Page 1 of 55 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 1366

Thread: Individual rights v. governent intervention

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Individual rights v. governent intervention

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    It should be a crime to propose legislation like this.
    I look forward to the day when perpetrating government against another human being without his express, individual consent is a life-sentence felony.


    --Moderator note--
    This thread & title created by me from off-topic replies posted elsewhere:

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post2132480
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-16-2015 at 10:02 AM. Reason: See Mod note above
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I look forward to the day when perpetrating government against another human being without his express, individual consent is a life-sentence felony.
    Just spent a couple of hours reading anti-gun baloney, only to come here and see something that, against all odds, manages to be even more inane.

    Tell me, would arresting someone who was just seen committing a cold blooded murder, against his [the murderer's] consent, qualify as "perpetrating government against another human being without his express, individual consent"?

    Government does have a use. The fact that most of what it does is stuff it shouldn't be doing, doesn't change the fact that some functions it performs are absolutely essential. And those very functions are, by their nature, done without the consent of one of the parties involved.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInCO View Post
    Just spent a couple of hours reading anti-gun baloney, only to come here and see something that, against all odds, manages to be even more inane.

    Tell me, would arresting someone who was just seen committing a cold blooded murder, against his [the murderer's] consent, qualify as "perpetrating government against another human being without his express, individual consent"?

    Government does have a use. The fact that most of what it does is stuff it shouldn't be doing, doesn't change the fact that some functions it performs are absolutely essential. And those very functions are, by their nature, done without the consent of one of the parties involved.
    First, let me point out that I am not the one advocating the perpetuation of an institution with a 4500-year track record in the West of violating rights, and causing untold misery, death, and destruction, both bodily and economically. It is not up to me to explain or justify myself. It is up to supporters of government to thoroughly justify why billions of human beings should risk sacrificing themselves, their prosperity, and their posterity to an institution with such a monstrous track record. Given that track record (of government), right up to the present, it is not a risk--it is a guarantee. Having said that, I will, as a courtesy and for the benefit of other readers, explain myself and my position.

    ----------------------

    It is only inane if one omits the obvious, unstated aspect that nothing about consent would erase the right to self-defense. Do I really need to explain that consensual government would not prevent the consenters from defending themselves against murderers, burglars, arsonists, rapists, robbers, and fraudsters by arresting and trying them?

    The statement, "government does have a use", contains a couple giant false premises.

    1. That government, as perpetrated against the common man these last four and half millennia, has any legitimacy just because it happens to also "perform" a legitimate function. I hold that an illegitimate government cannot possibly perform a legitimate function. Just because government occupies a legitimate area in no way lends legitimacy to that government. It is a usurper, snatching away a legitimate function that could otherwise be performed legitimately by a consensual body. Also, illegitimate government is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to perform badly the legitimate functions it usurps, and at exorbitant cost. For example, the Innocence Network has obtained the freedom of over 250 innocent people from prison. A few were in there for capital crimes, meaning they were on death row or had been. The Innocence Network's primary tool is DNA testing--badgering government via the courts into testing DNA that government should have voluntarily tested.* Some years ago, the governor of a Midwestern state (Ohio?) suspended all executions when it was demonstrated that perhaps 25% of all death row inmates in that state were innocent.

    2. That government must necessarily have a monopoly over a geographic area. This false premise actually contains two lies. One: being entitled to rule over every single human being within an arbitrarily defined geographical area, including non-consenters. And, two, the necessity of a monopoly on security in that geographic area. The only reasons government claims a monopoly is for their self-interest. Can't stand competition on control or taxes. Given their arrogance (thinking they can legitimately rule myself and others without our consent), my money is on control.

    The monopoly on force, combined with jurisdiction over every human being in the geographic area, are what lets government get away with its crimes. Knock out either of those two prongs and suddenly government has to become very customer-friendly.


    *For full disclosure, there is more to the story. In some cases, DNA testing, at the time of the trial, was less advanced. Thus, government would have not been able to find innocence. But, that in no way explains why in some cases government has vigorously resisted testing or re-testing crime scene evidence years later when DNA testing technology had advanced enough to establish guilt or innocence. It also fails to answer the question, "When later DNA testing proves beyond any shadow of a doubt--not just reasonable doubt--the convictee victim could not possibly have committed the crime, what sort of flying leaps of logic did police (government) use to convince themselves they had the right guy?"
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-15-2015 at 08:38 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    I am fascinated by people that find fault wherever they look, list and/or rant about the negativity within our government, yet do not have a viable plan that they promote for a better system.

    Sure there are things that need to be corrected, but not IMO to the point of putting the whole house to the torch.

    We are getting too off topic here and need to return to the subject of the OP.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-15-2015 at 08:52 PM. Reason: Added
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    I am fascinated by people that find fault wherever they look, list and/or rant about the negativity within our government, yet do not have a viable plan that they promote for a better system.

    Sure there are things that need to be corrected, but not IMO to the point of putting the whole house to the torch.

    We are getting too off topic here and need to return to the subject of the OP.
    I know you are fair-minded, Grape. I am sure of it. I know you will allow me to respond to your criticism of my post before enforcing a return to the thread topic.

    Also, and especially since the current diversion was not particularly mine, but a criticism of an earlier post of mine by SteveinCO. I am sure your fair-mindedness would recognize an inclinination to momentarily defend a principle against irrational criticism. I know you wouldn't unfairly deny me a chance to respond rationally, calmly, and without personal attack. I know that, even if you wanted to close this thread for off-topic, you would have the breadth of view to solve it by moving this diversion to the Social Lounge, rather than just shut it down.

    So, here it goes:

    I say again, it is not up to me to explain myself, nor suggest an alternative*. I am not the one advocating the perpetuation of a 4500-year old institution with a proven track record of untold human misery, death, and economic destruction.

    This is not particularly aimed at the moderator's criticism. It is aimed at irresponsibility.

    Lets take a look.

    Under the current institution in this country, numerous people arrogantly believe that just because they vote they have the power to rule others without their express, individual consent. That is to say, since some agree to vote, whichever voters are in the majority get to dictate policy to everybody--including non-consenting equals.

    But, they don't actually get to dictate policy. Their representatives do: the representatives who lied and pandered to those majority voters. Those majority (and minority) voters who ignored extensive history about pandering, lying politicians.

    So, there are the first two points of irresponsibility. One, arrogantly believing that voting somehow--perhaps through voodoo?--gives one the right to rule other equals. And, two, the failure of voters to thoroughly investigate and confirm the lying panderers are not lying panderers.

    Then, having arrogantly voted to afflict their fellow human beings with government, too many of those voters then do not vigorously ensure their representatives only pass malum in se laws. Too many of those voters do not vigorously ensure their police, prosecutors, and regulators do not violate rights. Too many of those voters use the most fantastic justifications to explain away the depredations of the government they support. Too many of those voters do not vigorously ensure the government they voted in behaves itself. They don't plumb its deceptions, its lies, its mis-directions. Too many of those voters just shrug their shoulders.

    This is breath-taking irresponsibility towards their fellow man. Think about it for just a moment. Not even sleep on it. Consider just for a moment. People who support government in its current form are saying in so many words that it is the most important social institution possibly excepting marriage. One would think that on such an important question--the importance they give it--government supporters would spend a whole lot of time sorting through their viewpoint and the ramifications of their conclusions. On something so, so, so important...if they had more than a shred of concern for their fellow man, even a small sense of responsibility.

    I know you, Gentle Reader, have that sense of responsibility. You wouldn't be here if you didn't. You wouldn't be here if you didn't give a darn about the right to defend self and others.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-15-2015 at 09:54 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    So instead of just lambasting governments for the abuses they have committed, which I stipulate, and for overstepping its proper bounds (the protection of peoples' rights), which I also stipulate, please explain to me how a "consensual" government would investigate, arrest, and try a murder case, when the suspect can simply claim the government has no jurisdiction over him because he doesn't consent? Oh and he never agreed to be bound by laws against murder anyway?

    Is there any way to handle this without a government that does not necessarily have the consent of absolutely everyone it has jurisdiction over?

    Self-defense is very well and good, and of course is the first resort, but it cannot be the whole solution. What happens if the good guy loses the fight? Or if he's killed by stealthier means like poison, or for that matter, by a rifle from 100 yards away? He'd never know what hit him in the latter case (and likely, even in the former). I know this is a gun-related forum (and how!) and we tend to think in terms of short range gun fights against a thug or two, but we shouldn't forget there's a lot more ways to be offed than by face-to-face violence, and that the good guy doesn't always win.

  7. #7
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    This has potential to turn into a very interesting conversation, but might I suggest a thread be created in the social lounge for it to avoid this thread being closed?

    --snipped by Moderator to limit only that which is applicable to this thread--
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-16-2015 at 09:47 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

  8. #8
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveInCO View Post
    So instead of just lambasting governments for the abuses they have committed, which I stipulate, and for overstepping its proper bounds (the protection of peoples' rights), which I also stipulate, please explain to me how a "consensual" government would investigate, arrest, and try a murder case, when the suspect can simply claim the government has no jurisdiction over him because he doesn't consent? Oh and he never agreed to be bound by laws against murder anyway?

    Is there any way to handle this without a government that does not necessarily have the consent of absolutely everyone it has jurisdiction over?

    Self-defense is very well and good, and of course is the first resort, but it cannot be the whole solution. What happens if the good guy loses the fight? Or if he's killed by stealthier means like poison, or for that matter, by a rifle from 100 yards away? He'd never know what hit him in the latter case (and likely, even in the former). I know this is a gun-related forum (and how!) and we tend to think in terms of short range gun fights against a thug or two, but we shouldn't forget there's a lot more ways to be offed than by face-to-face violence, and that the good guy doesn't always win.
    You've discovered for yourself the chink in the armor of those that purport to be anarchists.

    Obviously you have not had your brain properly washed & rinsed by Hollywood and TV if you think the good guy (often played by a BG) doesn't always win.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-16-2015 at 08:22 AM.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  9. #9
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    This has potential to turn into a very interesting conversation, but might I suggest a thread be created in the social lounge for it to avoid this thread being closed?

    --snipped--
    Good suggestion. I myself got caught up in the net......for jus' a little bit.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    El Paso County, Colorado
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    You've discovered for yourself the chink in the armor of those that purport to be anarchists.

    Obviously you have not had your brain properly washed & rinsed by Hollywood and TV if you think the good guy (often played by a BG) doesn't always win.
    Discovered it quite some time ago. They can't even explain how real estate property disputes would actually be settled without a government as the ultimate backstop given a persistent refusal on both sides to back down.

    I want to see Citizen's answer to my query. I'm sure he'll have a response; I don't know if he will have an answer. If you catch my drift.

    Anyhow, should such a thread start, someone please reply with a link here--this board is huge with a ton of sub-fora on it and I wouldn't want to miss it. I see multiple sub-fora where it might fit just at a casual glance, and I normally don't go to the general areas at all.
    Last edited by SteveInCO; 03-16-2015 at 09:32 AM.

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Transfer/movement of posts noted in the OP as being moved is completed.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Campaign Veteran ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    You've discovered for yourself the chink in the armor of those that purport to be anarchists...
    The fact that people cling to the same hypothetical questions rather than refuting the actual responses and proposals which have been offered and refined by Rothbard and others for decades does not suggest that there is a chink in the armor, it merely suggests that most folks aren't prepared or willing to even examine those proposed solutions and ideals. Liberty is so frightening and distasteful to most folks, they'd rather believe it impossible than simply difficult.

    Many as well still suffer from the romantic but flawed notion that government is the indispensable provider of law and order rather than a parasitic and predatory institution of force. They imagine, despite the history and nature of government, that it can be limited and used for good.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by ATM View Post
    The fact that people cling to the same hypothetical questions rather than refuting the actual responses and proposals which have been offered and refined by Rothbard and others for decades does not suggest that there is a chink in the armor, it merely suggests that most folks aren't prepared or willing to even examine those proposed solutions and ideals. Liberty is so frightening and distasteful to most folks, they'd rather believe it impossible than simply difficult.

    Many as well still suffer from the romantic but flawed notion that government is the indispensable provider of law and order rather than a parasitic and predatory institution of force. They imagine, despite the history and nature of government, that it can be limited and used for good.
    See no suggestion of any such thing. There are many that will choose to not engage this endless (pointless?) circle of dialog.

    It has been said repeatedly that there are two ways to argue a point - with force or logic. I have not discovered a third.

    When you find a solution to any of the above, please let us know. Until then, in a perfect world.......
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 03-16-2015 at 11:24 AM.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    See no suggestion of any such thing. There are many that will choose to not engage this endless (pointless?) circle of dialog.

    It has been said repeatedly that there are two ways to argue a point - with force or logic. I have not discovered a third.

    When you find a solution to any of the above, please let us know. Until then, in a perfect world.......
    Well, it sure seems disingenuous to avoid addressing the answers which already exist while maintaining the notion that the questions remain unanswered or unanswerable.

    The chink is not shown to be in the armor of those proposing answers to these questions and alternatives to the current belief system, until such proposals are reasonably refuted.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I look forward to the day when perpetrating government against another human being without his express, individual consent is a life-sentence felony.
    But how shall any such sentence be enforced against me if I haven't given my express consent to be subject to it?

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    This has potential to turn into a very interesting conversation, but might I suggest a thread be created in the social lounge for it to avoid this thread being closed?

    --snipped by Moderator to limit only that which is applicable to this thread--
    Well, it would be an interesting conversation if the critics were to actually discuss rather than duck, distort, and evade.

    For example, SteveinCO, even after I explained that nothing about consensual government would preclude arresting and trying criminals from a self-defense point of view, went on to ignore what I had just said, creating the strawman argument that a criminal could nullify the prosecution by claiming he didn't consent. I guess it never occurred to him that the whole reason government can arrest criminals now derives from self-defense--people, aggregated into a society, protecting themselves from further criminal depredations by tracking down the criminal and tossing him in the pokey. In his view, government didn't get a delegated power arising from self-defense to detect and prosecute crime. It does it just because it can.

    Another example would be the moderator's comment above about being fascinated by people that find fault...but do not have a viable plan. I'll bet he would have said the same thing in 1689 to John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. You know those new-fangled ideas where people, gathering into a society for mutual protection of property...delegated powers...consent of the governed...all that stuff. Pretty radical stuff; no real solution on how to implement it. I'll bet certain contrarians would have said the same thing about Locke--no viable solution. Well, not until 87 years later, anyway, when Tom Jefferson put pen to paper and summarized it with the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

    So, since the critics to this point are employing a number of different dodges, demonstrating a genuine unwillingness to discuss fairly and rationally, maybe you and I will have to be the ones to discuss it. You see, in my absence, I became a lot less concerned about OCDO. It doesn't really matter much to me whether I stay or go. I'm relaxed enough to determine my price to participate in a discussion, set that price, and then adhere to it. Basically, my price is that anybody wants me to talk to them here, they must completely eschew the whole litany of goofy debate techniques designed to avoid the actual point. You know--ad hominem, strawman, etc., etc., etc. It will probably sound arrogant, but if they're not good enough to discuss something without resorting to those techniques, they don't deserve my attention.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-16-2015 at 06:53 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    But how shall any such sentence be enforced against me if I haven't given my express consent to be subject to it?

    Charles
    C'mon. Work with me here. We're talking about a different system. Whether you consented or not, upon conviction, off you go to prison. Consent does not, cannot, erase the right of others to protect themselves against your criminal depredations.

    Also, consider, under a consenting system, taxes would be gone; in their place voluntary payments. First of all, I would instantly sign up for a mutual protection agency, and pay the fees. But, having done so, I would be keeping a bit of an eye on how that money was being spent. I get wind in the press that you--as a criminal defendant--had your rights violated, suddenly I'm going to become very focused on finding out whether your rights were actually violated, and if they were, the mutual protection society, or whatever we call it, gets no more checks from me. I'll go shopping for one in my area that has a better track record.

    Think further about this one small slice of the picture. Today, government violates somebody's rights, they maybe have to pay the victim after it gets past qualified immunity. And, yet, there is little incentive for reform because even when the government lets go a real criminal because the evidence was properly suppressed, or misses the real criminal while prosecuting an innocent man, the government still gets to collect its compulsory taxes and pay itself.

    Wanta bet that a consensual government is gonna work harder to ensure your rights while you have the checkbook?
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-16-2015 at 07:08 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  18. #18
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    --snipped--

    Another example would be the moderator's comment above about being fascinated by people that find fault...but do not have a viable plan. I'll bet he would have said the same thing in 1689 to John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. You know those new-fangled ideas where people, gathering into a society for mutual protection of property...delegated powers...consent of the governed...all that stuff. Pretty radical stuff; no real solution on how to implement it. I'll bet certain contrarians would have said the same thing about Locke--no viable solution. Well, not until 87 years later, anyway, when Tom Jefferson put pen to paper and summarized it with the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

    So, since the critics to this point are employing a number of different dodges, demonstrating a genuine unwillingness to discuss fairly and rationally, maybe you and I will have to be the ones to discuss it. You see, in my absence, I became a lot less concerned about OCDO. It doesn't really matter much to me whether I stay or go. I'm relaxed enough to determine my price to participate in a discussion, set that price, and then adhere to it. Basically, my price is that anybody wants me to talk to them here, they must completely eschew the whole litany of goofy debate techniques designed to avoid the actual point. You know--ad hominem, strawman, etc., etc., etc. It will probably sound arrogant, but if they're not good enough to discuss something without resorting to those techniques, they don't deserve my attention.
    That was clearly an observation, an expression of discontent. Yes I have the same problem with Locke, he defines/identifies the problem, but didn't set forth how to arrive at the solution - perhaps if he had lived longer or been less concerned with edits.

    All of that aside John Locke did serve as a great inspiration for our founding fathers, who put some notable action to his words.

    You would seem to take these things personally, which is a shame. Facts not personalities are what makes this forum so successful.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  19. #19
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    You've discovered for yourself the chink in the armor of those that purport to be anarchists.

    Obviously you have not had your brain properly washed & rinsed by Hollywood and TV if you think the good guy (often played by a BG) doesn't always win.
    Absolutely not!

    The fundamental misunderstanding here is that the statists are attempting to burden anarchists with the assurance of utopia, and claiming intellectual victory when they refuse (since it is unnecessary and beside the point,) while we know from history and common sense that government cannot provide utopia, and is in fact purposeful establishment of less than utopia, with violations of principle of morality.

    Humans will never succeed in the creation of utopia. Anarchists (of my variety, which may be one) do not claim otherwise.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 03-16-2015 at 07:32 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  20. #20
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by ATM View Post
    The fact that people cling to the same hypothetical questions rather than refuting the actual responses and proposals which have been offered and refined by Rothbard and others for decades does not suggest that there is a chink in the armor, it merely suggests that most folks aren't prepared or willing to even examine those proposed solutions and ideals. Liberty is so frightening and distasteful to most folks, they'd rather believe it impossible than simply difficult.

    Many as well still suffer from the romantic but flawed notion that government is the indispensable provider of law and order rather than a parasitic and predatory institution of force. They imagine, despite the history and nature of government, that it can be limited and used for good.
    I hope you don't mind me plopping this squarely in my signature.

    Too many characters But +1!
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 03-16-2015 at 07:47 PM.
    Advocate freedom please

  21. #21
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Well, it would be an interesting conversation if the critics were to actually discuss rather than duck, distort, and evade.

    For example, SteveinCO, even after I explained that nothing about consensual government would preclude arresting and trying criminals from a self-defense point of view, went on to ignore what I had just said, creating the strawman argument that a criminal could nullify the prosecution by claiming he didn't consent. I guess it never occurred to him that the whole reason government can arrest criminals now derives from self-defense--people, aggregated into a society, protecting themselves from further criminal depredations by tracking down the criminal and tossing him in the pokey. In his view, government didn't get a delegated power arising from self-defense to detect and prosecute crime. It does it just because it can.

    Another example would be the moderator's comment above about being fascinated by people that find fault...but do not have a viable plan. I'll bet he would have said the same thing in 1689 to John Locke's Second Treatise on Government. You know those new-fangled ideas where people, gathering into a society for mutual protection of property...delegated powers...consent of the governed...all that stuff. Pretty radical stuff; no real solution on how to implement it. I'll bet certain contrarians would have said the same thing about Locke--no viable solution. Well, not until 87 years later, anyway, when Tom Jefferson put pen to paper and summarized it with the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

    So, since the critics to this point are employing a number of different dodges, demonstrating a genuine unwillingness to discuss fairly and rationally, maybe you and I will have to be the ones to discuss it. You see, in my absence, I became a lot less concerned about OCDO. It doesn't really matter much to me whether I stay or go. I'm relaxed enough to determine my price to participate in a discussion, set that price, and then adhere to it. Basically, my price is that anybody wants me to talk to them here, they must completely eschew the whole litany of goofy debate techniques designed to avoid the actual point. You know--ad hominem, strawman, etc., etc., etc. It will probably sound arrogant, but if they're not good enough to discuss something without resorting to those techniques, they don't deserve my attention.
    Well, I noticed you started posting again the other day, and I was pleased to see you back. I hope you find some value in continuing, but, I understand if you don't. For what it's worth, I typically enjoy reading your posts a great deal.
    Advocate freedom please

  22. #22
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    That was clearly an observation, an expression of discontent. Yes I have the same problem with Locke, he defines/identifies the problem, but didn't set forth how to arrive at the solution - perhaps if he had lived longer or been less concerned with edits.

    All of that aside John Locke did serve as a great inspiration for our founding fathers, who put some notable action to his words.

    You would seem to take these things personally, which is a shame. Facts not personalities are what makes this forum so successful.
    If we can morally suspend our principles until we find a way to implement them comfortably, they aren't principles.

    If we suspend our principles until we find a way to implement them comfortably, we're willingly and knowingly evil.

    The general concept is that you should do what is right, even if it brings negative consequences. It often does, no? Why do we teach and accept this concept in every aspect of life, except government?
    Advocate freedom please

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by ATM View Post
    Many as well still suffer from the romantic but flawed notion that government is the indispensable provider of law and order rather than a parasitic and predatory institution of force. They imagine, despite the history and nature of government, that it can be limited and used for good.
    I started on this journey...well, lets skip forward a bit. Let me say, I've made a bit of a study of English government over the last few years. I'm not gonna be confused with a genuine scholar; but, I have been over the territory quite a bit.

    One big thing I've noticed: the history of government in England includes one long running story of people getting out from under government abuse, wresting their rights from government, one little piece at a time. From the time Rome's influence in Britannia waned, to the rise of the Anglo-Saxons, through the Norman Conquest, on and on and on, you can mark the little advancements in rights. Right up to John Locke's Second Treatise on Government from which the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence comes.

    Why stop there? Why not keep up the advance?

    In a letter to a contemporary, Thomas Jefferson rhetorically asked why we should be bound to an outdated system. My words next: an outdated system lingering from a time when Saxons seized control of the country; when petty kings set themselves up on no more justification than "I've got more swords than you." Who says...who!!...that is the only way, that it can be no other way? Really? Just because that's the way a bunch of criminals did it? (See Thomas Paine's Common Sense)? Really?

    The idea of consent of the governed in Second Treatise and the Declaration of Independence was another advancement. Partial implementation of consent by electing representatives (an idea that had to be fought for tooth and nail in itself) was just a step in the implementation of consent of the governed, another step in the overall advancement, not the stopping point.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-16-2015 at 07:50 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    C'mon. Work with me here. We're talking about a different system. Whether you consented or not, upon conviction, off you go to prison. Consent does not, cannot, erase the right of others to protect themselves against your criminal depredations.
    But how do you get to decide what are criminal depredations against which you can defend yourself vs minor annoyances which must be tolerated so as to respect my rights?

    Is walking across your posted property a major offense such that you can shoot me? Or a minor tort for which I might be expected to pay some minimal fine or other small penalty?

    Are speeding, running red lights and stop signs, DUI, and shooting randomly into the air in urban areas real crimes that can be punished? Or is there no crime committed until someone's person or property is actually damaged?

    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Also, consider, under a consenting system, taxes would be gone; in their place voluntary payments. First of all, I would instantly sign up for a mutual protection agency, and pay the fees. But, having done so, I would be keeping a bit of an eye on how that money was being spent. I get wind in the press that you--as a criminal defendant--had your rights violated, suddenly I'm going to become very focused on finding out whether your rights were actually violated, and if they were, the mutual protection society, or whatever we call it, gets no more checks from me. I'll go shopping for one in my area that has a better track record.
    How do you settle disputes between these privately funded mutual aid societies? When a member of one society has a complaint against a member of another, how do you resolve those?

    To be clear, I'm not at all opposed to alternate forms of government. As a Christian, I look forward to the day when Christ returns and reigns on the earth personally.

    And as a practicing Mormon, my people's fairly recent history (1850s) is replete with a full-on theocracy with mostly free markets, as well as a theocratic communitarianism marked by private ownership of property and a strong encouragement to turn back surplus every year for the greater good. I'm not expert on the Amish, but suspect they currently live something at least passingly similar. I'm convinced that were a group of people as small as say 200 families able to actually set aside jealousies and laziness to really live such a society would rather quickly find themselves very wealthy.

    As a strong proponent of federalism, I'd love to see the States reclaim their proper power to have much diversity of culture, law, even organization. So long as some basic rights are protected, a few prohibitions to the States not violated, and the form of government at the State level credibly passes as a "Republic" per federal constitutional guarantee, this should be permissible. I strongly suspect this would not go far enough for you and the anarchists, but at the State level, communities could be empowered to order themselves within very broad limits, I should think.

    Bottom line, I'm not opposed to alternate forms of society or governance.

    But if we're going to talk about some new form of society or (lack of) government, it might be well for its proponents to lay out its fundamental workings rather than starting by attacking various flaws in the current government (or even the government as it should operate under the constitution) as they seem to be to some critics.

    Start with a few posts in the Federalists and anti-Federalists spirit of explaining how your ideal society functions, how it handles basic services and dispute resolution, how it determines what is a right and what isn't.

    If you propose what you want to propose, it can be discussed. But if current government is criticized and lack of government is promised to avoid those problems, don't be surprised if some of us--in good faith--ask about how you intend to maintain the good things government currently does.

    This is clearly an area where you're going to need to be closer to walls of text (with paragraphs) than bumper stickers to impart any real understanding or education.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  25. #25
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,613
    Originally Posted by Grapeshot

    That was clearly an observation, an expression of discontent. Yes I have the same problem with Locke, he defines/identifies the problem, but didn't set forth how to arrive at the solution - perhaps if he had lived longer or been less concerned with edits.

    All of that aside John Locke did serve as a great inspiration for our founding fathers, who put some notable action to his words.

    You would seem to take these things personally, which is a shame. Facts not personalities are what makes this forum so successful.
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    If we can morally suspend our principles until we find a way to implement them comfortably, they aren't principles.

    If we suspend our principles until we find a way to implement them comfortably, we're willingly and knowingly evil.

    The general concept is that you should do what is right, even if it brings negative consequences. It often does, no? Why do we teach and accept this concept in every aspect of life, except government?
    Who said anything about suspending our principles?

    Yes, we should try to do what is right including in our relationship with our government.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Page 1 of 55 1231151 ... 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
  •