Edward Snowden

[Jake]

What do you all think of Edward Snowden?

1. Did he do the right or wrong thing by leaking information about the NSA surveillance program?

2. Did he do the right or wrong thing by fleeing the country?

3. Is the establishment justified in condemning him as a traitor and a coward?

I know exactly where I stand on this issue, but I want your unbiased opinions before I share my thoughts.

[Darias]

Why would you want competing law systems, private police and private courts? That sounds crazy.

We already have laws that contradict each other. Federal law bans the possession, sale, use, and distribution of marijuana, but some states have legalized it. The biggest reason why it's illegal is because it's almost impossible to regulate; you can grow it anywhere. The state cannot make as much money off of it as it can other food crops.

We have county police, city police, state police, and federal authorities.

There is variety, but the problem is that the law enforcement industry is monopolized by the government. This means when police departments behave irresponsibly, there is no accountability. There may be an internal investigation, but that's it. The LAPD simply doesn't go out of business when it behaves recklessly. Corrupt law enforcement agencies like this generally take advantage of public apology for their actions. If agencies behave too recklessly as to result in too many suites against them, the state may intervene and change the management of those institutions. But normally things don't change.

Both states and businesses are interested in profits. However, in the marketplace, a business depends on voluntary custom to stay alive, and does not have the advantage of revenue via taxation. Because profit is a motivator, the business must do whatever it can to please it's customers. This is true of small businesses and corporations as well, when they don't regularly receive government subsidies.

There are such things as private fire departments. You pay fire insurance and they take care of things when your house catches on fire. These companies are useful when there are no public services around. I would rather pay insurance agencies, like private fire and police, than be forced to pay taxes -- which may benefit others, or may be used unethically; I can't tell the government how I want my money spent. However I wouldn't want the state to hire private companies to do these things because the state may invest in poorly run business like solyndra which go bankrupt... and being the recipient of state subsidies might make that company less concerned about their customers.

If you want to know how other things society needs can be provided by the marketplace instead of via guns and taxation, please check out this video:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]



If you have concerns about corruption in private police or courts, please check out this economist's argument:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]



I'll be happy to provide you with more examples and arguments of how things can work. But I won't spend my time doing that if your questions are simply dismissive in nature, i.e. "how could that ever work? lol!" If you take that approach, then you aren't really interested in how things can work, instead preferring the existing system with all its flaws. If you think that tossing random rhetorical questions at me (that I have heard ad nauseum) is going to somehow pose a challenge to my argument, you are mistaken.

[100%atheist]

[Replying to post 1 by Jake]

Snowden did the right thing. For the naysayers who think he could have caused national security issues, they are wrong. Al Qaeda doesn't work via email or telephone. The Taliban doesn't either.

How do you know?

The NSA is in direct violation of the 4th amendment but you don't see them getting prosecuted.

This is your opinion. You are aware, don't you, that people's opinions can differ?

They have searched and seized millions of people without warrant.

Would you please provide a source of your information that millions of people were searched and seized. Until then I doubt your claim.

Regardless of national security, violating our rights is the issue here. Not only did they violate our rights, they violated our trust.

Please, do not speak for all people. Thank you.

[Darias]

I do not like many things that governments do. I would be somewhat interested in a discussion of possible changes. Unfortunately, I have nothing to support the discussion of some hypothetical society without government, the society that is unlikely to come to fruition ever. And by the way, you still didn't describe me the society that you are talking about. I understand that one of its advantages will be that there will be no state religion. Fine. We have quite a few non religious societies right now. What are the other advantages?

Believe it or not, I was actually under the impression that you supported everything that governments do. I don't mean to be sarcastic, but in almost every single one of our past discussions, you have always been a very staunch apologist for the state. I don't think you've ever criticized the government apart from what it fails to control.

Most people have their criticisms of the government, but are still supporters of it. You don't seem to fit that model. Some of your posts have been so extreme as to paint you as an authoritarian on levels matching that of libertarian strawmen. The reason why I have been surprised by many of your positions is because I didn't actually believe people could be that apologetic for the state. I don't mean to be rude, but your stance on a lot of issues is like that of a religious fundamentalist. Part of me thinks no one can seriously think that way, which is why I think you're trolling me half of the time, not unlike this guy:


[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]



However, if you truly don't approve of every government action, and you're being honest, then perhaps there's something to work with.

A voluntaryist society is not necessarily an atheist nor capitalistic one, but I would hope by the time it's implemented on a larger scale, that religious belief would have gone the way of the Greek gods. I only brought up religion so that the atheists here would be able to understand my view of government.

When you ask what are the advantages... what do you mean by that? It's like a proponent of slavery during the 18th century asking an abolitionist, "What are the advantages of emancipating the slaves for the greater good of the white majority?" The pro-slavery individuals might believe that the economy depends on coercive slave labor, and that letting the slaves go would create chaos and that everyone would starve. An abolitionist might not be able to dissuade the irrational fantastical fears of the slave holder. An abolitionist might not be able to answer the question, "Who will pick the cotton?" But the abolitionist doesn't have to have insight into the future. The abolitionist doesn't have to know exactly how things will work because he knows that his position is moral and that future generations will solve any potential problems of a slaveless society.

But if you are truly interested in how a voluntaryist society could work, please refer to this post.

[Darias]

This thread and this thread have pretty much ended up like this:

[center][/center]

I don't mean to treat these threads with contempt, but I've been providing sources and correcting fallacies and bad arguments over and over again. My posts tend to be long and thorough. I don't think it's unreasonable for me to request either conceding to some of my points, or offering better arguments with sources maybe. Can someone please try harder?