Re: Citizenship

kriswest Sun Apr 17, 2011 5:41 pm

Henry, Governance just means that we have treaties between each other as groups and indviduals. We 10 acres, house other objects on this land, without Government someone could just come kill my family for our properties. And they would with out a governing treaty.

Henry Quirk Mon Apr 18, 2011 4:19 pm

If two individuals agree to (as I say elsewhere) NOT steal from, rape/injure, kill one another, this is the basis for that ill-defined, ongoing, event called civilization.

To formalize or codify this agreement into 'treaty' invites stagnation and 'governance' (governors and the governed).

With this is mind: I will stand in the discussion/debate as the natural anarchist.

That is: in every attempt to create 'society' or 'community' there are square pegs who refuse to be shaved down to fit round holes.

I will be the resident 'square peg'.

For every step you move forward in laying the foundation for a world governing body: it's my job to play devil's advocate and illustrate why 'it won't freakin' work'.

Is this acceptable to all involved?

Mayflow Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:07 pm

Henry Quirk wrote:If two individuals agree to (as I say elsewhere) NOT steal from, rape/injure, kill one another, this is the basis for that ill-defined, ongoing, event called civilization.

To formalize or codify this agreement into 'treaty' invites stagnation and 'governance' (governors and the governed).

With this is mind: I will stand in the discussion/debate as the natural anarchist.

That is: in every attempt to create 'society' or 'community' there are square pegs who refuse to be shaved down to fit round holes.

I will be the resident 'square peg'.

For every step you move forward in laying the foundation for a world governing body: it's my job to play devil's advocate and illustrate why 'it won't freakin' work'.

That's fine by me. I think what we need to do is build some good brain wave generators.

Is this acceptable to all involved?

Henry Quirk Mon Apr 18, 2011 7:24 pm

You quote the whole of my post but make no comment?

kriswest Mon Apr 18, 2011 8:41 pm

Henry Quirk wrote:If two individuals agree to (as I say elsewhere) NOT steal from, rape/injure, kill one another, this is the basis for that ill-defined, ongoing, event called civilization.

To formalize or codify this agreement into 'treaty' invites stagnation and 'governance' (governors and the governed).

With this is mind: I will stand in the discussion/debate as the natural anarchist.

That is: in every attempt to create 'society' or 'community' there are square pegs who refuse to be shaved down to fit round holes.

I will be the resident 'square peg'.

For every step you move forward in laying the foundation for a world governing body: it's my job to play devil's advocate and illustrate why 'it won't freakin' work'.

Is this acceptable to all involved?

Of course it is but I would expect a little more. How about you give input on what might work also. With humans involved any society wether its two or twenty billion will have problems. That is a given. What you are seeing and thinking about is the past forms this is about new innovative and multiculural/multibelief. Its not about creating shackles its about letting all live side by side without shackles on any. For instance Muslim women and certain sects of Baptists prefer male domination. If a woman wants to be chattel to the men in her life she should be allowed to be. but if she wants to get away from that then that too should be her choice. the list of cultural and religious ways goes on. One morality should not sit higher then another.

Henry Quirk Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:29 pm

"How about you give input on what might work also"

Since I'm opposed to what you're doing or proposing: why would I help you do it?

The best I can offer is to act as the reasoned voice of that opposition (which, of course, is my first salvo in the discussion/debate, that being: I will not cooperate…so: what will you do with the recalcitrant?)

#

"If a woman wants to be chattel to the men in her life she should be allowed to be."

Agreed, but not really my concern.

Any number of folks choose to live in absolutely ludicrous ways...as each and every one likes.

I, however won't join them, or, finance them.

#

"but if she wants to get away from that then that too should be her choice."

Again: agreed, but not really my concern.

Any number of folks want to escape circumstances of their own making (or: circumstances foisted upon them…all the same to me)...good luck to each and every one.

I, however won't help them, or, finance them.

This is not to say there aren't folks who I wouldn't help...but: that number is small and the criteria for inclusion in that number are 'my' criteria.

Again: ain't seeing how a world governing body (extending out of treaty) is in 'my' best interest.

kriswest Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:07 pm

No society or governing body or treaty is in the best interest of any individual. Its all too liquid for that. But you can influence sway and change things to suit some of your needs rather than allow others to remove you from things. Having a voice is far better than sitting in an arm chair bitching about the dictations of others even as you follow their laws.

And alright make your stand where you feel.

Henry Quirk Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:31 pm

..."you can influence sway and change things to suit some of your needs rather than allow others to remove you from things."

What makes you think I'll 'sit' quietly and "allow others to remove >me< from things"?

What makes you think I 'sit' quietly NOW?

#

"Having a voice is far better than sitting in an arm chair bitching about the dictations of others even as you follow their laws."

As always, I prefer my own choices and actions in this which, of course, have nothing to do with participating in 'mob rule' (hoping to get my 'fair share'), or, sitting back, bitching, but being a 'good boy'.

What makes you think I 'follow the law' NOW?

#

"make your stand where you feel."

HA!

Can't see where 'feelings' (mine or yours) are relevant to anything.

I do what I do because I assess the world, assess myself, assess myself IN the world, and then ACT accordingly.

I'm not a moony, angst-ridden, beret-wearer sitting around moaning and being glum while doing nada.

I'm probably one of the happiest guys you'll ever run across...and: I'm in good spirits much of the time precisely because I 'do' (or, attempt to 'do', exactly what I choose to).

Can't say I feel particularly hemmed in by any-one or -thing (though, certainly, I have to navigate a great many ones and things in the course of any given day).

Please understand: Whether the next big experiment in domestication is your world governing body, an Islamic empire, a progressive/communist/communitarian utopia, or whatever, I expect to do just fine (and -- again -- my doing fine has nothing to do with participating in 'mob rule' (hoping to get my 'fair share') or sitting back, bitching, but being a 'good boy').

In some other post you commented that it was not your intent to replicate the mistakes of the past but to learn from those mistakes and craft something 'new'. If this is indeed your intent, then take this lesson to heart: dualities are fictions...there are more choices in the world, Horatio, than proscribed participation and indolent (but kvetchy) non-participation.

kriswest Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:58 pm

I don't think anything about you Henry , I just state my position as you do yours and in time we might get to know each other. I never said you do either of those things . That is just how i see how things go.

What makes me think what makes me think,, Henry you see only one form of lawsbeing discussed here, I see many, from nature to nurture and inbetween. Not just written human laws. So yes you follow laws.

feelings have everything to do with it. Society is not logical, it is not a cold machine, families are not cold. Lives and decision are not just based on logic.

And to the last part , most Governments or governing bodies start out with a main objective. This experiment relies on not having one set of morals, one set way one standard. To that there needs to be participants from many walks of life and beliefs and cultures.

Henry Quirk Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:08 pm

"Henry you see only one form of lawsbeing discussed here, I see many, from nature to nurture and inbetween. Not just written human laws. So yes you follow laws"

In the context of this discussion/debate: we are (specifically) talking about "human law".

#

"most Governments or governing bodies start out with a main objective"

And: what's yours again?

That is: what's YOUR objective for establishing a 'world governing body'?

Mayflow Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:26 am

Henry Quirk wrote:"Henry you see only one form of lawsbeing discussed here, I see many, from nature to nurture and inbetween. Not just written human laws. So yes you follow laws"

In the context of this discussion/debate: we are (specifically) talking about "human law".

#

"most Governments or governing bodies start out with a main objective"

And: what's yours again?

That is: what's YOUR objective for establishing a 'world governing body'?

This is a very interesting question. I like the forum and the participators but I really don't get the reason to want to create some sort of governing body. It is against my instincts which want just want freedom for me and all. I don't want to govern, and I do not want to be governed.

thedoc Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:39 am

Just what are we doing here, are we deciding on rules for society, or do we want no rules at all? If its no rules then we are done, there's nothing more to say. If we are going to set rules, then lets have something worth while, the reasoned voice of that opposition is not contributing any thing of value. The 'no rules' mentality contributes nothing to an ordered society, at best its anarchy without the violence, which is just about worthless.

Henry Quirk Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:20 pm

Is this the general 'feeling' of all involved, or, just Doc?

thedoc Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:37 pm

Henry Quirk wrote:Is this the general 'feeling' of all involved, or, just Doc?

I speak for myself, I don't presume to speak for anyone else, that is their problem.

kriswest Wed May 04, 2011 2:31 pm

Nope its not shared. My objective is to keep kids from dying through wars starvation and general selfish nature of the adults around them. Now i realize kids die but the numbers can get massively lower through a cooperative form of universal governing.

Henry Quirk Wed May 04, 2011 4:20 pm

"Now i realize kids die but the numbers can get massively lower through a cooperative form of universal governing"

Nice ideal...laudable goal.

Not my cuppa tea, though.

I stand opposed.

thedoc Wed May 04, 2011 5:27 pm

kriswest wrote:Nope its not shared. My objective is to keep kids from dying through wars starvation and general selfish nature of the adults around them. Now i realize kids die but the numbers can get massively lower through a cooperative form of universal governing.

Now we are into the rather sticky issue of population, I've heard some try to say the world is not overpopulated with Humans. Looking at the effect humans are having on the planet, I must disagree. But then we get into population control, and who has the authority to decide? We could just let the kids die and keep the numbers down, deny parents the 'right' to have as many children as they want. A nice war would help keep the population, but sending men to war doesn't help much since there are still plenty of women to have babys and you don't really need that many men to keep things giong. Better strategy, send the women to war and we have fewer mothers, therefore fewer babys. An added bonus with all the women being killed in war the men left would be fighting over the few women remaining, killing each other off. Good solution all around.

kriswest Wed May 04, 2011 9:13 pm

Birth control is almost a must but its the the ones that live tha concern me not those that may or may not be born. Living in hell creates a hellish person. About time to stop teaching kids that hell is the only way.
And Henry it may not be your cup but those that live around us tend to put things in our cups that we don't want. So instead of guaranteeing you get shit in that cup you may want to rig things so that it could also be sugar. There is no such thing as true altruism. If its good for them it will eventually be good for you and yours. most likely that is.

Henry Quirk Thu May 05, 2011 4:10 pm

"Henry it may not be your cup but those that live around us tend to put things in our cups that we don't want"

Only if you hold your cup out like a beggar.

Keep your cup in your cupboard and all you’ll find in it is what 'you' put there (and roaches).

#

Kids: Here's a suggestion...let folks fuck and make babies to their rutting heart's content as long as each and every one understands what the couple squeezes out is THEIR responsibility.

In other words: if you make babies then YOU feed, clothe, and care for the little buggers 'cause no one else will do it for you (or pay to have it done for you).

Take a hard line like that and watch a whole slew of folks 'get responsible'.

thedoc Thu May 05, 2011 7:21 pm

Henry Quirk wrote:
Kids: Here's a suggestion...let folks fuck and make babies to their rutting heart's content as long as each and every one understands what the couple squeezes out is THEIR responsibility.

In other words: if you make babies then YOU feed, clothe, and care for the little buggers 'cause no one else will do it for you (or pay to have it done for you).

Take a hard line like that and watch a whole slew of folks 'get responsible'.

And I'll buy the gun and the amunition for every whiney liberal who stands up and cries "we've got to help these poor people." Of course with your's and my money.

thedoc Thu May 05, 2011 7:32 pm

Henry Quirk wrote:
Kids: Here's a suggestion...let folks fuck and make babies to their rutting heart's content as long as each and every one understands what the couple squeezes out is THEIR responsibility.

'get responsible'.

For what it's worth, In my family we have stayed within replacement numbers only. So far for every old person there is only one new child per generation. My son almost screwed that up, their 'second child' turned out to be twins. But we are coping. A lot of people (mainly Doctors) try to tell us that twins are not hereditary, But my son's mother was an Identical Twin and so are his twins Identical, it just skips a generation, but a lot of people know that.

Henry Quirk Thu May 05, 2011 7:35 pm

"we've got to help these poor people."

And: I'll align myself with every criminal who says, "not with my cash you won't!"

#

"with your's and my money"

There's only two ways you can get my cash, Doc: taxes and theft (synonymous to me).

I don't pay taxes, so, I guess you'll just have to come and take my money yourself... Neutral

thedoc Thu May 05, 2011 7:42 pm

Henry Quirk wrote:"we've got to help these poor people."

And: I'll align myself with every criminal who says, "not with my cash you won't!"

#

"with your's and my money"

There's only two ways you can get my cash, Doc: taxes and theft (synonymous to me).

I don't pay taxes, so, I guess you'll just have to come and take my money yourself...

Read my post again, we're on the same side. Shocked

Henry Quirk Thu May 05, 2011 7:44 pm

A good internal policy: if every one followed suit...wonderful!

But many (maybe 'most') won't.

For those who won't: have at it! Have 20 kidlets! No skin offa my testes!

Just pay for 'em yourself and leave me be.

thedoc Thu May 05, 2011 7:48 pm

Henry Quirk wrote:A good internal policy: if every one followed suit...wonderful!

But many (maybe 'most') won't.

For those who won't: have at it! Have 20 kidlets! No skin offa my testes!

Just pay for 'em yourself and leave me be.

The only problem with this is that all those extras use up resources and there is less to go around for everyone else. I only want my fair share but I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone elses irresponsability eat up part of my share.

Sponsored content

Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

"a governing treaty"

Re: Citizenship

???

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

"the reasoned voice of that opposition is not contributing any thing of value"

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship

"replacement numbers only"

Re: Citizenship

Re: Citizenship