Religion and Engineers

[wilheldp_PE]

You're right. The argument is pointless because although I agree with some of what you say, I get the impression you are one of these anarcho-capitalists, who as far as I know don't really even believe in the Constitution or Congress or courts or anything. If you believe in the free markets providing everything, including national defense, a court system, every single thing, then I don't know why you even bring up the Constitution, much of which is expressly antithetical to that point of view.
It is surprising that this system that suposedly works so well as never been tried anywhere. So I don't know how we would prove or disprove your contentions.

Let's see...

National Defense: Well, we fought the Revolutionary War before we had our own government...and even as huge underdogs, we prevailed over the most powerful military in the world at that time. If our national security was truly being threatened, there is no doubt in my mind that we could and would bond together to fight for our common good against foreign threats. Right now, I don't feel like our government is fighting to protect our national security, or even our best interests, by starting wars in places that do not have any affect us.

Court System: Most, if not all, contracts have an arbitration clause in them that states that a neutral arbitrator gets to decide on any disputes before a lawsuit is filed. I don't see how this system couldn't completely replace our court system. Not to mention the fact that there is a HUGE conflict of interest every time an individual citizen is sued by the government. The judge's paycheck is signed by one of the parties in the lawsuit.

Education: Private and parochial schools have existed forever, and will likely exist forever because the level of education in public schools is sub-standard.

Roads: The toll-road example has already been hashed out. If there is competition between competing routes, then the quality of the roads will improve and costs will be kept in check in order to gain/maintain market share.

And let me preempt the whole cost issue. Do you think that you could afford to pay for the goods and services currently provided to you by the government, on an a la carte basis, if you instantly had 30% more income (i.e. taxes were eliminated)? Would you be more willing to donate to charitable institutions to help the less fortunate pay for these services? I know I would, on both accounts.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

I hope this discussion remains civil... it's always interesting to learn how others unlike me think. It's the whole point of DIVERSITY.

Me too, but emotions tend to run high when you attack largely unquestioned ideals and faiths of people. I know that I can remain civil about it, but I have met very few on the other side that are willing to have an in-depth conversation about these things.

 

[benbo]

Let's see...
National Defense: Well, we fought the Revolutionary War before we had our own government...and even as huge underdogs, we prevailed over the most powerful military in the world at that time. If our national security was truly being threatened, there is no doubt in my mind that we could and would bond together to fight for our common good against foreign threats. Right now, I don't feel like our government is fighting to protect our national security, or even our best interests, by starting wars in places that do not have any affect us.

Court System: Most, if not all, contracts have an arbitration clause in them that states that a neutral arbitrator gets to decide on any disputes before a lawsuit is filed. I don't see how this system couldn't completely replace our court system. Not to mention the fact that there is a HUGE conflict of interest every time an individual citizen is sued by the government. The judge's paycheck is signed by one of the parties in the lawsuit.

Education: Private and parochial schools have existed forever, and will likely exist forever because the level of education in public schools is sub-standard.

Roads: The toll-road example has already been hashed out. If there is competition between competing routes, then the quality of the roads will improve and costs will be kept in check in order to gain/maintain market share.

And let me preempt the whole cost issue. Do you think that you could afford to pay for the goods and services currently provided to you by the government, on an a la carte basis, if you instantly had 30% more income (i.e. taxes were eliminated)? Would you be more willing to donate to charitable institutions to help the less fortunate pay for these services? I know I would, on both accounts.

I'll just pick one point. Ever heard of the Continental Congress? We may not have had the same exact Constiutional Republic we have now during the Revolutionary War but there was a governmental system or at least the framework of one in place, both for each colony and overall. If I remember my history this was in place during the war, and that's why we have recognizable governmental and military leaders from that time.

It is pointless to argue this. I believe in a smaller form of government, but I just don't know if the system you put forth would work, and I don't believe it has ever been tried anywhere on a large scale, without other governmental entities to "pick up the slack." For example, I don't see anybody or company volunteering to say, deliver a single post card to a shack in Montana for less than a dollar. I don't believe anybody could profit doing that. I am not unhappy with everything government does, nor am I happy with everything done in private industry. My cell phone service is a perfect example. My regulated land line is a lot more reliable.

But I'm not saying you are not correct. I can't prove it one way or the other. I still don't know who sets the laws in your society, or how they are set.

So I'm done here. Maybe somebody else will pick up the gauntlet.

 

[benbo]

I will also add that if I remember correctly, the Continental Congress had a heck of a time getting the colonies to pay their fair share for the war, and resorted to printing up money and borrowing. Sound familiar? That may be why they rich guys who also ended up funding a lot fo it put the power to raise revenue in the constitution. And they had financial incentives to pay for most of the war.

And once again, you claim you want to be civil, but then state that anybody who disagrees with you is operating off of "largely unquestioned ideals and faiths". Believe me, I'm 51 years old and have been hearing, thinking and debating about this stuff for over 30 years, since I first heard all about the Trilateral Commission at work and how a dollar isn't really a dollar.

 

[Road Guy]

I'll talk politics with anyone anyday but wont touch religion with a 10' pole!

 

[frazil]

are we still talking about religion?

 

[wilheldp_PE]

It is pointless to argue this. I believe in a smaller form of government, but I just don't know if the system you put forth would work, and I don't believe it has ever been tried anywhere on a large scale, without other governmental entities to "pick up the slack." For example, I don't see anybody or company volunteering to say, deliver a single post card to a shack in Montana for less than a dollar. I don't believe anybody could profit doing that. I am not unhappy with everything government does, nor am I happy with everything done in private industry. My cell phone service is a perfect example. My regulated land line is a lot more reliable.
But I'm not saying you are not correct. I can't prove it one way or the other. I still don't know who sets the laws in your society, or how they are set.

2 points...

1. Do you think it is coincidence that there has never been a government-free society in the recorded history of man, yet every society has eventually collapsed under its own weight (see Roman, Byzantine, Greek, etc. Empires).

2. If you are haggling the price of something, do you start by making your offer at the absolute highest price you are willing to pay? I don't...I low ball the hell out of them, hoping that we will eventually meet at my pre-determined number. I would like a VERY small government (i.e. nothing more than what is expressly mentioned in the Constitution). That would be the compromise that I would like to reach with hardcore, liberal statists. So I start at the other extreme...anarcho-capitalism. That isn't to say that I don't think anarcho-capitalism won't work. I think that if everybody bought into the concept, then we would have a much more civilized and wealthy society as a whole.

And once again, you claim you want to be civil, but then state that anybody who disagrees with you is operating off of "largely unquestioned ideals and faiths". Believe me, I'm 51 years old and have been hearing, thinking and debating about this stuff for over 30 years, since I first heard all about the Trilateral Commission at work and how a dollar isn't really a dollar.

Me saying that something isn't questioned doesn't mean that it is wrong. It just means that people don't/can't discuss them in a civil manner in order to somehow meet in the middle. It's either "you agree completely with my view" or "you are an idiot". BTW, you attacked me for being an atheist and an anarcho-capitalist, neither of which represent my views 100%. It is true I lean towards both of those philosophies, but you seem to be trying to pigeon-hole me into a stereotype that you can attack with your anecdotes, or set up straw men to destroy in my place.

I don't have your longevity in discussing these issues, but I have done a great deal of research into both my political and religious views. If you are willing to debate them, I'll be here.

 

[benbo]

Me saying that something isn't questioned doesn't mean that it is wrong. It just means that people don't/can't discuss them in a civil manner in order to somehow meet in the middle. It's either "you agree completely with my view" or "you are an idiot". BTW, you attacked me for being an atheist and an anarcho-capitalist, neither of which represent my views 100%. It is true I lean towards both of those philosophies, but you seem to be trying to pigeon-hole me into a stereotype that you can attack with your anecdotes, or set up straw men to destroy in my place.If you are willing to debate them, I'll be here.

I'll address your points -

1. Yes, I know those societies collapsed. I just don't feel you have any proof that your society would work, especially since there are really no examples ot look at.

2. I understand your positions are nuanced.

I don't think calling somebody an atheist or an anarcho-capitalist is an insult. Those are points of view, not personal characteristics. I don't believe I've called anybody an idiot, except maybe TMcKeon or GT_ME. Obviously you've thought this through, and maybe I jumped to a conclusion by thinking that you were accusing all believers or "statists" of being illogical, mindless, brainwashed automatons. If I misunderstood, then I apologize for that.

I don't see any point in debating this, since we are talking past each other. You believe my points are anecdotes or straw men and refuse to discuss them. Maybe they are, and I'm probably doing the same. Bottom line, I don't think either of us is going to change their minds, so it's not worth the electrons.

 

[maryannette]

My! My! :reading:

 

[wilheldp_PE]

I don't see any point in debating this, since we are talking past each other. You believe my points are anecdotes or straw men and refuse to discuss them. Maybe they are, and I'm probably doing the same. Bottom line, I don't think either of us is going to change their minds, so it's not worth the electrons.

Which is the usual conclusion to these types of threads...but it usually goes a lot longer and gets a lot more personal. I said I wanted to avoid it, but I guess I lied. I used to have these types of debates all the time, which is when I learned a great deal of the information that has shaped my beliefs. I could do without all the insults and personal attacks that these threads bring*, but I enjoy learning about others views.

* Not talking about you...just in general.

By the way, I didn't take offense to you calling me an atheist...it was more the "oh, you're one of those guys that thinks all us Christians are stupid" tone to your post. Then, I got the "oh shit, he's an anarchist nut job" vibe out of your other post.

 

[EM_PS]

Nietzsche says "out of chaos comes order"

"Ah, blow it out your ass Howard"

-- Blazing Saddles

 

[mudpuppy]

Very interesting thread, but I'm keeping my mouth shut. I have a feeling if I opened it I would offend 90% of the people here. Plus I don't have the energy to debate benbo.

But, I will say:

Off topic indeed - but on that note, come up to MI and see our lovely, non-toll roads, with i believe the most lenient weight restrictions concerning commericial hauling - all with the joys of rampant frost heave & aggressive snow removal tactics. Mudpuppy? Gymrat? can i get an amen?!(whoops back to religion, i keep doing that. . .)

Yep.

 

[FLBuff PE]

Very interesting thread, but I'm keeping my mouth shut.

Second the motion.

 

[EM_PS]

An opinion kept to oneself is essentially worth nothing, and contributes nothing (perhaps a wise choice?) - mentioning you have one but remain mum about it all the moreso. - I don't know why you guys are walking on eggshells all up in here. . .

not sayin', i'm just sayin'. . .

 

[FLBuff PE]

I subscribe to the idea that my religious beliefs are my business. I do not like to force my beliefs down someone else's throats.

 

[engineergurl]

Note my silence... it is definitly an interesting topic to discuss but not debate because a debate is essentially trying to prove one or the other is right. This just doesn't work with religion... you either have faith in something or you don't. I personally enjoy DISCUSSING religions other then mine because I find that the ultimate basis for it all is the underlying teaching of being a good human being and I love to learn about the practices and traditions and understandings of it all and there are some totally cool things to learn. (Hence the "ooohhh this could be fun" statement)

As far as the religious influence on politics... well there is no doubt that there is one. I will NOT debate let alone discuss who should be making what laws, what laws are fair, where our tax money should be going or any of that here. That is for another thread...

Now do I care if I offend someone by simply expressing what my faith is and how I feel... not really, but I don't feel that I should in some situations because I understand that others have different or no faith in a higher being and sometimes it's just not the time or place (ie. I could get in trouble at work maybe?!?)... but if I have an open invitation or feel the situation is right... way cool.

 

[mudpuppy]

I don't want my opinoins out there for most of the world to see. I'd be happy to debate privately in an approriate setting. I just don't feel this is the appropriate setting.

 

[Dleg]

Hmmm.... To be honest, this is the first time I've run across the term "anarcho-capitalism". That's kind of how I've always viewed most Libertarians as leaning, except for when it comes to government services that they (individually) feel are worth taxing for.

Well whatever you want to call it, I would say that the future portrayed in Mike Judge's Idiocracy is what would probably result from anarcho-capitalism.

Also, having worked on the side of government, and based on experience with even the best-intentioned coprorations doing the bare-minimum to treat their wastes, and then only because they are "forced to" by government, I am absolutely convinced that anarcho-capitalism would result in a public health and environmental disaster. And I choose the term "disaster" deliberately. I can only assume that letting human weakness dominate the way society is run would also cause similar disasters in other parts of our lives, but I can only speak from what I have observed...

 

[wilheldp_PE]

I can only assume that letting human weakness dominate the way society is run would also cause similar disasters in other parts of our lives, but I can only speak from what I have observed...

Can I ask you what a government is besides a collection of humans that have influence over the lives of other humans? Instead of every human suffering from their own weaknesses (as would be the case in an anarchy), we are suffering from our own weaknesses plus the weaknesses of those in the government.

 

[Dleg]

^Absolutely not. Government, at least as far as American government goes, is an attempt to take such weakness into account and operate a system that, if run properly, cancels those weaknesses through the checks and balances set up by the constitution. It is, on its very face, an attempt to set aside those human weaknesses and develop a set of rules that make sure that all important decisions are made with a level-headed, rational consideration of the good of the many versus the good of the few.

What is the overriding philisophy of anarcho-capitalism, in how it would be "best" for society as a whole? In what way would anarcho-capitalism prevent a public health catastrophe resulting from the reluctance to deal with wastes? The way I see it, the expense and trouble of dealing with wastes would be ignored until it became so desirable (e.g., in the event that catastrophe strikes) that the private sector sees a potential profit, and the public at large are willing to pay for it. In other words, by the time it's too late, and great Auntie Petunia and little Jo-jo have already died of cholera or the plague...