It is true that people tend to try to work together for everyone’s benefit, so with a surface observation it may seem that people are basically good. But thats not the case. People are inherently self-interested. And people typically find it in their best interests to play well with others. It can be argued that anything that anyone does is out of self interest. No matter what kind of “good” selfless act you perform you always get some personal satisfaction out of it and it makes you feel better, and if you perform an “evil” act, there are probably going to be reprucussions. People generally act good, but only because its in their best interests to do so.

I cannot believe you have the balls to post your worthless crap on the internet for everyone to read.

I must say that I find it amusing nonetheless.

Your ideas are impractical; do you lack common sense?

And perhaps you should repeat the second grade. There is no such word as “Milleniums” (try “millennia” dumbass)

You say, “I have found that the quality of ones’ thoughts creates the quality of ones’ writing.”

Also, try using correct English here–”one’s”, NOT “ones’” Duh again.

How is it that you can accuse jesse’s writings of being sloppy with many mistakes?

Excessive mis-spellings, poor grammar, sloppy writing in general, are among the signs of *SLOPPY THINKING*.

You are a pathetic person and your writings are filled with so many mistakes. You are living proof that the average person is a dumbass. How does it feel to be a statistic?

But, like I said earlier, your mistakes are quite amusing. And I enjoy seeing you get torn to pieces. People like you have no place in respectable arguments such as this.

You are a disgrace to all of us who actually understand the English language, and more than that understand the solutions to our current shitty government.

Good day to you.
-Brad

BTW, America did not steal Texas. We seceded from Mexico, then later joined America.

Your comments aren’t making much sense at all.

First, I can definitely tell you have no understanding of market anarchism. That’s not your fault, but you would have a much better idea of where Jesse’s coming from if you understood it.

Second, you can’t seem to make out the difference between a social contract and an actual contract. With all that grandstanding you do, you’d think you could get that much straight, at least. So that’s a project for you.

Third, what the hell does Texas have to do with this? I’m a Texan (for another week or so), and I can tell you, if you try to sell Texas to Mexico, Texas will kick your ass. And Mexico’s ass. Don’t mess with Texas.

Honest to god man, I can’t make head nor tails of what you’re saying. The reason why I won’t take you seriously is because you haven’t the time to write seriously. I’m not a grammar Nazi, but deciphering a mishmash of sentences is not a way I want to spend my day.

Oh?

The US government system prides itself on being a blind distributor of justice (i.e. punishment) this is a well established American value. The symbol for justice in the US is a blindfolded woman with scales and a sword

A red herring, and worthless to boot. Simply because a particular symbol is used by an institution does not mean it actually reflects the original intent of that symbol. By the same logic, Nazi’s weren’t actaully BAD people because the symbol they used was in fact a Tibetan sun symbol.

In theory, the US justice system does target both the good and bad without disguising between the two; hence there is a jury of peers to render a verdict, which is meant to precisely address the indiscriminate targeting.

But this isn’t the reality of the fact that the defense is often at a disadvantage (does not possess the same cash reserves as the government, does not have access to specific institutions that could aid their case that the government does, etc.).

Moreover, there is the the absurdity that the government, when arbitrating it’s own cases, is supposed to act as an impartial third party!

Simply put, saying something works “in theory” that doesn’t work in reality is like saying a unicorn is your favorite animal, no matter how many times you’ve killed a horse nailing a horn to it’s head.

In addition the government does in fact claim to target “only bad people” but is not trusted hence the jury.

The existence of the jury and your promotion of the idea of “jury” does nothing to counter the question of whether or not the court system is even valid in the first place! A jury may be nice and all, but it is meaningless unless you can establish that the system was consented to in the first place.

In reality, the justice system functions as it should in theory and does have all the problems that you concluded. The government does in fact claim to target only bad people at the same time it does in fact target the good and the bad. The reason why this occurs is that legality and morality is not the same thing. There are plenty of cases where the bad target was in fact good and vice versa. Examples include wrongful convictions and the guilty being let free.

So you have a system built up on actually putting innocent people -who often have committed no real crime- being put through this strenuous process.

You argue that these beneficial institutions could not exist if our natures were cruel, then the opposite may also be true, if we were naturally good then these institutions would not exist. The state of nature does not necessarily have to be about good and evil as a human condition, but as acts of self interest which can be good and bad. There is also no reason why all your propositions can not exist simultaneously. If we act on our self interests in a state of nature then forming a social contract that allows for some form of utilitarian government (what that means is a different debate) which seems to be exactly what has happened.

The problem with this is that the State of Nature (whether good or bad!) would dictate that either government is impossible, or government is unneeded. In either case, you have immense flaws. Moreover, you go on to speak from “self-interest”, and at the same time continue to speak of utilitarian government and social contract, which requires that they both be consensual in order to be “self-interested”‘; otherwise it is a thinly veiled threat of force. There is nothing consensual, and thus nothing good, about any of these theories.