Dear Aidan,

At present in Australia, if you refuse to talk or cooperate, they forcibly throw you in a mental institution and certainly they take your children away. If you refuse to tell them that you have children born to you, they would also take you to jail. If you give birth to your children in alternate hospitals which you built yourself with alternate doctors of your own community, then they put both yourself and the doctors in jail and take your children too. If you print and use your own currency for what's deemed as "professional services", then you're expected to pay tax in Australian dollars and if you don't pay because you have none, then they put you in jail as well. If you dig your own dams for water, your own roads, your own power stations, etc. then you're also in big trouble with the law. If you try to protect yourself, including by creating your own police, then you are faced with heavy charges on guns laws. You would also not be allowed to leave and enter the country without talking and cooperating with the regime, even a democratic one.

So you say that this has "nothing to do with economic policy", but socialism is not only about economics, it's about creating a society that works together, forcibly if necessary (also, using your own currency IS an economic issue).

The Australian constitution as it stands, offers no protection to individuals and minorities who want to have nothing to do with the general Australian society. Now I wouldn't even ask for such protection because I don't think that I deserve it if I don't want anything to do with you, but the minimum I should expect is to not be attacked by the government of the day: and currently I would be attacked.

Wherever there is enough food and no wars or epidemics, human population would grow. True, the rate may not be high, so it will take a bit longer, but still eventually more technology would be called for to compensate for the increase in population.

Aidan, you’re displaying total confusion.

You do understand, don’t you, that if you initiate attacking someone, tazering them, handcuffing them, shooting them, striking them with a truncheon, or locking them in a cage, that is all aggressive violence?

The law classifies it as aggressive violence, and you need a lawful excuse to do it. The lawful excuse doesn’t mean it’s not aggressive violence; it means the state excuses it.

Similarly, *the threat* of aggressive violence is itself violence if the aggressor is able to carry it out.

The law recognises the threat as being as bad as actual violence. That’s why assault (i.e. threatening to strike someone without actually hitting them) is classified on the same footing as battery (actually hitting them), and why conspiracy and inciting violence are legally as culpable as actual violence.

If a man threatens to stab a woman if she won’t agree to have sex with him, so she agrees and he has sex with her, according to your theory that’s not violence because there was “no need to use violence”. But THE THREAT IS VIOLENCE.

By the same token, if to enforce socialist policies, the police actually *or threaten* to arrest, block, manhandle, handcuff, tazer, strike or cage anyone, of course it’s aggressive violence. It’s absurd confusion or dishonesty to deny it.

“but I believe the current situation, which I have no intention of changing, is that if the suspect uses violence then the police have a right to use violence to protect themselves and others.”

You are totally confusing defensive and aggressive action. The police won’t stop at “protecting themselves” because that was never the primary purpose. They will continue escalating the initiating of violence up to and including shooting or caging people until they have forced them into submission and obedience, THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT.

If the state’s purpose was defensive, obviously the police could 'protect themselves' by not initiating the aggressive violence, and provoking the defensive violence, in the first place.

“But when the policies are law, the law should be enforced. “

So you have just *admitted* that you *support* the use of aggressive violence to force people into submission and obedience, because that’s how and why the law is enforced; and your case it will be for the sake of socialist policies.

“There's normally no need to use violence to do so”
The threat of violence is violence; and this fact underlies ALL law and policy.

People’s obedience doesn’t mean they consent, it means they know resisting the State is futile and they must risk ruining their life and being caged and raped if they don’t submit and obey. You’re proving my point, not yours. If there was no need to use violence, then obviously there’d be no need for a policy, so you’re contradicting yourself.

So thank you for conceding the general issue. You DO BELIEVE IN FORCING PEOPLE INTO SUBMISSION AND OBEDIENCE – it’s the basis of your entire political ideology.

(It's also the basis for the inputs and outputs of government.)

But if you renounce violence at some point in the enforcement process, then at that point all your policies become voluntary and you renounce socialism and lose the argument.

PS Male victims of rape outnumber female victims because of the high likelihood and rate of rape in prison. Since this is already illegal, either the government can stop it and chooses not to, or it can’t. So either way you must admit it’s an intrinsic part of the threat and punishment regime you support and advocate to enforce obedience and submission to your socialist policies. Your self-image as a non-violent person is completely false.

Thus we have established – with your admissions and self-contradictions – that it is not false to assume that you support aggressive violence to support people into submission and obedience to your socialist policies.

‘You don’t see me banging on about property being based on violence even though exactly the same argument applies”

You’re confusing aggressive and defensive violence. If you sit in your house enjoying your property, you’re not intrinsically being violent to anyone. If you or the cops throw out an intruder who tries to steal your computer, it’s not aggressive violence, it’s defensive violence because the intruder is initiating the violence by invading your property without your consent. Socialism advocates aggressive violence i.e. the forcible overriding of *consensual* transactions such as all the ones you mentioned.

““But the axiom would still be true if you bought it at Australia Post, or if the government owned the hammer manufacturer.”

You’ve just lost the entire argument.

1.
According to your theory, there is no way that government can be demonstrated to be more efficient than the private sector because “the axiom would be true” either way.
a) assuming what is in issue = fallacy
b) self-contradiction – you disclaimed circular argument.

2.
If your theory was true, full communism would have just as economically efficient as capitalism. It wouldn’t have made any economic difference whether government provides something, or the private sector does, because the axiom would be true either way.
Complete economic illiteracy.

So even if your idiot theory was granted, all you would have proved is that there’s no justification for government providing anything, because it doesn’t make any difference: “the axiom would still be true”.

The deep structure of your argument is only this laughable circularity:
“We need government to provide certain services for efficiency’s sake”
“How do you know it’s more efficient?”
“Because it is.”
“How do you know?”
“Because if it’s infrastructure, it means government is more efficient at providing it.”
“But how do you know it’s more efficient at providing it?”
Because the private sector can’t do it as well.”
“Why not?”
“Because government is more efficient at doing it.”
“How do you know?”
“Because it is.”

That’s all you’ve got with all your points - round and round and round.

Aidan,

Referring to JKJ's:

"So you have just *admitted* that you *support* the use of aggressive violence to force people into submission and obedience, because that’s how and why the law is enforced; and your case it will be for the sake of socialist policies."

This is always the first fire cracker JKJ reaches for in his mini arsenal to toss at an opponent. We've literally lost count of the number of times JKJ has parachuted into a debate on this forum and accused fellow posters of supporting govt violence....it's what he does.

I haven't been following this thread closely, but it's odds on that he's also accused you of "fallacious argument", ad hominem, "appealing to absent authority" - challenged you to prove him wrong, usually itemising points or you to answer, told you you've lost the argumnt and he's the WINNER!

It's part of his generic delivery - and is deployed in every debate he gets into.

Good luck with that : )

Yuyutsu,

I did mention that there were exceptions such as for the purpose of child protection, so you really don't need to elaborate on that.

"If you print and use your own currency for what's deemed as "professional services", then you're expected to pay tax in Australian dollars and if you don't pay because you have none, then they put you in jail as well."
Aren't they more likely to confiscate and auction your assets to raise the money?

And if "wherever there is enough food and no wars or epidemics, human population would grow", how do you explain Japan?

Enough food and no wars or epidemics are actually slowing factors for population growth, as they address the most important reason why people want large families.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Jardine, you seem to be the only confused one.

The bit about the threat of violence is correct and I was aware of it (but with a 350 word limit, I can't include every detail). I admit I wasn't aware police arresting someone legally constitutes violence.

Anyway, you seem to be of the view that everyone who's not an anarchist is trying to force people into submission and obedience.

Is that your view?
And if it isn't, do you regard all the supporters of the status quo as trying to force people into submission and violence?

Your attitude reminds me of a certain light bulb joke:
http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/listbulb.html