twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Force is necessary and righteous. Defense of self and others from evil aggression has never been disputed that I know of on this forum.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Individual rights v. governent intervention
- Thread starter Citizen
- Start date
Force is necessary and righteous. Defense of self and others from evil aggression has never been disputed that I know of on this forum.
J_dazzle23
Regular Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 643
I'm not obfuscating anything.
I'm pointing out that to resolve conflict between two parties, there will always have to be use of force against someone without their express consent.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Why do you assume their consent would not be obtained as part of the voluntary contract for becoming a member of Voluntary Government?
"DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Section 10.
A. I, the undersigned, agree and covenant that should I disagree with the findings of the Arbitration Appeals Board, my sole remedy is to not renew my contract with this voluntary government at the end of the contract term.
B. I, the undersigned, agree and covenant that should I fail to perform any requirement that survives the Arbitration Appeals process, force may be used against me to enforce the findings of the Arbitration Appeals Board.
C...
D..."
Why do you assume express consent means on every single jot as it comes up? Are you looking for holes in the arguments or solutions? Are you looking for ways a better system could be obtained, or arguing for the tired, old bad system? Are you looking for ways to apply a better principle, or perpetuate the lie inherent in the old principle?
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
You bet they would. Those having a monopoly on force have demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt their willingness to abuse that monopoly once they have it. Massive amounts of unnecessary force use would eventually disappear, as would the direct damage, and the harm/loss arising from the coercion/threat of force.
Last edited:
J_dazzle23
Regular Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 643
I've seen a lot of examples of why this old principle is bad that could be narrowed down to "every single jot"....
My point is that to trash the current system based on institutionalized use of force without remembering to bring up that the use of force against others may be just as prevalant, only perpetuated by other people will be there in the new system is a bit intellectually dishonest.
.....now if you are suggesting that everyone is going to become a voluntary member of this society- then use of force has thereto been agreed to by all parties.
But getting everybody in the country to sign up for that.......I am having a hard time with that one. We can't seem to get everyone to agree to a set system in this thread, much less in this country.
Just trying to be realistic about it. How do you get everyone to agree on your aforementioned consent document without use of force?
-again- not advocating institutionalized use of force. Just pointing out force is always going to be there. No matter where it comes from.
Also, side note- how do you keep the guy with the bigger bat from coming along and usurping power?
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I reject your statement that you are trying to be realistic about it.
Your argument about getting everybody to sign up is a strawman. I have repeatedly made it clear you would be free to remain under a compulsory government if you wished. I have also already explained that self-defense is still legitimate against those who are not members of voluntary government.
You've had the angles covered for you repeatedly in this thread from multiple directions. More than enough to have long ago picked up the ball and started to run with it if you found the new principle appealing or wanted to get away from the old principle, and were looking for ways it could be implemented. "Hey, fellas. One thing I'm a little concerned about is how to handle disputes. I can't figure out a way to avoid one party or the other using force. Anybody come across any ideas in their reading?"
Last edited:
J_dazzle23
Regular Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 643
Are you kidding me? This has been my attitude and question this whole thread.
I'm out. Pot calling the kettle black when bringing up strawmen.
I never said I advocated the current government. I repeatedly said it need improvement and much change.
I specifically asked this question, and more than one have admitted use of force is still going to be there. So don't get a burr under your saddle when I call people out for selling the idea that anarchy doesn't involve use of force.
Have a nice day.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Please don't even bother to act hurt. Your questions were almost always framed as contradictions. Just because you said such-and-such doesn't mean I or anybody else has to rely on those express statements while excluding the evidence before our eyes that your questions were almost always framed as contradictions and counter-arguments.
Your flight from the conversation only lends more support to that conclusion. The proof is in the alternative. "Gee. It occurs to me that acceptance to receive force could also be obtained on the membership contract." You were not looking for solutions. People who look for solutions find their own along the way, or at least possibilities. I cannot recall even once in this thread where you posited a possible solution, nevermind asking another whether he thought it might work.
Also, attacking me as the pot calling the kettle black on your exit is telling. If you were genuinely on board or on the fence, you would try to clear up the misunderstanding.
Last edited:
J_dazzle23
Regular Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 643
I've been trying to clear misunderstanding for forty pages. Yet in this very post, you have just said that because I said something (such and such), you don't have to listen to it, rather you can interpret and extrapolate what you think I MEAN out of it.
How about addressing what I say instead of whatever you assume I may underhandedly mean?
I'm asking the hard questions. If you think those are "posed" as contradictions I don't know what to tell you. I've been far more concise than others on this board in being very specific with my concerns.
I don't see thus whole idea of yours getting anywhere outside of ideology if you don't address the inherent complexities that come as a package deal.
THAT is why I'm out. Because like I posted earlier, this has no new discussion, simply beating a dead horse and, as you have chased everyone else out of this thread that has so much as a single rational objection, it seems to be grown adults left patting each others' behinds.
Don't try and extrapolate some hidden meaning in my posts, none of mine have been deleted or in any relevant manner edited. It's all there for you to see. I think I've been quite exacting in my questions and concerns.
Last edited:
ATM
Campaign Veteran
It's not a hard question. Without rulers, will there still be force? Of course.
The primary difference is this: nobody will be immune from the consequences of initiating it as the state is now.
The primary difference is this: nobody will be immune from the consequences of initiating it as the state is now.
J_dazzle23
Regular Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 643
Wow, what a thread! Can't resist one post.
It's a question of geography and time, not just politics and ideals.
First you have people in the same area who think differently. A crime happens and the perp and victim may fall under different laws.
(Heck, they might switch places under the different laws. Actually we may see this under the "current system" with certain privileged groups.)
You have to live with patchwork law (kind of like OC in some states) or else you have to force the majority system on everyone. Usually via war.
But let's say it could somehow happen peacefully and smoothly. I've sometimes thought our different states should truly be states and people can foot-vote.
Then they start having babies. Some kids think different. And people move for different reasons - economy, romance, immigration, infiltration, etc - and don't really subscribe.
It's a problem because you have to actually move people around so that everyone agrees with the law voluntarily, or chooses the older system or whatever.
And then you have weird little Johnny who doesn't agree with any of them. Where does he go?
He may find the Arbitration Appeals Board creepy, but doesn't subscribe to the false dichotomy that it has to be either that or the old system.
Heh heh.
People have been dreaming of utopias for a long time. It doesn't hurt to dream or even to try. But it also doesn't hurt to try and improve our current system either. For once I agree with Grapeshot.
And I for one am very proud to have seen a glimpse of the American experiment in liberty. It's not by any means just a direct extension of the previous thousands of years.
If you were there - Looking back just 10 years, especially 20 or 30, and it's amazing what a different place this was. There's as good a chance to repair it as to replace it. Feel free to believe otherwise - I can tell this is a pretty emotional thread for some, but I won't be bothered by drama.
(And no I didn't read all the middle pages! Sorry just not enough time, I read first two and last two.)
It's a question of geography and time, not just politics and ideals.
First you have people in the same area who think differently. A crime happens and the perp and victim may fall under different laws.
(Heck, they might switch places under the different laws. Actually we may see this under the "current system" with certain privileged groups.)
You have to live with patchwork law (kind of like OC in some states) or else you have to force the majority system on everyone. Usually via war.
But let's say it could somehow happen peacefully and smoothly. I've sometimes thought our different states should truly be states and people can foot-vote.
Then they start having babies. Some kids think different. And people move for different reasons - economy, romance, immigration, infiltration, etc - and don't really subscribe.
It's a problem because you have to actually move people around so that everyone agrees with the law voluntarily, or chooses the older system or whatever.
And then you have weird little Johnny who doesn't agree with any of them. Where does he go?
He may find the Arbitration Appeals Board creepy, but doesn't subscribe to the false dichotomy that it has to be either that or the old system.
Heh heh.
People have been dreaming of utopias for a long time. It doesn't hurt to dream or even to try. But it also doesn't hurt to try and improve our current system either. For once I agree with Grapeshot.
And I for one am very proud to have seen a glimpse of the American experiment in liberty. It's not by any means just a direct extension of the previous thousands of years.
If you were there - Looking back just 10 years, especially 20 or 30, and it's amazing what a different place this was. There's as good a chance to repair it as to replace it. Feel free to believe otherwise - I can tell this is a pretty emotional thread for some, but I won't be bothered by drama.
(And no I didn't read all the middle pages! Sorry just not enough time, I read first two and last two.)
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
No. There doesn't always have to be.
I have conflicts almost on a daily basis thats called doing business. We seem to come to a mutual middle ground all the time with no force being necessary. I'm betting most of the conflict you have with your other half, kids, friends neighbors and people you do business with is done with lack of force too.
Now you are going astray more from what was said.
You haven't addressed my actual points and have obfuscated what was said.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Wow, what a thread! Can't resist one post.
It's a question of geography and time, not just politics and ideals.
First you have people in the same area who think differently. A crime happens and the perp and victim may fall under different laws.
(Heck, they might switch places under the different laws. Actually we may see this under the "current system" with certain privileged groups.)
You have to live with patchwork law (kind of like OC in some states) or else you have to force the majority system on everyone. Usually via war.
But let's say it could somehow happen peacefully and smoothly. I've sometimes thought our different states should truly be states and people can foot-vote.
Then they start having babies. Some kids think different. And people move for different reasons - economy, romance, immigration, infiltration, etc - and don't really subscribe.
It's a problem because you have to actually move people around so that everyone agrees with the law voluntarily, or chooses the older system or whatever.
And then you have weird little Johnny who doesn't agree with any of them. Where does he go?
He may find the Arbitration Appeals Board creepy, but doesn't subscribe to the false dichotomy that it has to be either that or the old system.
Heh heh.
People have been dreaming of utopias for a long time. It doesn't hurt to dream or even to try. But it also doesn't hurt to try and improve our current system either. For once I agree with Grapeshot.
And I for one am very proud to have seen a glimpse of the American experiment in liberty. It's not by any means just a direct extension of the previous thousands of years.
If you were there - Looking back just 10 years, especially 20 or 30, and it's amazing what a different place this was. There's as good a chance to repair it as to replace it. Feel free to believe otherwise - I can tell this is a pretty emotional thread for some, but I won't be bothered by drama.
(And no I didn't read all the middle pages! Sorry just not enough time, I read first two and last two.)
Maybe you should have read a post or two more.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
History has shown this to be true in places like the "wild west" which has been misrepresented. The west was far more civilized without a state than the east.
"Maybe you should have read a post or two more."
Uh-oh. You haven't addressed my actual points!
Perhaps there were some real treasures in the middle, que lastima, but 4 pages or so is a reasonable initial investment for a Lounge topic.
If there's something especially profound, feel free to point me to it! Otherwise I will follow my own priorities in reading, and focus on the more recent posts.
Uh-oh. You haven't addressed my actual points!
Perhaps there were some real treasures in the middle, que lastima, but 4 pages or so is a reasonable initial investment for a Lounge topic.
If there's something especially profound, feel free to point me to it! Otherwise I will follow my own priorities in reading, and focus on the more recent posts.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
It appears that a software glitch has caused a couple of posts in this thread to not render properly. No worries, I can repost mine.
"Thank heaven the puerile and immature are not permitted to impose anarchy on the mature and civilized."
bagpiper, your signature is not only directed and therefore insulting, but is also laughably and ironically oxymoronic.
Anarchy is in essence the absence of immoral imposition - which you ought to understand by now, given the material and explanation spoon fed to you in this thread. That you'd characterize establishment of a society which in essence prohibits your imposition on others to fund your ideal legislative, judicial and executive constructs as an imposition itself is indicative of a severe moral fault.
Your desperate clings to anything but sound moral principle to try and justify yourself, such as self ascribed maturity or civility, are deeply concerning, and additionally indicative of the aforementioned moral fault.
I wish you'd relieve the forum of your insulting and logically unsound signature line, I doubt that you really receive any pleasure from it.
Not that this is being placed in the thread titled "Individual rights v. [government] intervention" since it is directly related to the subject matter of that thread. I believe that observes will benefit from having the seemingly purposeful misrepresentation of anarchical political theory notated and explained.
"Thank heaven the puerile and immature are not permitted to impose anarchy on the mature and civilized."
bagpiper, your signature is not only directed and therefore insulting, but is also laughably and ironically oxymoronic.
Anarchy is in essence the absence of immoral imposition - which you ought to understand by now, given the material and explanation spoon fed to you in this thread. That you'd characterize establishment of a society which in essence prohibits your imposition on others to fund your ideal legislative, judicial and executive constructs as an imposition itself is indicative of a severe moral fault.
Your desperate clings to anything but sound moral principle to try and justify yourself, such as self ascribed maturity or civility, are deeply concerning, and additionally indicative of the aforementioned moral fault.
I wish you'd relieve the forum of your insulting and logically unsound signature line, I doubt that you really receive any pleasure from it.
Not that this is being placed in the thread titled "Individual rights v. [government] intervention" since it is directly related to the subject matter of that thread. I believe that observes will benefit from having the seemingly purposeful misrepresentation of anarchical political theory notated and explained.
J_dazzle23
Regular Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 643
I'm sorry that I didn't specify.
I have spent the better part of twenty pages referring to conflict that does NOT have a middle ground, which happens ALL THE TIME in our nation.
I do agree with you as far as conflicts that can be mediated.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
I wouldn't agree that "middle ground" is necessarily a prerequisite to successful mediation, but, alas...
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Just Saw This
That it came from a Catholic cardinal, Francis Cardinal George, is refreshing.
The original article: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2012/1021/cardinal.aspx
Where I found out about it: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/
That it came from a Catholic cardinal, Francis Cardinal George, is refreshing.
The original article: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2012/1021/cardinal.aspx
Where I found out about it: https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/