Individual rights v. governent intervention

ATM said:

Liberty and order are fairly high on my suggested list, convenience and servitude somewhat lower.

Click to expand...

Maybe you have found the basis of my questioning.

How to ensure continued liberty, and how to sustain order.

generally, I see this system marshaul is starting to give details of as a possibly plausible scenario, but one that needs high amounts of approval in society.

Right now we have a nation divided squabbling about their preferred way to have their rights infringed upon...(for example, our gay marriage topic)

I feel bad saying I don't have as much faith in society as a whole as you guys do. But I commend the idea.

J_dazzle23 said:

Maybe you have found the basis of my questioning.

How to ensure continued liberty, and how to sustain order.

generally, I see this system marshaul is starting to give details of as a possibly plausible scenario, but one that needs high amounts of approval in society.

Right now we have a nation divided squabbling about their preferred way to have their rights infringed upon...(for example, our gay marriage topic)

I feel bad saying I don't have as much faith in society as a whole as you guys do. But I commend the idea.

Click to expand...

I can agree that a lot of, let's call it "intellectual development", is needed. But I don't think this is an inherent problem. Looking at every form of government which has inspired (or had historical influence on) our present one, and indeed looking at our own, we see nothing if not a history of intentional suppression of the intellectual capacity of the "serfs" (or whatever the contemporary label might be). And, for all I routinely lambast the state of American political discourse (and it is, indeed, execrable), and for all the villains out there, there's no doubt that today's common man is infinitely superior in his understanding of the world, empathy for others, and political/moral development than was the common man of any place or time in history (pogroms anybody?).

I do think we're getting there intellectually, I do think voluntary society is the logical and (eventually) unavoidable conclusion from liberalism, and moreover I know to a certainty that liberalism will inevitably continue to outcompete illiberalism around the world.

I'd also like to point out that one of my big gripes with overlarge central government (I'm OK with a "Federal" imposition of a minimum standard of respect for rights, although I see no value in "Federal" imposition of any sort on the individual) is the scale on which reform must be agreed upon. But, if local government is free to dissociate, then we don't all need to agree. All that needs to happen is for a few localities to implement functional voluntarism and outcompete the rest in a free market.

Bit of an aside: as for "sustaining order", you implicitly assign credit to this for government. There are many examples of spontaneous order, and I would submit society as yet another. Indeed, order is far more common to societies around the world than is any particular mode of governance.

J_dazzle23 said:

Maybe you have found the basis of my questioning.

How to ensure continued liberty, and how to sustain order.

generally, I see this system marshaul is starting to give details of as a possibly plausible scenario, but one that needs high amounts of approval in society.

Right now we have a nation divided squabbling about their preferred way to have their rights infringed upon...(for example, our gay marriage topic)

I feel bad saying I don't have as much faith in society as a whole as you guys do. But I commend the idea.

Click to expand...

We likely do not agree on a functioning description of what liberty or order even mean since you claim that the one need be 'continued' and the other 'sustained' rather than, as I see it, 'restored' in both cases according to our foundational principles.

The current system (the state) achieves neither for society, nor will it ever have any higher plan than to serve itself by continuing to monopolize both via force at our expense and that of our posterity.

The next time our society manages to defend and free itself, I hope it won't so quickly reestablish new rulers with the immunity to violate our principles.

J_dazzle23 said:

What makes you say this?

Click to expand...

It is quite easy to understand. The CDC merely claims that they protect you and I, yet the CDC takes no direct effort to protect you or I. They, in virtually every instance, come after we are harmed to clean up the mess and to mitigate any other citizen from being harmed, if they can. Are not cops doing virtually the very same thing? Does the CDC have a legal requirement to protect you or I individually? Nope. Can they be held to account for not "protecting" either of us? Nope. Can their unspecified/generalized "protecting" society do either of us direct harm in some instances? Yep. Can they be held to account for harming either of us vs. protecting us? Maybe, but highly unlikely.

Look, I get it, you like the CDC. Me, the CDC is no better or worse a government agency than the BATF&E, DEA, FBI, IRS, Dept. of Ed., FDA, FAA, ect ect.

As to a private sector analog, if a CDC replacement wants to make money it better perform/deliver or it will simply cease to exist. Comporting themselves in a ethical and "moral" manner is where the feds would be interested, the feds would be their largest customer after all.

A better "example" of why government is not even close to the best mechanism to regulate voluntary individual interactions between citizens would be the used car industry and the auto repair industry. Both of these are heavily regulated in many, if not in every area of their operations, yet lemons are sold and crooked mechanics continue to find profits. But, when the word gets out their customer base evaporates and the state is usually called into seek a redress for the wronged consumer. This "seeking" is a proper and necessary function of government.

I would like to see all federal government agencies constituted and run as is the NTSB. http://www.allgov.com/departments/i...ransportation-safety-board-ntsb?agencyid=7450

The states must be the authority that seeks a non-violent redress. The feds must only provide "expertise" to aid the states. But, many folks just can't let go of the idea that the feds must be the ones to do all of these things.

YMMV

OC for ME said:

It is quite easy to understand. The CDC merely claims that they protect you and I, yet the CDC takes no direct effort to protect you or I. They, in virtually every instance, come after we are harmed to clean up the mess and to mitigate any other citizen from being harmed, if they can. Are not cops doing virtually the very same thing? Does the CDC have a legal requirement to protect you or I individually? Nope. Can they be held to account for not "protecting" either of us? Nope. Can their unspecified/generalized "protecting" society do either of us direct harm in some instances? Yep. Can they be held to account for harming either of us vs. protecting us? Maybe, but highly unlikely.

Look, I get it, you like the CDC. Me, the CDC is no better or worse a government agency than the BATF&E, DEA, FBI, IRS, Dept. of Ed., FDA, FAA, ect ect.

As to a private sector analog, if a CDC replacement wants to make money it better perform/deliver or it will simply cease to exist. Comporting themselves in a ethical and "moral" manner is where the feds would be interested, the feds would be their largest customer after all.

A better "example" of why government is not even close to the best mechanism to regulate voluntary individual interactions between citizens would be the used car industry and the auto repair industry. Both of these are heavily regulated in many, if not in every area of their operations, yet lemons are sold and crooked mechanics continue to find profits. But, when the word gets out their customer base evaporates and the state is usually called into seek a redress for the wronged consumer. This "seeking" is a proper and necessary function of government.

I would like to see all federal government agencies constituted and run as is the NTSB. http://www.allgov.com/departments/i...ransportation-safety-board-ntsb?agencyid=7450

The states must be the authority that seeks a non-violent redress. The feds must only provide "expertise" to aid the states. But, many folks just can't let go of the idea that the feds must be the ones to do all of these things.

YMMV

Click to expand...

I feel you have a very uninformed view of what the CDC does. Maybe because of mass media, I don't know.

Coming from someone that works and lives every day in the medical industry, let me be the first to tell you that you are quite wrong on that count. But to each their own.

we aren't going to agree on everything, and we can both support our points well, trust me
But that's ok.

J_dazzle23 said:

Coming from someone that works and lives every day in the medical industry, let me be the first to tell you that you are quite wrong on that count. But to each their own.

we aren't going to agree on everything, and we can both support our points well, trust me
But that's ok.

Click to expand...

You should offer counter arguments to each point, and present points of your own supporting your position.

Just waving your hand and claiming you can both be right is weak. The argument between you isn't a subjective thing like which flavor of ice cream is better.

DanM said:

You should offer counter arguments to each point, and present points of your own supporting your position.

Just waving your hand and claiming you can both be right is weak. The argument between you isn't a subjective thing like which flavor of ice cream is better.

Click to expand...

I didn't see any evidence supporting the assertion that the cdc doesn't protect public health and only shows up "after the fact" so......


But on that note, just a few things. rubella, mumps, malaria, are all eradicated thanks in majority to the cdc. They discovered Methicillin-resistant and in general all antibiotic resistant bacteria and launched research developing drugs to keep things like MRSA from killing us. This is before the amount of push on the dangers of smoking to lung cancer and heart disease. They also were the first to find the occurrence of reyes' syndrome in children taking asprin, (which at the time was the most overdosed childhood drug in the world) and have pioneered research extending the lifespan of those diagnosed with AIDS and have helped to reduce infancy HIV rates by 80 percent in the last 20 years.

It is safe to say they have been instrumental in saving millions of lives.

What other non-government funded entity has done as much?

Everything I stated here is public record, it's no secret.

it's been nice gentlemen. Have a good day. I think this thread should be in my rearview. You have all given me a lot to think about.

marshaul said:

SNIP The more I see and think, the more I conclude that stateless/voluntary society is the logical conclusion from liberal principles.

Click to expand...

I think it is also the logical conclusion of a sequence going back thousands of years.

English political history is one long sequence of slime-balls receiving or taking power, behaving self-interestedly at the expense of the ruled while making up sweet-sounding rationalizations, and the ruled wresting back their rights one little piece at a time.

The high point of thinking on this subject seems to be John Locke's 1689 Second Treatise on Government, including especially consent of the governed. Of course, it took another 87 years before some English colonists got tired of being pushed around and actually put Locke's ideas into practice with the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

They came pretty close, but left intact compulsory government. They came as close as they thought they could to that sentence in the Declaration, "To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." (emphasis by Citizen)

Of course, things started going downhill in a hurry with the ratification of the constitution; but, that seems a part of the cycle--gain ground, then lose ground, gain more ground, then lose ground. It seems too obvious that the next big gain would be consent being put into actual practice bit by bit.

ATM said:

A more principled system has been proposed. Do you really need further convincing that it beats the current system in that regard?

Click to expand...

I think adoption/rejection of the principle is at the heart of the matter.

For example, if I as a salesman adopt the principle that I will not lie to a customer, then I start looking for ways to answer their tough questions honestly. If I set my standard at a high degree of honesty toward the customer, then I must actually develop explanations to their tough questions that do not alienate them, make my employer look cavalier, and bring about understanding on the customer's part. I can testify you also have to learn a heck of a lot more about your industry in order to develop those explanations. It all comes back to adopting the principle. It would be a little backward (and unlikely) to develop lots of honest answers and explanations--and then decide to adopt a principle of honesty.

For another example, lets look at a barbarism: China circa 500 BC. Revenge, theft, fraud, might-makes-right. Those were the principles adopted and used by enough of the culture that something noticeably changed. Along came an Indian prince named Siddartha Guatama with a message of peace and respect. We know him as Buddha. Within 600 years China became civilized as his ideas got traction, which is to say, as more and more people adopted his principles and put them into practice.

Another example would be Moses. Ask yourself, "What kind of culture would be in what kind of shape--what were its principles--that it would need to be given the principles in the Ten Commandments?" The Old Testament gives us a hint by telling us the party the Hebrews had going when Moses came back down the mountain, tablets in hand. Must have been a pretty rough crew overall if He thought they needed a new set of principles.

Adopting the principle comes first. Not the solutions. The solutions only start being searched after the principle is adopted. Consequences might influence adoption of a principle, but the solutions come after, because solutions are how to implement the principle.

And, I suspect consequences is the crux of the matter in this thread. Demanding solutions beforehand is putting the cart before the horse. First, one must decide whether the consequences of the extant principles are acceptable. Meaning all of the consequences--the total picture--of the extant principles. Only then will one feel a need to consider a new principle. As I mentioned above, it would be a little unlikely to implement lots of solutions, and only then adopt the principle.

So if group A wants to rob from group B and give it to their favorite charity or start an organization on stolen funds its ok if has some benefits to the groups?

sudden valley gunner said:

So if group A wants to rob from group B and give it to their favorite charity or start an organization on stolen funds its ok if has some benefits to the groups?

Click to expand...

Good point. It lends itself to another set of questions:

So, if Mssrs. A, B, and C set themselves up and elect D to go and take from Mr. E, it is OK?

Oh! Wait! What if Mssrs. A, B, C, and D were told by somebody else that it was OK? Would that make it OK?

What if that "somebody else" was Mssrs. F, G, and H, who themselves then also participated in the election?

Oh!! No. No. What if that "somebody else" was somebody who's been dead for over two centuries? Would that be OK?

Would that absolve A, B, and C, making it OK?

J_dazzle23 said:

I didn't see any evidence supporting the assertion that the cdc doesn't protect public health and only shows up "after the fact" so......

...

Click to expand...

Read this or not. The CDC can not protect any individual, just as the cops cannot protect any individual. This "protecting the public" is another term for compulsory q-munity caretaking...or, we know what is good for you, so pipe down mister.

You should read up on the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/united-states-imported-case.html

Does the CDC serve a valid purpose? Yes. Do they need all those tax dollars to serve their purpose? Heck no! Can the CDCs service be provided by the private sector? Yepper, if the feds would allow it.

Citizen said:

Good point. It lends itself to another set of questions:So, if Mssrs. A, B, and C set themselves up and elect D to go and take from Mr. E, it is OK? Oh! Wait! What if Mssrs. A, B, C, and D were told by somebody else that it was OK? Would that make it OK?What if that "somebody else" was Mssrs. F, G, and H, who themselves then also participated in the election?Oh!! No. No. What if that "somebody else" was somebody who's been dead for over two centuries? Would that be OK?Would that absolve A, B, and C, making it OK?

Click to expand...

Oh nice! I like how the example is evolving.

A, B , C and D then may point to a document that says it grants them the power to rule over the rest of the alphabet, and if I, J, and K didn't vote they have no right to complain. Now I, J, K may point out that the power to do the things they are doing are not in the document they claim to be their basis for rule, A-through H then talk about process instead of legality of usurped powers.....

As activity in this thread has recently subsided, I still find myself energized by the indomitable nature of the principles of liberty advanced here.
In reflecting upon the statement which became the original post, shall we advance even further?

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...

Of course, press on!

I look forward to the day when perpetrating government against another human being without his express, individual consent is simply untenable.

ATM said:

As activity in this thread has recently subsided, I still find myself energized by the indomitable nature of the principles of liberty advanced here.
In reflecting upon the statement which became the original post, shall we advance even further?



Of course, press on!

I look forward to the day when perpetrating government against another human being without his express, individual consent is simply untenable.

Click to expand...

+1

What's funny is that you guys actually thing use of force against someone's will won't happen in an anarchy.

Sure, it may not be institutionalized, but from what I've gathered from this thread, it most certainly will be there in some form or another.

But hey,

http://www.theoilersrig.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/lets-beat-that-horse.jpg

Citizen said:

Bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaaaa!!!

OMG, that is hilarious!!

I didn't believe you, Stealth. I looked to one of Utbagpiper's posts to make sure his tag line actually said that. I just couldn't believe somebody would be so absurdly self-contradictory, insulting, and ironic all in one sentence!

I'm conflicted, or rather I will be when I stop laughing. On the one hand it is insulting. On the other, I'm half thinking the moderator should let it stand as a living self-testament to bone-deep stupidity.

Self-contradictory/oxymoronic: He's glad people who would not impose something on somebody are not permitted to impose it on somebody?

Insulting: "puerile" "immature"

Ironic: He's more than willing to impose compulsory government on others, whereas none of the non-imposers have said he can't get together with like-minded people and form a compulsory government to rule themselves. He's the one who is all for imposing on everybody; not the anarchists.

I'm half inclined to let his tag-line stand. Wait and see how many readers figure out the oxymoronic, insulting, irony. And, its free advertising. Maybe a few will look it up to see what he's talking about. Nevermind how strange it looks just hanging there in his tag line all by itself.

<wipes tears from eyes while climbing back up off the floor and into the chair>

Click to expand...

That. is. hilarious.
I had to un-ignore just to see to believe.
It makes me ponder other ideas that convince me my belief system is ultimately self-defeating.
By natural inclination I don't want to interfere with others in what they are doing.
Whereas one hypothetical poster may spend half his/her time complaining to the mods and reporting perceived insults someone with a live and let live mind set would not.
The squeaky-wheel idiom comes to mind. So being of the mindset I am, ultimately I will continue to rack up moderation demerits until my voice here is silenced while the hypothetical poster continues to whine and complain constantly until his/her voice is the only one left to be heard.

J_dazzle23 said:

What's funny is that you guys actually thing use of force against someone's will won't happen in an anarchy.

Sure, it may not be institutionalized, but from what I've gathered from this thread, it most certainly will be there in some form or another.

But hey,

http://www.theoilersrig.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/lets-beat-that-horse.jpg

Click to expand...

Who said use of force wont happen?

If it isn't institutionalized and monopolized by the state, wouldn't the damages be mitigated?

Seems contradictory in your statement because if you gathered from this thread it will still be there than I ask again who said it won't happen?

sudden valley gunner said:

Who said use of force wont happen?

If it isn't institutionalized and monopolized by the state, wouldn't the damages be mitigated?

Seems contradictory in your statement because if you gathered from this thread it will still be there than I ask again who said it won't happen?

Click to expand...

Hang on....so you're inferring use of force IS there.....but you're banking on it being mitigated.

Ok.

Glad that is clear.

Now back to our dead horse

J_dazzle23 said:

Hang on....so you're inferring use of force IS there.....but you're banking on it being mitigated.

Ok.

Glad that is clear.

Now back to our dead horse

Click to expand...

Evasion?

Bad people will always exist.

Are you purposefully changing what I said?

Is there is is different from will won't happen. Rape is there compared to rape will/may happen.

I know you think you are being funny by saying "Glad that is clear." What is ironic and becoming more clear is that you are purposefully obfuscating the issue.