wasn’t for automation of work we would still live in the Stone Age. Remember the Luddites? Every luxury you enjoy today is the product of refined automation.
Yes. 250 years ago most ppl worked in manual agriculture and produced very little. Today machines do most of the work overseen by a small number of people, yet much more is produced.
Automation and all the wealth it creates exists because of capitalism. Automation does destroy some jobs, but it also creates new and better jobs to replace them.
If it wasn’t for automation of work we would still live in the Stone Age. Remember the Luddites? Every luxury you enjoy today is the product of refined automation.
Not true. You can opt out within some nations.
Nations (plural) is mutually exclusive to global government.
The absence of optionality seems like a defining characteristic of government in general.
Being bad is not a mental illness. It is wrong to assume anyone who does bad things has a mental illness. The most evil actions are likely done by same people.
You seem to be using a very strange definition of sanity. Walking up to a random person in the street and punching them in the face is not normal behavior.
Of course I believe in competition in government. That is what representative democracy is based on.
That's the majority imposing their will on the majority, not competition.
The #fuckingcapitalists want you to believe technology is bad and their bullshit monetary system is perfect.
Automation and all the wealth it creates exists because of capitalism. Automation does destroy some jobs, but it also creates new and better jobs to replace them.
Yes, but that means leaving the area. You need to leave the area receiving he benefits, and pretend to be opting out.
You can't opt out if there is a global government.
A global government would be higher than a nations government. The idea would be a global constitution that all governments are held to. Constitution are negative rights lists.
So you don't see a value in competition in government? Do you see a value in competition in business?
Lots of sane people actually.
Really? You consider theft and assault sane activities?
Also, why do you think the NAP is a good policy? I have seen good reasons for and against it and am leaning to it being a weak policy.
NAP is rather self-evident, no? What sane person would want to steal from others or use violence against them?
Problem: voting means statists gain power (perceived legitimacy to control via your participation). It's not NAP compliant, nor is the only alternative armed rebellion.
Alternatives that I can think of:
A. Civil war
B. leaving the country
A is only an option if you are pretty sure you will win.
B only works until you run out of places to run to.
Problem: voting means statists gain power (perceived legitimacy to control via your participation). It's not NAP compliant, nor is the only alternative armed rebellion.
Related problem is abolishing the state in an environment where other, less NAP-compliant states exist and might move in to fill the vacuum, end result being less liberty.
Problem: voting means statists gain power (perceived legitimacy to control via your participation). It's not NAP compliant, nor is the only alternative armed rebellion.
Yes, all who vote are technically statists, but if libertarian-leaning people don't vote (logic of NAP being incompatible with voting), more coercive and aggressive statists will rule.
Voting Is An Act Of Violence
Problem: NAP people not voting means statists gain power. So voting could be thought of as defensive. Maybe not entirely NAP compliant but possibly more palatable than armed rebellion.
