• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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

ATM

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
360
Location
Indiana, USA
Hahaha. I'm not there yet.

But regardless, to some degree you have to take into consideration "what are the stakes and the cost?"

Some forms of replacing the current government would have both high stakes and potentially high costs. Others, maybe not as high. That, to me, is exactly why the details of how this society would be implemented and would work would be a very important discussion to have. But it sounds like most here are still stuck on how bad it is now, rather than discussing what would be implemented that addresses the needs of society on a macro level, while not infringing on personal rights individually.

There is a reason for this.

Until one recognizes the current state of things as an absolute violation of principle, intolerable, unacceptable and unfixable, any further conversation on the proposed details of a stateless voluntary society will only be considered as a competing option being "sold" or "pushed" in lieu of the default current status.

Similarly, until one grasps the content and reaches the conclusion of the free book I listed earlier, purchasing the second book listed would be a waste of money. The first naturally leads to a requirement of the second. A discussion of the second absent the conclusion of the first would admittedly be incapable of convincing most folks to change from the system they've become acclimated to. Life as a slave, if allowed a few limited freedoms, will always seem simpler, safer and easier than that of a truly free man if principle effects are absent the comparison.
 
Last edited:

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
There is a reason for this.

Until one recognizes the current state of things as an absolute violation of principle, intolerable, unacceptable and unfixable, any further conversation on the proposed details of a stateless voluntary society will only be considered as a competing option being "sold" or "pushed" in lieu of the default current status.

Similarly, until one grasps the content and reaches the conclusion of the free book I listed earlier, purchasing the second book listed would be a waste of money. The first naturally leads to a requirement of the second. A discussion of the second absent the conclusion of the first would admittedly be incapable of convincing most folks to change from the system they've become acclimated to. Life as a slave, if allowed a few limited freedoms, will always seem simpler, safer and easier than that of a truly free man if principle effects are absent the comparison.
I'm not ready to come to the conclusion that living in the USA is slavery.

Business owners say being an employee is slavery. You say living in the USA is slavery.

To me, context here is key. Do we have our rights infringed by our government? Absolutely. But do I consider my life slavery? Not in the context I see it. And trust me, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the subject. Ymmv.

True slavery would cause a revolutionary war TOMORROW, imo.
 

ATM

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2009
Messages
360
Location
Indiana, USA
I'm not ready to come to the conclusion that living in the USA is slavery.

Business owners say being an employee is slavery. You say living in the USA is slavery.

To me, context here is key. Do we have our rights infringed by our government? Absolutely. But do I consider my life slavery? Not in the context I see it. And trust me, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the subject. Ymmv.

Don't worry, you'll get there. The more we think about and expose ourselves to the ideas of Liberty, the more our conditioning to ignore actual definitions and principles will fade away and our perceptions and conclusions change.

True slavery would cause a revolutionary war TOMORROW, imo.

Again, how do you suppose the English colonists in America arrived at 'Liberty or death!' over some minor taxes and gun control attempts despite having been largely ignored to manage their own affairs and prosper for many years?

Perhaps the king and parliament should have reestablished their control more incrementally or never allowed that grip to loosen in the colonies so far in the first place.

I don't want a war, or even a new revolution - rekindling the spirit of our original American revolution would be sufficient. That revolution was never supposed to fade, as the war did and should, to history. It was supposed to ever define us as a people, a role the state has now completely usurped.

I hope you get something from that free book download.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
It did not take long for our fledgling federal government to use the threat of violent physical force to "keep order" as the federal government defined/defines order. What is unfortunate is that 13K of our fellow citizens, back then, actually did the bidding of the federal government without any thought of, or regard for, individual liberty.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/duel/peopleevents/pande22.html

Not much has changed these past 220 years, the federal government continues to define what the proper and acceptable exercise of individual liberty is.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
No. There is no acceptable level of being ruled by force.

And yet, when there are sincere and deep differences between individuals and groups as to what constitutes a "right", force will have to come into play.

That is why nobody can answer my two questions within the paradigm of anarchy.

The premise is false. To say that all force is bad (excepting self-defense) sounds nice. It isn't workable.

It is like saying it is wrong to cut someone, or wrong to hurt someone. Yet lifesaving surgery requires cutting. CPR may break ribs or damage internal organs....in the process of saving the life of the person being hurt.


You don't need to figure it out, there already exist many proposals on how it could work in a voluntary society and countless others yet to be dreamed up and refined which would not require a state to impose or administer.

And yet nobody here is able to summarize a single one of them beyond claiming that they exist?

Curious.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I've posed this very question in other threads. "What can we do to fix it?" Then crickets... Maybe you can answer that question because "YES" things are intolerable for me.

If you heard crickets, then you weren't looking or listening, because many answers were forthcoming. Admittedly, most of them were somewhat disguised as hard work and eternal vigilance.

For starters, vote for the better (or at least, less offensive) candidate.

Actively campaign for a good (not perfect, but good, and electable) candidate.

Participate in a good initiative drive.

Write letters, make phone calls, personally visit, and otherwise lobby elected officials to repeal bad laws, or where needed, to pass good laws.

Over the last 20 years we have made tremendous progress on RKBA across this nation such that we are now seeing States moving to true respect for our RKBA with constitutional carry.

Depending on what (potentially unpopular) minority group you belong to, you might recognize the tremendous progress made in protecting your rights as well. Whether it is racial minorities, women, the disabled, or homosexuals, life is arguably much better today than it was for grandparents.

We've made some good strides on religious freedom as well including protections for the use of Peyote as a religious sacrament, protections for churches to build in spite of zoning intended to prevent it, for congregations to meet in private homes, for missionaries to proselyte door-to-door despite local ordinances, and so on.

At the same time, religious minorities and atheists are pleased not to have their children subjected to state-sponsored prayers in schools.

We've had some good rulings on privacy regarding smart phones and the curtilage of your home. We've had some other rulings that weren't quite so good.

Taxes are always annoying, but rates are far better in most cases than when I was a child under Carter.

Point is, if someone wants to look at all that is bad relative to constitutional rights or civil liberties, he should be honest and objective enough to look at all that has gone well the last few decades.

Charles
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
How bad were things for the colonists? What was so bad for them PERSONALLY that they were willing to sacrifice their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to resist?

By any practical comparison, they were far less victimized by their rulers as English subjects than today's US citizens.

The revolution was a change of ideas, a change of principled sentiment - hearts and minds. The war was merely a result of their rulers trying to hold on by doing what the state always does, subjugate them via force.

You're missing some key points in your version of history incorrectly summarized to fit your agenda.

The problem the colonists faced was loss of their rights as Englishmen. They did not rebel and form a new government on the basis that they had a nifty new idea that would work better. They did so because the King had so grossly abridged the rights to which they were accustomed including a voice (not absolute, individual consent to every act of government, but a collective voice) in government and taxes. They did so because the King had declared the colonies outside his protection, thus abdicating his right to rule. They did so because the King was sending mercenaries to wage war against them.

They were facing down the short end of imminent imposition of an absolute Monarch ruling over them as some kind of conquered, heathen nation, in direct contradiction of the limited, constitutional Monarch created by Magna Carta in 1215, almost exactly 550 years prior.

The ideas for how to form a new government came about out of necessity once they realized they could not reconcile to their English brethren, but had become a separate and independent people. There is nothing particularly novel about the way any of the Colonies governments were organized in the wake of the DoI and the start of the war. The Colonists had long enjoyed elected legislative bodies (just as England proper did). To change a governor from Royal appointment to election was rather minor.

After the war ended, and as the weakness of the AoC became clear, the Colonies decided changes were needed. The changes became the wholesale change in structure that is the Constitution. But again, democratically elected representatives, independent courts, and an executive were not novel. The novelty was in separation of powers between 3 branches, and between the feds and States. The inclusion of the BoR was a big deal, but fundamentally, not a new idea, but taken from Magna Carta among other prior laws.

It is arrogancy of ignorance to think the Colonists, Founders, and Framers devised the concept of self-government out of whole cloth. They built upon five and a half centuries of English progress in the area of self-government, individual rights, and limited government. I believe they were truly inspired in what they brought together. But they built upon much that preceded them.

Most importantly, they did so out of necessity only when they could not reconcile with King George. They did not set out on some grand experiment from simple philosophy, but rather out of necessity to prevent imminent, impending, absolute tyranny imposed at the hand of hired mercenaries working for a bat crazy King.

Now, when the blue helmets of the UN "peacekeepers" start heading for your State, let me know.

Then you can start comparing yourself to the Colonists.

All comparisons between our current government and the Nazis, or rape, are too offensive for those who endured the actual Nazis or have been victims of rape, to even address.

Charles
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
There is a reason for this.

Until one recognizes the current state of things as an absolute violation of principle, intolerable, unacceptable and unfixable, any further conversation on the proposed details of a stateless voluntary society will only be considered as a competing option being "sold" or "pushed" in lieu of the default current status.

So until one agrees with your basic, flawed premise, you are unwilling to discuss anything that might be an alternative?

I reject your premise. I believe the Government of the United States and of the several States have flaws that can and should be fixed. I believe there are violations of rights. But I believe those violations are less, and less onerous, for more people, in a larger, more diverse society than at any point in human, secular history.

Your premise is flawed and unsupportable except as a religious article of faith for true believers. Most Christians believe in some kind of Second Coming of the Lord Jesus that will usher in some kind of paradise for the faithful. It sounds great and I hope to live to see it. And knowing that "God will rule perfectly" is as sufficient an answer for such religious beliefs as is "good people go to heaven when they die." The difference is, sane folks are not asking me to throw off either current government nor my own life to hasten the arrival of the Second Coming nor my possible entrance into Heaven.

Yet with no more evidence or explanation possible than religious men provide for the existence of Heaven, you expect us to actually support an end to government and a move toward your mythical paradise of "stateless society"? Jim Jones and the Cool Aid.

You cannot provide answers to two very basic questions about how a stateless society would resolve disputes in a modern, diverse, high density population.

You might as well be talking about the benefits of unicorns puking up rainbows and farting out pots of gold as presuming to tell me that anarchy is better than what we currently have.

No thank you.

Charles
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP I believe the Government of the United States and of the several States have flaws that can and should be fixed. I believe there are violations of rights. But I believe those violations are less, and less onerous, for more people, in a larger, more diverse society than at any point in human, secular history.

The facts say otherwise, readers.

At ratification, the fedgov was tiny, tiny, tiny. The number of fedgov laws and regulations was negligible.

Today, we have a massive fedgov that regulates individuals and businesses into repression. It distorts the economy beyond belief. It helped wrecked the economy in 2008, putting millions of our countrymen out of work, and many out of their homes.

Worse, it has stacked up a so-called "national debt" and obligations beyond belief.* And, continues to stack them up higher. Running deficit after deficit after deficit, moving that spending to debt, diminishing the value of the dollar (and our savings). The interest on which will be paid by us and future generations beyond the horizon, nevermind the principal. I don't even want to contemplate the world-wide economic melt-down when the US misses a payment on that debt, nor the taxation that will required to meet those payments, nor the economic destruction arising from devaluing the dollar, even if through sneakily printing vast amounts of money to cause inflation, rather than an overt currency devaluation.

Worse, it wages unnecessary foreign wars, directly and indirectly killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians or helping get them killed.

It got caught helping topple a democratically elected government in Ukraine, helping spark numerous deaths in the ensuing civil war.

Its servicemen commit enough crimes in Okinawa that the people of that island periodically move to end the occupation.

Mexican innocents dead from guns supplied through Fast and Furious.

Asset forfeiture.

NSA collection of electronic communications.

The steady destruction of the Fourth Amendment by the courts.

So-called "border" roadblocks up to 100 miles inland.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.




*I invite readers to do the math. Various figures are available. Depending on who is doing the analysis and what they are counting, the combined total of debt and obligations (future social security, pensions, etc.) is between $45T and $54T. A dollar bill is 6" long. Two to the foot. Work out how many miles of dollar bills that is (5280 feet to the mile). Then look up the distance from Earth to Saturn. Hint: you might need an on-line calculator to hold all the numbers. Its too big for your average desk calculator.
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The facts say otherwise, readers.

At ratification, the fedgov was tiny, tiny, tiny. The number of fedgov laws and regulations was negligible.

Today, we have a massive fedgov that regulates individuals and businesses into repression. It distorts the economy beyond belief. It helped wrecked the economy in 2008, putting millions of our countrymen out of work, and many out of their homes.

Worse, it has stacked up a so-called "national debt" and obligations beyond belief.* And, continues to stack them up higher. Running deficit after deficit after deficit, moving that spending to debt, diminishing the value of the dollar (and our savings). The interest on which will be paid by us and future generations beyond the horizon, nevermind the principal. I don't even want to contemplate the world-wide economic melt-down when the US misses a payment on that debt, nor the taxation that will required to meet those payments, nor the economic destruction arising from devaluing the dollar, even if through sneakily printing vast amounts of money to cause inflation, rather than an overt currency devaluation.

Worse, it wages unnecessary foreign wars, directly and indirectly killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians or helping get them killed.

It got caught helping topple a democratically elected government in Ukraine, helping spark numerous deaths in the ensuing civil war.

Its servicemen commit enough crimes in Okinawa that the people of that island periodically move to end the occupation.

Mexican innocents dead from guns supplied through Fast and Furious.

Asset forfeiture.

NSA collection of electronic communications.

The steady destruction of the Fourth Amendment by the courts.

So-called "border" roadblocks up to 100 miles inland.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.




*I invite readers to do the math. Various figures are available. Depending on who is doing the analysis and what they are counting, the combined total of debt and obligations (future social security, pensions, etc.) is between $45T and $54T. A dollar bill is 6" long. Two to the foot. Work out how many miles of dollar bills that is (5280 feet to the mile). Then look up the distance from Earth to Saturn. Hint: you might need an on-line calculator to hold all the numbers. Its too big for your average desk calculator.


According to Utah pointing out the bad stuff the US does is condoning the bad stuff other countries do and he's willing to lie about it time and time again.

Statistics never lie by liars use statistics. Economist Dubner and Levitz has pointed out that legalized abortion may have been the biggest contributor to crime drop. Also people were starting not to segregate themselves.

Yet he ignores the biggest contributor to domestic crime the state and its prohibitions.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Wait what is it they wanted a functioning government or their government was trampling on their rights?

Conceived in Liberty is a way more accurate history than state approved history books.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
SVG points out that that's exactly the point. :)

We don't know WHAT would happen after, but at this point, I'm willing to find out. We won't know 'till we try.

You are what the statist find scary. An open mind willing to explore the possibility that you will not worship at the alter of the state and neither should anyone else.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
If you heard crickets, then you weren't looking or listening, because many answers were forthcoming. Admittedly, most of them were somewhat disguised as hard work and eternal vigilance.

For starters, vote for the better (or at least, less offensive) candidate.

Actively campaign for a good (not perfect, but good, and electable) candidate.

Participate in a good initiative drive.

Write letters, make phone calls, personally visit, and otherwise lobby elected officials to repeal bad laws, or where needed, to pass good laws.

Over the last 20 years we have made tremendous progress on RKBA across this nation such that we are now seeing States moving to true respect for our RKBA with constitutional carry.

Depending on what (potentially unpopular) minority group you belong to, you might recognize the tremendous progress made in protecting your rights as well. Whether it is racial minorities, women, the disabled, or homosexuals, life is arguably much better today than it was for grandparents.

We've made some good strides on religious freedom as well including protections for the use of Peyote as a religious sacrament, protections for churches to build in spite of zoning intended to prevent it, for congregations to meet in private homes, for missionaries to proselyte door-to-door despite local ordinances, and so on.

At the same time, religious minorities and atheists are pleased not to have their children subjected to state-sponsored prayers in schools.

We've had some good rulings on privacy regarding smart phones and the curtilage of your home. We've had some other rulings that weren't quite so good.

Taxes are always annoying, but rates are far better in most cases than when I was a child under Carter.

Point is, if someone wants to look at all that is bad relative to constitutional rights or civil liberties, he should be honest and objective enough to look at all that has gone well the last few decades.

Charles

You're suggestions are ridiculous, especially considering that none of them solve the problem with the legal profession's tangled web. And honestly the legal proffesion has gotten worse over time with no example of showing signs it will reverse. By all means though... please blab more.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
George I meant to reply to an earlier comment.

Your mention of Christians and law.

Yes many Christians have argued for natural law. Thomas Aquina and others. The Jewish Carpenter did so too in many of his parables even though often not directly.

Thomas E. Woods Junior is a christian and has very good arguments against statism. So are Lew Rockwell, Gary North and others like William Griggs all whom I respect and admire greatly, even if I don't share the christian beliefs and remain agnostic.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
SVG points out that that's exactly the point. :)

We don't know WHAT would happen after, but at this point, I'm willing to find out. We won't know 'till we try.

Even the founding of our original country and government was an experiment. It was even referred to as an experiment by those founding it. They designed it based on principles without any assurances of success, just belief and conviction and principle. Some here are willing to do the same, and some, apparently, are not, preferring the belief that ignorance justifies violence.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Even the founding of our original country and government was an experiment. It was even referred to as an experiment by those founding it. They designed it based on principles without any assurances of success, just belief and conviction and principle. Some here are willing to do the same, and some, apparently, are not, preferring the belief that ignorance justifies violence.

Oh, my. Of course!! The American Experiment! I gotta lay off the scotch. I shoulda seen that way earlier.

Excellent point, sir.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
ok, for over 340 posts this thread has bantered back in forth and i continually hear about our founding fathers doing this or that for our new country and how great it was etc., however, lets put it into perspective...in 1770 this country's population was approximately 2.1 million, African Americans supposedly included but not sure about females in the count. as of a few minutes ago our population is registering at approximately 324.5 million, all citizens included in the count.

now initially our new country's white European citizen's mentality, was all brainwashed to the same concepts and lacking instantaneous communication capabilities, so 'for the most part' everyone was on the same music as for governance of the new republic 'governing infrastructure' so our founding fathers had an easy time 'discussion' same concepts/principles with each other and argued i would say over minutia or pet issues. in the end, there was compromise, for the most part, and lo and behold off we go in a brave new world with governance w/BoRs & Constitution.

today our country's citizens, for the most part, do not give a rip about governance, state or federal, unless it affects them personally and normally in the pocketbook or wallet. therefore, to institute any type of new governance, hypothetical, proscriptive, laissez-faire, authoritarian, egalitarian, totalitarian, or what ever you wish to call it would be completely impossible to impose on 324 million of male/female, ethnically diverse, intellectually deprived, socially lacking citizens to meet everyone's needs.

so sorry folks when you say this is what the founding fathers wanted and we should apply it here. and now i recommend you get a population of 2.1 million white European folk who are, for the most part similarly educated, and sell your philosophy of governance to them. But, selling your governance hypothesis to 324.5 million is a fruitless endeavour but let me know how it works our for you GeorgeO.

h3ll, you folks never got past the simple governance concepts of property rights, services, etc. nor answered who protects the 'free speech' of 324 million souls we call citizens.

bottom line, quit comparing apples and oranges about what the founding fathers did setting up governance of 2.1m with a stark fact today there are a gaggle more folk to apply governance principles to and sorry, my schooling tells me one philosophy, no matter how your bend or twist the concepts, won't work across this country.

ipse
 
Last edited:

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
ok, for over 340 posts this thread has bantered back in forth and i continually hear about our founding fathers doing this or that for our new country and how great it was etc., however, lets put it into perspective...in 1770 this country's population was approximately 2.1 million, african americans supposedly included but not sure about females in the count. As of a few minutes ago our population is registering at approximately 324.5 million, all citizens included in the count.

Now initially our new country's white european citizen's mentality, was all brainwashed to the same concepts and lacking instantaneous communication capabilities, so 'for the most part' everyone was on the same music as for governance of the new republic 'governing infrastructure' so our founding fathers had an easy time 'discussion' same concepts/principles with each other and argued i would say over minutia or pet issues. In the end, there was compromise, for the most part, and lo and behold off we go in a brave new world with governance w/bors & constitution.

Today our country's citizens, for the most part, do not give a rip about governance, state or federal, unless it affects them personally and normally in the pocketbook or wallet. Therefore, to institute any type of new governance, hypothetical, proscriptive, laissez-faire, authoritarian, egalitarian, totalitarian, or what ever you wish to call it would be completely impossible to impose on 324 million of male/female, ethnically diverse, intellectually deprived, socially lacking citizens to meet everyone's needs.

So sorry folks when you say this is what the founding fathers wanted and we should apply it here. And now i recommend you get a population of 2.1 million white european folk who are, for the most part similarly educated, and sell your philosophy of governance to them. But, selling your governance hypothesis to 324.5 million is a fruitless endeavour but let me know how it works our for you georgeo.

H3ll, you folks never got past the simple governance concepts of property rights, services, etc. Nor answered who protects the 'free speech' of 324 million souls we call citizens.

Bottom line, quit comparing apples and oranges about what the founding fathers did setting up governance of 2.1m with a stark fact today there are a gaggle more folk to apply governance principles to and sorry, my schooling tells me one philosophy, no matter how your bend or twist the concepts, won't work across this country.

Ipse

outstanding--- + 1
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
(snip) ...no matter how your bend or twist the concepts, won't work across this country.

ipse

You could not possibly be more correct. 300+ million agree on one system? Ludicrous! Now if only there was a way for them to subdivide in any way they wish and manage their affairs however it pleased them to do so...

I'm glad you've seen the light! :)
 
Top