Comment: I didn't get to finish the video yet

(See in situ)


I didn't get to finish the video yet

(about 35 minutes into it).

Sorry if this post doesn't make much sense, it's 2 am, I've had a much rougher than normal week, and I'm nearly asleep at the keyboard.

However there are some things people here can feel free to down vote and ridicule me on as I take the devil's advocate position, but I'd like to discuss these more and get answers from you all.

One thing I really didn't care for was the moderator. To say that this was a true debate is a joke, the moderator was just another arm for Larken's position which in all honesty kind of made me sympathize more for the lawyers position. The lawyer also wasn't very articulate in expressing his points and it was sort of a struggle to get through.

There is a question that I feel I wish Larken had a better answer for, that I'm quite curious about as well. That is he tends to think that if you strip away Government in totality, that authoritarians will just seise to exist. I think the Min-archist makes a good case that what's to stop organizations and those that already have established wealth from not assuming a role of power. He makes the concern about corporations, and corporations needing the state to run roughshod over others. So abolishing the state will reduce this? I don't think I agree with that premise, what's to stop them from just negating that method? Under the context of our current societal structure I think yes any thug who wants in on tyranny conducts their ways from behind the curtains of Government, but who's to say if you abolished that system that it would merely just disappear (as if Government is the only thing perpetuating tyrants to exercising their power)?

I totally agree with Larken with his argument mirroring Bastiat's that the concept/nature of Government is nothing more than a justification to carry out what we would deem immoral and unjust, and in this it's a complete perversion and contradiction towards our way of life. I guess I just question whether or not if people could actually recondition themselves to break this mode of thought that has prevailed for thousands of years now, hell as long as human civilization as a "civil" society has been known. I'm a big proponent of Lao Tzu, and he's perhaps one of the last leading examples (along with Confucious) to live in an era of true anarchy. There was no Government, well there was the start of it, but as he said. Instead of War lords running roughshod over the land, people want to replace it with Government that does the same. I guess the only positive is that at least your living in a state of honesty, People aren't living under some false pretense of things truly being different under some sort of ordering regime.

I guess it comes down to being a proponent on either side of your take on the human condition. Maybe I'm speaking a bit Hobbesian, or Machiavellian write now, but it seems that it's an inherent part of many human beings to want to do bad unless they are truly guided otherwise.

I'll add on this post tomorrow, I'm beyond exhausted right now, I'm not even sure if anything I wrote is comprehendable.