Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Fratia Coercive Government in Laymen's Terms

  1. #1
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216

    Fratia Coercive Government in Laymen's Terms

    Lets imagine you have a house. This house is to represent a Country or State. Lets call it Fratia. In Fratia you have 10 rooms and 10 occupants. You have a fridge with food in it and a bathroom with amenities. How does this house operate?

    It can operate one of two ways. The First we will call Coercive Government (CG). The Second we will call Anarchy (A). We will keep all other things as close as possible, just the system , or lack of, to keep this house in order.

    Under CG, we will set some basic rules. We will go with 10 for ease. These 10 will all be agreed upon but the said 10 occupants. You can even say each one submits a rule so it’s fair. All 10 occupants will sign a contract (lease) explaining said rules. We will assume all 10 agree and want to live there. With these 10 rules there will be punishments (coercion). For example, Rule #1: If you drink the last beer, you must notify other members that Fratia is out. This can be done in a prescribed manner that everyone agrees to (text, email, phone call, etc.). If you do not notify everyone and it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, your punishment will be that you must buy the replacement case of beer. Everyone agrees and everyone goes with it. Easy right? The other rules will discuss things like paying for amenities (lights, water, sewage, food). It will be divided perfectly even.

    Ok, so base line is set up. Well say roommate number 1 decides he doesn’t want to pay anymore. Say he decides “I pay for electricity but I don’t use as much as 2”. Well he decides he wants to split. He says, I’m no longer going to pay or follow the rules. Well he still resides in said house. So he still uses said water, lights, and food. 1 decides he doesn’t want to follow the bathroom schedule anymore or wants to use extra water. This affects the others in the house. So they “coerce” him into conforming with said rules. If 1 still refuses, they can take extremes and either throw him out of the house or lock him in his room until he stops eating all the food and drinking all the water.

    The problem is 1 is still in the house (territory). He still uses the same hallway, the same toilet, the same common areas. If he moved to maybe the basement (wilderness) and didn’t use the common areas (highways, cities, roads) then the other roommates would be less likely to pressure him to follow the rules. Also, 1 doesn’t have the resources to leave said house nor does he feel like he must. He just wants to live in the house and be left alone. He can’t be as long as he is present. He's told "He man, just leave your keys there's the door find a new place". He refuses. Instead he moans and groans that he pays too much for the light bill and water bill because the other roommates will designate one of the roommates to punch him in the face if he doesn't.

    Lets move this along a bit. Say a few generations. Well instead of 10 rules, now there is 100. 1 still lives in house and he still believes he doesn’t want to follow most of the rules. These descendants believe that the other 9 who made and make the rules are corrupt and make dumb rules that shouldn’t apply to them. Even worse, one day a guy from a different house came down the street and threw a burning paper airplane into the window. After this, the other 9 roommates made more rules and decided to put up cameras in and around the house to prevent more bad guys. Well this really makes 1 mad. 1 can still leave at any time, the other 9 are not forcing him to stay. But 1 says “I was born here it’s my house and our founding 10 roommates only had 10 rules and never wanted cameras”.

    If 1 and his descendants decided they just wanted to do their own thing and refuse the rules “coercion” of the others, then it would create great conflict. If 1 decides he wants to use the toilet whenever he wants, it can conflict with the other 9. Now imagine 4 and 5 also get this idea to just do their own thing. Well now you have 3-4 separate systems (rules) in the same house. Well said house isn’t that big, so they keep bumping and causing conflict. To prevent this, the 9 keep pressing on the 1 to keep him from doing his own thing. Now take this and expand it from 10 rooms and occupants to 100 rooms and occupants. The problems and coercion will magnify to limit them.

    Lets’s look at A house. In this house, you still have 10 people in the house. They still have shared amenities. This time, they decide, no rules. No central rules on the fridge so no coercion or force necessary. No rules to guide our social (bed time or lights out, when you can have friends over or parties) or economic (when do we put in for light bill, how much everyone puts in). This house, everyone just verbally agrees whenever they feel like doing stuff and some social norms. So maybe 1 uses the bathroom before 5. But if 6 wants to use it in between, oh well there’s no rule against that and certainly no one to tell them no. Say 8 wants to throw a kegger. Well 9 has a final the next day. Sure, 8 and 9 discuss this and they work it out. This creates many conflicts, but they are easy to resolve because they are very close in social structure as it is and there is only 10 people.

    Now take A house and make it 100 people. Also, add women and other ethnic cultures. Well not 89-98 don’t speak the same language and really like to party. Well 10-23 really like to do drugs. 34-50 don’t work and don’t contribute to the electric bill. How long will this house last? Sure it’ll last a short while, but keep adding rooms and people and it will eventually collapse.

    In CG, it doesn’t matter what “system” you use. Said system needs to have a coercion factor or it won’t work. If there is no “teeth” then the system will be nothing but a name, a figure, no more.

    In A House, the lack of system exponentially increases the chances of conflict as you add more people who differ in opinion or social beliefs. It’s easy to do with small groups who already agree on just about everything. Rules or a third person to enforce things is no needed because everyone already does their own thing in harmony.

    This is how it works in my head when guys compare Anarchy and a coercive Government. Without the ability to coerce, then the Government is nothing more then a figure head. Without the ability to coerce, then the house will collapse in A house.

    My belief is most people will agree with the CG house, The problem is how many rules do you need to run the house? Do you need to decide how many sheet of paper you can wipe with? No. But do you need to decide no keggers in the house on Tuesday nights? Sure. Do you need 1,000 rules? 48 Rules? How do you decide? Do you start making rules that affect the 8 people in the house because 2 are lazy and don't work? Or maybe stop 8 of them from having guns because 2 are scared? Flip the numbers. Do 8 who are scared get to tell the 2 they can't have the guns in the common areas, but they can keep them in the bedroom?

    Just mull this Fratia house over in your head. Have you ever lived with roommates? I've been fortunate/unfortunate to live with alot of guys in very pretty bad places. Without these rules and coercive ways to keep the guys in line, it gets ugly quick. When you have a team that perfectly harmonizes then sure you don't need any formal rules or way to enforce them. Now force this onto a Company of dudes from all over the country/world. Rules and the ability to enforce them matter alot.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Flawed analogy.

    A voluntary agreement to live with others in a house does not equate to society of private property and the free exchange of it.

    Someone has to own the house, they get to make the rules, You and your fellow voters don't "own" this country so you have no right to set the rules for others.


    There is nothing coercive about rules you and others voluntarily all agree too.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 12-26-2013 at 10:10 AM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Flawed analogy.

    A voluntary agreement to live with others in a house does not equate to society of private property and the free exchange of it.

    Someone has to own the house, they get to make the rules, You and your fellow voters don't "own" this country so you have no right to set the rules for others.


    There is nothing coercive about rules you and others voluntarily all agree too.
    That's it? It doesn't apply because it doesn't cover private property? Really?

    Even though it does. I talked about 1 telling them to stay out of his room (house or property) and to not bother him or tell him what he can have in said room. Its the common areas that are the problem.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  4. #4
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    And as the example explains it becomes coercive when it wants to do his own thing in the common areas which causes problems with the other roommates.

    Anyone who has ever lived with multiple people will relate to his experience.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Lets imagine you have a house. This house is to represent a Country or State. Lets call it Fratia. In Fratia you have 10 rooms and 10 occupants. You have a fridge with food in it and a bathroom with amenities. How does this house operate?

    It can operate one of two ways. The First we will call Coercive Government (CG). The Second we will call Anarchy (A). We will keep all other things as close as possible, just the system , or lack of, to keep this house in order.

    Under CG, we will set some basic rules. We will go with 10 for ease. These 10 will all be agreed upon but the said 10 occupants. You can even say each one submits a rule so it’s fair. All 10 occupants will sign a contract (lease) explaining said rules. We will assume all 10 agree and want to live there. With these 10 rules there will be punishments (coercion). For example, Rule #1: If you drink the last beer, you must notify other members that Fratia is out. This can be done in a prescribed manner that everyone agrees to (text, email, phone call, etc.). If you do not notify everyone and it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, your punishment will be that you must buy the replacement case of beer. Everyone agrees and everyone goes with it. Easy right? The other rules will discuss things like paying for amenities (lights, water, sewage, food). It will be divided perfectly even.

    Ok, so base line is set up. Well say roommate number 1 decides he doesn’t want to pay anymore. Say he decides “I pay for electricity but I don’t use as much as 2”. Well he decides he wants to split. He says, I’m no longer going to pay or follow the rules. Well he still resides in said house. So he still uses said water, lights, and food. 1 decides he doesn’t want to follow the bathroom schedule anymore or wants to use extra water. This affects the others in the house. So they “coerce” him into conforming with said rules. If 1 still refuses, they can take extremes and either throw him out of the house or lock him in his room until he stops eating all the food and drinking all the water.

    The problem is 1 is still in the house (territory). He still uses the same hallway, the same toilet, the same common areas. If he moved to maybe the basement (wilderness) and didn’t use the common areas (highways, cities, roads) then the other roommates would be less likely to pressure him to follow the rules. Also, 1 doesn’t have the resources to leave said house nor does he feel like he must. He just wants to live in the house and be left alone. He can’t be as long as he is present. He's told "He man, just leave your keys there's the door find a new place". He refuses. Instead he moans and groans that he pays too much for the light bill and water bill because the other roommates will designate one of the roommates to punch him in the face if he doesn't.

    Lets move this along a bit. Say a few generations. Well instead of 10 rules, now there is 100. 1 still lives in house and he still believes he doesn’t want to follow most of the rules. These descendants believe that the other 9 who made and make the rules are corrupt and make dumb rules that shouldn’t apply to them. Even worse, one day a guy from a different house came down the street and threw a burning paper airplane into the window. After this, the other 9 roommates made more rules and decided to put up cameras in and around the house to prevent more bad guys. Well this really makes 1 mad. 1 can still leave at any time, the other 9 are not forcing him to stay. But 1 says “I was born here it’s my house and our founding 10 roommates only had 10 rules and never wanted cameras”.

    If 1 and his descendants decided they just wanted to do their own thing and refuse the rules “coercion” of the others, then it would create great conflict. If 1 decides he wants to use the toilet whenever he wants, it can conflict with the other 9. Now imagine 4 and 5 also get this idea to just do their own thing. Well now you have 3-4 separate systems (rules) in the same house. Well said house isn’t that big, so they keep bumping and causing conflict. To prevent this, the 9 keep pressing on the 1 to keep him from doing his own thing. Now take this and expand it from 10 rooms and occupants to 100 rooms and occupants. The problems and coercion will magnify to limit them.

    Lets’s look at A house. In this house, you still have 10 people in the house. They still have shared amenities. This time, they decide, no rules. No central rules on the fridge so no coercion or force necessary. No rules to guide our social (bed time or lights out, when you can have friends over or parties) or economic (when do we put in for light bill, how much everyone puts in). This house, everyone just verbally agrees whenever they feel like doing stuff and some social norms. So maybe 1 uses the bathroom before 5. But if 6 wants to use it in between, oh well there’s no rule against that and certainly no one to tell them no. Say 8 wants to throw a kegger. Well 9 has a final the next day. Sure, 8 and 9 discuss this and they work it out. This creates many conflicts, but they are easy to resolve because they are very close in social structure as it is and there is only 10 people.

    Now take A house and make it 100 people. Also, add women and other ethnic cultures. Well not 89-98 don’t speak the same language and really like to party. Well 10-23 really like to do drugs. 34-50 don’t work and don’t contribute to the electric bill. How long will this house last? Sure it’ll last a short while, but keep adding rooms and people and it will eventually collapse.

    In CG, it doesn’t matter what “system” you use. Said system needs to have a coercion factor or it won’t work. If there is no “teeth” then the system will be nothing but a name, a figure, no more.

    In A House, the lack of system exponentially increases the chances of conflict as you add more people who differ in opinion or social beliefs. It’s easy to do with small groups who already agree on just about everything. Rules or a third person to enforce things is no needed because everyone already does their own thing in harmony.

    This is how it works in my head when guys compare Anarchy and a coercive Government. Without the ability to coerce, then the Government is nothing more then a figure head. Without the ability to coerce, then the house will collapse in A house.

    My belief is most people will agree with the CG house, The problem is how many rules do you need to run the house? Do you need to decide how many sheet of paper you can wipe with? No. But do you need to decide no keggers in the house on Tuesday nights? Sure. Do you need 1,000 rules? 48 Rules? How do you decide? Do you start making rules that affect the 8 people in the house because 2 are lazy and don't work? Or maybe stop 8 of them from having guns because 2 are scared? Flip the numbers. Do 8 who are scared get to tell the 2 they can't have the guns in the common areas, but they can keep them in the bedroom?

    Just mull this Fratia house over in your head. Have you ever lived with roommates? I've been fortunate/unfortunate to live with alot of guys in very pretty bad places. Without these rules and coercive ways to keep the guys in line, it gets ugly quick. When you have a team that perfectly harmonizes then sure you don't need any formal rules or way to enforce them. Now force this onto a Company of dudes from all over the country/world. Rules and the ability to enforce them matter alot.
    So, in your mind, it is preferable, acceptable, and more moral to use the threat of force to make someone comply with your rules?

    From CG House:
    or lock him in his room...(and)...because the other roommates will designate one of the roommates to punch him in the face if he doesn't.
    Physical violence and incarceration are the only ways you know to resolve a problem?

    For A House, you say, I quote:
    This time, they decide, no rules.
    This is a fundamental flaw in your understanding of anarchy, no matter how many times it has been explained to you. Anarchy is the concept that there are rules, without RULERS. There are no enforcers, because everyone chooses to AGREE, so they do not NEED force. I can live, agree and abide by the rules established because it mutually benefits us to live peacefully together. I have voluntarily consented to the terms, and it is my responsibility to live up to them. If I stop abiding by the contract I agreed to, the terms may include shunning, banishment, ostracizing, lack of help or whatever term the contract specified, but not violence, unless it is defensive in nature because I became violent first. The idea you present that there are no consequences to willful disregard to others is naive and unrealistic, and the view that only threat of violence or incarceration are the way to solve problems is just damn stupid.

    What your two houses fail to distinguish, is the difference between CG House and A House. CG House will have a RULER, someone who dictates choices to the others. A House will be an inclusive counsel that includes all residents to make choices together. When they cease to agree; they can either write a new contract, or dissolve it altogether.

    The point you also fail to realize, is that anarchy is not a principle of collectivism, but individualism. It's the simple philosophy that so long as I do nothing to intrude upon your rights, you will respond in same and we don't poke our noses in each other's business. It is the abdication of the concept that I have any right to dictate your non-intrusive behavior.

    Here's a question for you; is it acceptable for you to take something I have because it will benefit the community?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    So, in your mind, it is preferable, acceptable, and more moral to use the threat of force to make someone comply with your rules?

    From CG House:

    Physical violence and incarceration are the only ways you know to resolve a problem?

    For A House, you say, I quote:

    This is a fundamental flaw in your understanding of anarchy, no matter how many times it has been explained to you. Anarchy is the concept that there are rules, without RULERS. There are no enforcers, because everyone chooses to AGREE, so they do not NEED force. I can live, agree and abide by the rules established because it mutually benefits us to live peacefully together. I have voluntarily consented to the terms, and it is my responsibility to live up to them. If I stop abiding by the contract I agreed to, the terms may include shunning, banishment, ostracizing, lack of help or whatever term the contract specified, but not violence, unless it is defensive in nature because I became violent first. The idea you present that there are no consequences to willful disregard to others is naive and unrealistic, and the view that only threat of violence or incarceration are the way to solve problems is just damn stupid.

    What your two houses fail to distinguish, is the difference between CG House and A House. CG House will have a RULER, someone who dictates choices to the others. A House will be an inclusive counsel that includes all residents to make choices together. When they cease to agree; they can either write a new contract, or dissolve it altogether.

    The point you also fail to realize, is that anarchy is not a principle of collectivism, but individualism. It's the simple philosophy that so long as I do nothing to intrude upon your rights, you will respond in same and we don't poke our noses in each other's business. It is the abdication of the concept that I have any right to dictate your non-intrusive behavior.

    Here's a question for you; is it acceptable for you to take something I have because it will benefit the community?
    Correct it is ok in my mind to use force to enforce said rules. This is why I broke down this idea into a household. Sure 1 should be able to use the bathroom whenever and however he likes. But it really sucks for the other 9. So if the other 9 have to banish him from said bathroom then so be it. Even if they have to physically lock him out of said bathroom.

    Again rules mean nothing without teeth that's my point.

    I understand. Everyone agrees to the rules so anarchy works. Ghats why it doesn't work for more then a short time and a few people. How are you going to get 5 million people to agree on anything? You aren't.

    And you haven't explained how you enforce said rules? You mentioned banishment? Do you forcefully banish them? What if they decide to stay in said community? Who tells them to leave? Does everyone have to jump on and force them out? Physically? Or do you delegate someone? Say a young healthy male to do said enforcing?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Correct it is ok in my mind to use force to enforce said rules. This is why I broke down this idea into a household. Sure 1 should be able to use the bathroom whenever and however he likes. But it really sucks for the other 9. So if the other 9 have to banish him from said bathroom then so be it. Even if they have to physically lock him out of said bathroom.
    Wow. Might makes right, power in the hands of the powerful, and damn the dissenter.
    Two wolves and a lamb vote on what's for dinner. Poor lamb. Shoulda been born a wolf, I guess.
    9 men agree to attack 1; sucks to be that 1. Force is okay, after all. He didn't agree to join their mob or capitulate to their demands, so he's **** outta luck.

    Again rules mean nothing without teeth that's my point.
    Rules mean something if you agree to them. Or is the only reason you remain faithful to your spouse because you fear the threat of force?

    understand. Everyone agrees to the rules so anarchy works. Ghats why it doesn't work for more then a short time and a few people. How are you going to get 5 million people to agree on anything? You aren't.
    Yet again, you conflate collectivism for individualism. I don't need 5 million people to agree exactly; they just need to leave me alone. Under current state government, we can't get 5 million people to agree, and we won't, under any system. But nice strawman.

    you haven't explained how you enforce said rules? You mentioned banishment? Do you forcefully banish them? What if they decide to stay in said community? Who tells them to leave? Does everyone have to jump on and force them out? Physically? Or do you delegate someone? Say a young healthy male to do said enforcing?

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    What you cannot seem to grasp is the idea that these people all CHOSE voluntarily to live together. Why you project the idea someone would willingly cause dissent and NOT want to leave for a more suitable environment escapes me. The entire reason this theoretical individual is disruptive is because they supposedly no longer consent to the contract.

    Which is in their best interest and easier to do; seek another environment more conducive to their desires, or sit on the couch like an obstinate kid? Which scenario does the individual gain in?

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Go get em PPM!

    His constant comparison of government to society is nonsense.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    Wow. Might makes right, power in the hands of the powerful, and damn the dissenter.
    Two wolves and a lamb vote on what's for dinner. Poor lamb. Shoulda been born a wolf, I guess.
    9 men agree to attack 1; sucks to be that 1. Force is okay, after all. He didn't agree to join their mob or capitulate to their demands, so he's **** outta luck.



    Rules mean something if you agree to them. Or is the only reason you remain faithful to your spouse because you fear the threat of force?



    Yet again, you conflate collectivism for individualism. I don't need 5 million people to agree exactly; they just need to leave me alone. Under current state government, we can't get 5 million people to agree, and we won't, under any system. But nice strawman.



    What you cannot seem to grasp is the idea that these people all CHOSE voluntarily to live together. Why you project the idea someone would willingly cause dissent and NOT want to leave for a more suitable environment escapes me. The entire reason this theoretical individual is disruptive is because they supposedly no longer consent to the contract.

    Which is in their best interest and easier to do; seek another environment more conducive to their desires, or sit on the couch like an obstinate kid? Which scenario does the individual gain in
    ?
    So does this statement apply to you and SVG and the few others on here that feel this country is so corrupt? Your choosing to live here and not leave for a suitable environment after you guys no longer consent to said contract. Is it in your best interest to sit on said couch (this forum for example)? Do you gain something more then you would if you left for Canada or Switzerland? Or Somalia?

    I will not go so far as to say that you personally are attempting to be disruptive since I really don't know you. The same goes for SVG. But there are those that feel the .gov is corrupt and do cause dissention and disruption any chance they can because they no longer "consent".

    Are youn going to say you didn't voluntarily choose to live in this country? I agree, you were born here and forced to remain here by your parents. But the day you turned 18 it turned into a consenual relationship.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    So does this statement apply to you and SVG and the few others on here that feel this country is so corrupt? Your choosing to live here and not leave for a suitable environment after you guys no longer consent to said contract. Is it in your best interest to sit on said couch (this forum for example)? Do you gain something more then you would if you left for Canada or Switzerland? Or Somalia?

    I will not go so far as to say that you personally are attempting to be disruptive since I really don't know you. The same goes for SVG. But there are those that feel the .gov is corrupt and do cause dissention and disruption any chance they can because they no longer "consent".

    Are youn going to say you didn't voluntarily choose to live in this country? I agree, you were born here and forced to remain here by your parents. But the day you turned 18 it turned into a consenual relationship.
    Your analysis fails, because America is not House A. I never gave my consent to the violence of the majority, and if you knew anything about expatriation requirements and regulation, you wouldn't even go there. To make the claim that because I live here after the age of 18 implies consent is equal to claiming I consent to rape because I am female and refuse to change my gender.

    And it's probably a good thing you aren't accusing me of being disruptive; considering that I am responding civilly amd on topic, it would be a difficult case for you to make. Just because you don't like and can't refute my responses does not equate to "causing dissent."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Primus, your mentality amounts to a playground bully: "I am going to force you to do what I want, and if you don't, I can punch you in the face."

    You attack and degrade any attempt at problem solving without force, refuse to acknowledge or respect others right to disagreement or lack of consent, and I am done wasting time on you.
    Last edited by PistolPackingMomma; 12-26-2013 at 06:37 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    Primus, your mentality amounts to a playground bully: "I am going to force you to do what I want, and if you don't, I can punch you in the face."

    You attack and degrade any attempt at problem solving without force, refuse to acknowledge or respect others right to disagreement or lack of consent, and I am done wasting time on you.
    Ma'am no one is punching anyone or threatening to punch. This has been a very civil debate in this thread which I appreciate very much.

    Its just come to a point where you admit that people consent by staying.... your words word "sit on couch instead of finding a better place" or very close. When asked why that applies to the house you immediately twist it into rape.

    Rape is illegal. It has nothing to do with women. Men and children get raped.

    I hoped for a better argument or better excuse for saying it clear as day that staying is consenting... then realizing it then attacking me as a "bully mentality".

    At least its clear in this thread I haven't bullied anyone in anyway. I presented a case for coercive government and how people consent by staying. I got attacks of sorts in return.

    Its very easy to go from that kid on the the couch being disruptive and going to a better place. Its a few hr drive north or south.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    Just because you don't like and can't refute my responses does not equate to "causing dissent."
    Dissent is a good thing unless one is a tyrant. See Václav Havel 1986 Living in Truth, 'The Power of the Powerless', You do not become a "dissident" just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society.

    The anti-bashing apologists would brand all dissenters are enemies of society.

    On society, I highly recommend Ferdinand Tönnies' 1887 Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft translated recently as Community and Civil Society. Gemeinschaft is a traditional ad hoc community while Gesellschaft is a civil contract society of laws.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Sounds like a sausage fest ....

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    A "sausage fest," good. After I moved to this traditional community I read beyond my usual interests to learn what was so attractive about it. The on point aspect is our grocery store, well over 105 years in existence owned by the same family (the 85+ y.o. owner still shelves groceries two days each week after the shipment arrives). Eldest son Jerry is the effective boss and butcher. His meats and sausages are OUTSTANDING.

    A regular feature of our traditional Smörgåsbord is Steak tartare that the big city news-rags would have us believe is a death sentence to eat.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    Your analysis fails, because America is not House A. I never gave my consent to the violence of the majority, and if you knew anything about expatriation requirements and regulation, you wouldn't even go there. To make the claim that because I live here after the age of 18 implies consent is equal to claiming I consent to rape because I am female and refuse to change my gender.

    And it's probably a good thing you aren't accusing me of being disruptive; considering that I am responding civilly amd on topic, it would be a difficult case for you to make. Just because you don't like and can't refute my responses does not equate to "causing dissent."
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    Primus, your mentality amounts to a playground bully: "I am going to force you to do what I want, and if you don't, I can punch you in the face."

    You attack and degrade any attempt at problem solving without force, refuse to acknowledge or respect others right to disagreement or lack of consent, and I am done wasting time on you.
    +100

    His premis is faulty from the start his lack of rational is faulty throughout, yet he wants to insist that a voluntary agreement to rent and pay for one house is the same as living in "society".....

    Obtuse or dishonest, or so heavily set into the propaganda of his agenda he can't see "the forest for the trees" to use his own idiom.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Dissent is a good thing unless one is a tyrant. See Václav Havel 1986 Living in Truth, 'The Power of the Powerless', You do not become a "dissident" just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society.

    The anti-bashing apologists would brand all dissenters are enemies of society.

    On society, I highly recommend Ferdinand Tönnies' 1887 Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft translated recently as Community and Civil Society. Gemeinschaft is a traditional ad hoc community while Gesellschaft is a civil contract society of laws.
    Hitting the nail on the head.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    For anyone else that might be curious, it all boils down to a few simple questions.

    Do you own yourself, or does someone else?

    Should CG House be allowed to take over A House, and tell them if they don't like being controlled, they should just leave? If so, why? Is force the only element of human morality that matters? Do we not have rights? Is liberty nonessential?

    Would you rather be treated with respect, or coercion?

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    For anyone else that might be curious, it all boils down to a few simple questions.

    Do you own yourself, or does someone else?

    Should CG House be allowed to take over A House, and tell them if they don't like being controlled, they should just leave? If so, why? Is force the only element of human morality that matters? Do we not have rights? Is liberty nonessential?

    Would you rather be treated with respect, or coercion?
    +1
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    For anyone else that might be curious, it all boils down to a few simple questions.

    Do you own yourself, or does someone else?

    Should CG House be allowed to take over A House, and tell them if they don't like being controlled, they should just leave? If so, why? Is force the only element of human morality that matters? Do we not have rights? Is liberty nonessential?

    Would you rather be treated with respect, or coercion?
    Its NOT taking control of. They already have control..this "lease" was set up almost 300 years ago. We were born into this agreement. The premise still stands. Either stay and be pissed about said lease or leave and be happy.

    You asked the best question so far.

    "Why stay on the couch when you can leave and find a better house that fits you ?" Paraphrase.

    Reality is people disagree. Its physically impossible to get very large groups of people to all live harmoniously and all agree on evey rule. Someone will want something that will affect other people.

    Sure you can have all this imaginary people just getting along because they love eachother and won't bother each. Left alone as they say.

    Now try doing that with new York city. A single building with a couple thousand people on it. They just going to get along for the hell of it?

    That's not reality. If it was it would be working somewhere.

    I've asked for a cite of a place without a coercive government that has worked. Been talking about this for days and haven't anything but a wikipedia page and some off hand references to a society somewhere.

    As a population increases the need for a coercive government grows exponentially. Living in a city will teach you that.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Primus; 12-27-2013 at 02:50 PM.
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Its NOT taking control of. They already have control..this "lease" was set up almost 300 years ago. We were born into this agreement. The premise still stands. Either stay and be pissed about said lease or leave and be happy.

    You asked the best question so far.

    "Why stay on the couch when you can leave and find a better house that fits you ?" Paraphrase.

    Reality is people disagree. Its physically impossible to get very large groups of people to all live harmoniously and all agree on evey rule. Someone will want something that will affect other people.

    Sure you can have all this imaginary people just getting along because they love eachother and won't bother each. Left alone as they say.

    Now try doing that with new York city. A single building with a couple thousand people on it. They just going to get along for the hell of it?

    That's not reality. If it was it would be working somewhere.

    I've asked for a cite of a place without a coercive government that has worked. Been talking about this for days and haven't anything but a wikipedia page and some off hand references to a society somewhere.

    As a population increases the need for a coercive government grows exponentially. Living in a city will teach you that.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Again there was no "lease" you are spouting socialist social contract nonsense.

    No one is born owing liege to anyone, Samuel Adams was labeled a traitor for that statement.

    You continue to conflate society with government even though you said it doesn't.

    The Constitution is nothing more than a law spelling out the shalls and shall nots on the government. A compact of sovereign states. The promises of limited government and a free society has dissappeared.

    Your failed analogy comparing private individuals to the violent coercion of the state an utter failure.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The Constitution is nothing more than a law spelling out the shalls and shall nots on the government. A compact of sovereign states. The promises of limited government and a free society has dissappeared.
    Therein may lie the corruption of the FF's vision. Previous to them, the conception of a constitution was little more than the tyrant's demands written, established and revised at the tyrant's whim.

    The FF gave US a Constitution designed to restrict the limited power of our government - but that has been abandoned, abrogated in the interest of progressivism.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 12-28-2013 at 08:24 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Therein may lie the corruption of the FF's vision. Previous to them, the conception of a constitution was little more than the tyrant's demands written, established and revised at the tyrant's whim.

    The FF gave US a Constitution designed to restrict the limited power of our government - but that has been abandoned, abrogated in the interest of progressivism.
    Good points.

    The way I look at it is the document that rationalizes the existence of governement, yet they ignore its original selling points and I will throw that hypocrisy in their face any chance I get.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,148

    Beating the drum for Popper, boom boom boom

    He makes the point that a 'c'onstitution is no less a tyrannical enemy of the open society.

    I have guessed that it will take me two years to read 'Open Society' (~800 pp) and re-read it, following all the external references, citations and mentions. A challenge that I see already is, just what open society to keep in my mind as I read. So far, the only one that he has identified, that I recognize, are the Ancient Greek city-states from before the Spartan/Athenian hegemony. As usual, our conception of them was written by the victors of their conflicts.

    The only telling of the story of an open society not corrupted by history will be a fictional one - for now, J.R.R. Tolkien's Hobbiton.

    And to be clear and on topic, our openly carried guns are metaphorically our wizard's wands, that focus our awareness. May the Force be with you. Namaste.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 12-28-2013 at 09:01 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    ...The FF gave US a Constitution designed to restrict the limited power of our government - but that has been abandoned, abrogated in the interest of progressivism.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Therein may lie the corruption of the FF's vision. Previous to them, the conception of a constitution was little more than the tyrant's demands written, established and revised at the tyrant's whim.

    The FF gave US a Constitution designed to restrict the limited power of our government - but that has been abandoned, abrogated in the interest of progressivism.
    The previous generations were not keeping their eye on the target. The states freely gave up their power when they ratified the 17th. Amendment.

    But even with that, living in the information age we still do not pay attention to our elected officials.

    I live in a township. I only have missed two meetings in three years. Due diligence. I exercises my power as a resident; questioning the trustees intended actions in an attempt to avoid harm to my fellow residences or their property.

    Just showing up at council meetings scare the he!! out of politicians.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •