Individual rights v. governent intervention

stealthyeliminator said:

It should be a crime to propose legislation like this.

Click to expand...

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/s...-feet-if-armed&p=2132480&posted=1#post2132480

Citizen said:

I look forward to the day when perpetrating government against another human being without his express, individual consent is a life-sentence felony.

Click to expand...

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.

SteveInCO said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?"

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.

Grapeshot said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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--

SteveInCO said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

stealthyeliminator said:

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--

Click to expand...

Good suggestion. I myself got caught up in the net......for jus' a little bit.

Grapeshot said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Transfer/movement of posts noted in the OP as being moved is completed.

Grapeshot said:

You've discovered for yourself the chink in the armor of those that purport to be anarchists...

Click to expand...

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.

ATM said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.......

Grapeshot said:

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.......

Click to expand...

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.

Citizen said:

I look forward to the day when perpetrating government against another human being without his express, individual consent is a life-sentence felony.

Click to expand...

But how shall any such sentence be enforced against me if I haven't given my express consent to be subject to it?

Charles

stealthyeliminator said:

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--

Click to expand...

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.

utbagpiper said:

But how shall any such sentence be enforced against me if I haven't given my express consent to be subject to it?

Charles

Click to expand...

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?

Citizen said:

--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.

Click to expand...

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.

Grapeshot said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

ATM said:

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.

Click to expand...

I hope you don't mind me plopping this squarely in my signature.

Too many characters But +1!