>>>>
GC: Here's the bottom line: We need ways to protect the commons, which is the Earth/environment. If we're not doing that, then we're not talking about what is most important for our era.
x: As I've belabored in this thread, no human needs justify the use of violence against the masses (or anyone) to solve, which methodology always has and always will produce nothing but corruption, inefficiency and destruction, working counter-productive to any beneficial aims. <<<<
The above reply of yours seems (1) to need editing (2) to incorrectly assume that I am implicitly and/or explicitly stating that [any type of] violence is required [Note: Some types of violence may be required to stop bad behavior. As I stated previously: How do we stop violent behavior without using violence? As in, I am antiwar and believe in nonviolence, but the reality is that violence is a human behavior. How do we stop and better yet *prevent* violence? My best answer at this time is: **Well-being for all**.] (3) like you're writing on autopilot (4) like you're bringing an "I'm right and my thoughts are superior" attitude.
>>>>
GC: One could also successfully make the case that "government" should reasonably provide for the well-being of humans, in addition to the well-being of the only known planet capable of sustaining human life.
x: If one is a child who expects some (violently abusive) authority figure to "provide" what one is too apathetic or cowardly to take responsibility for. This is just the pathetic fear of taking responsibility, and it sickens me.
<<<<
The above reply of yours smacks of right-wing "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense and bullshit.
And I'll [clarify] my comment:
GC: One could also successfully make the case that "government" should reasonably provide for [and/or create and/or maintain the conditions that will bring about] the well-being of humans ...
And again you've ignored the most important issue of our era:
GC: ... in addition to the well-being of the only known planet capable of sustaining human life.
>>>> x: If you really cared about the environment and providing for human well being, you wouldn't keep blindly outsourcing that task ... <<<<
As if I, one of 7.7 billion people on Earth, am (as if I was capable of) outsourcing said task. Get real.
>(1) to need editing. [my reply]
I re-read it, it seems correct to me. What is wrong with it specifically, or what part don't you understand?
(2) to incorrectly assume that I am implicitly and/or explicitly stating that [any type of] violence is required
Government by definition is violence. [See above quote By Max Weber] So it's not an incorrect assumption on my part, but the correct observance that to suggest or advocate government is to advocate violence, by definition.
>How do we stop violent behavior without using violence?
I answered that question thoroughly. For you to flatly ask it again without even addressing any of the extensive points I have made in that regard is intellectually lazy at best.
(3), and (4) are not worth even addressing. Sure, whatever. I couldn't care less.
>The above reply of yours smacks of right-wing "pull
>yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense and bullshit.
Whatever. That's not any kind of argument or refutation of anything I have stated. Calling bullshit is fine, but is only meaningful to the extent that you can explain why, otherwise it's just a label.
>And again you've ignored the most important issue of our era
So now you explain to me why "government", which is by definition violence, necessary to maintain the environment. That is a false assumption. Then, while you're at it, also explain to me why it is that as government and governmental power has grown to monstrous proportions in "our era", that environmental abuses have escalated seemingly in direct proportion, and sustainable practices fallen by the wayside in favor of corporate plunder.
>As if I, one of 7.7 billion people on Earth, am (as if I was capable of) outsourcing said task. Get real.
That's what everyone is doing on a psychological level by voting or expecting "government" (violence) to "provide". Rather than taking responsibility for providence, you think that violence is necessary. But of course you're too cowardly to perpetrate the violence directly, so you do it by way of the ballot.
>How do we stop violent behavior without using violence?
Violence in this context refers to aggressive violence. Self defense is NOT violence, but is defensive use of force, as the defender is not VIOLATING anyone's rights.
Self defense is a RIGHT. Violence is a wrong (because it's aggressive, or initiatory).
You cannot justify an act of aggression, robbing one person, saying you need the money to defend against an attacker... which is what the argument "taxation because defense" tries to make.
So in these discussions, it is aggressive violence that is meant. Not acting in self defense, which is the appropriate response to aggressive violence.
x: If one is a child who expects some (violently abusive) authority figure to "provide" what one is too apathetic or cowardly to take responsibility for. This is just the pathetic fear of taking responsibility, and it sickens me.
<<<<
>The above reply of yours smacks of right-wing
>"pull yourself up by your bootstraps" nonsense and bullshit.
"Interestingly, even those who talk about "representative government" refuse to accept any personal responsibility for actions taken by those for whom they voted. If their candidate of choice enacts a harmful "law," or raises "taxes," or wages war, the voters never feel the same guilt or shame they would feel if they themselves had personally done such things, or had hired or instructed someone else to do such things. This fact demonstrates that even the most enthusiastic voters do not actually believe the rhetoric about "representative government," and do not view politicians as their representatives." - Larken Rose
Why don't people feel responsibility? They're cowards and they don't think, that's why.
"Loyal obedience to "authority," while painted by many as a great virtue, is really nothing more than a pathetic attempt to escape the responsibility of being human and reduce oneself to an unthinking, amoral, programmable machine." - Larken Rose
"The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority." - Stanley Milgram
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVlI-_4GZQ>>>> x: Why don't people feel responsibility? They're cowards and they don't think, that's why. <<<<
Some of your intentions (antiwar) are good, but some of your methods are not.
And you seem to suffer from absolute and/or binary thinking: All government is bad; all government is slavery; all taxation is bad/slavery, etc.
----
Let's say that all burning of all fossil fuels needs to stop so that humans may continue to live on Earth. How would the burning (gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, coal, etc) be stopped in your ideal world without government?
>And you seem to suffer from absolute and/or binary thinking:
>All government is bad; all government is slavery; all taxation is bad/slavery, etc.
So I guess if one thinks ALL rape is bad, that's also "binary thinking"? You seem to suffer from the inability to discern when blanket statements apply vs. when they do not.
Violence, (not including self-defense) is always bad. Rape, murder, theft, assault is ALWAYS immoral, and as taxation is by definition theft, it is always immoral.
>Let's say that all burning of all fossil fuels needs to stop so
>that humans may continue to live on Earth. How would the
>burning (gasoline, diesel, natural gas, propane, coal, etc)
>be stopped in your ideal world without government?
VOLUNTARILY. You have daddy issues. You think the only way for humans to solve problems is to have an all powerful violent enforcer (big daddy government) make them behave... never-mind the little inconvenience that no one has the right to assert such authority over others, and you're so desperate for this security and abdication of your own responsibility that you can't be bothered to care about how violent and immoral that daddy acts in the world at large.
The environmental threat has been turned into yet another boogie-man to justify the expansion of government power and policies of enslavement. The government only PRETENDS to protect people, in reality the corporations are its true masters... furthering their agenda and spreading their fallacious propaganda its real purpose.