Individual rights v. governent intervention

solus said:

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.,

Click to expand...

No, that's not what I said at all. The point I made is that the founding of this country and government was an experiment, without any assurance of success. I didn't even claim that it was successful, much less that it was great. In fact, I'd probably sooner conclude that their experiment was a failure than conclude that it was "great." But let's not be surprised, you've been misrepresenting my statements and points for a long time now.

solus said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, I absolute reject your minimization of the disagreements and debates that took place as this country was founded. The debates and ideas that were argued over were critical, paramount, infrastructural, and significant. In fact, I believe they had many debates not so different than some of the large and significant debates that we occasionally have in this day and age.

solus said:

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.

Click to expand...

By this statement I believe it is clear you've yet to understand the proposal on the opposite side of this debate. Anarchy isn't imposed, it is understood, and then protected as needed. Would ushering that understanding be a challenge? Certainly, but let's not pretend that was your point, because it wasn't.

solus said:

so sorry folks when you say this is what the founding fathers wanted and we should apply it here.

Click to expand...

While this isn't actually a sentence and the meaning is not apparent, you again misrepresent statements made, as I'm unaware of anyone claiming that anarchy is what the founding fathers wanted.

solus said:

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.

Click to expand...

I believe that question has been answered and addressed numerous times, in this very thread, and countless other places across the internet and literary world. See Anarchy and the Law https://mises.org/products/anarchy-and-law

why, oh why stealth, does your ego labour under the mistaken and misguided concept where you truly believe that my post, in any shape whatsoever, was personally directed towards anything of consequence you posted in this thread?

it wasn't!

i personally could give a rat's arse that you reject or accept my stated OPINION!

tho i found it quite humorous you felt the need to respond, by paragraph, with your own misguided perceptions of my OPINION is beyond anything i have encountered previously!

further, your continued in-depth grammatical examination and continued expressed profound disdain of my writing style shows to everyone your own insecurities are on many levels that even i cannot fathom, especially since you seem have gotten the message i was conveying didn't you, if not i guess i have succeeded and do not need to try harder, eh!

to clarify my message stealth...(yes this specific post of mine is in direct response to something you posted as it has your name at the top!) the bloody post wasn't directed to anything you said and where you pulled that concept out from is beyond me and no where was my post intended to: quote: "...you've been misrepresenting my statements and points for a long time now. " unquote.'

so back your narcissistic self away from the mirror stealth, catch your breath, and quit trying to impress everyone as you continue, at my expense, to try overcome some secret repressed insecurity in your life.

ipse

Jim675 said:

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!

Click to expand...

jim, i saw the light when the thread began...

ipse

Jim675 said:

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!

Click to expand...

Where is it stated in the law (common or bureaucratic) that all 300 million or so have to agree? This is the fallacy that statists refuse to admit, every single one of them see only a all or nothing proposition. I certainly would not choose to join volunteery-ism-ists, my choice, no? But I would not interfere, nor criticize their choice.

But, if any number of citizens do choose to go all volunteery-ism the feds/state will have none of it. Those folks will be labeled "Domestic terrorists," "sovereign citizens," "Wackos from Waco," ect. Mitigation plans will be swift and potentially very violent. The "state" has shown time and again that they resort to violent physical force if citizen choose to not participate, peaceably, that is.

Proof, as a example? You cannot sell raw milk...raw milk, to your "neighbor" even if that "neighbor" wants your raw milk. And they are willing to pay more for your raw milk than the current price of store bought milk.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...m-raids-raw-milk-farm-rawesome-arrests-owner/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/?page=all

OC for ME said:

Where is it stated in the law (common or bureaucratic) that all 300 million or so have to agree? This is the fallacy that statists refuse to admit, every single one of them see only a all or nothing proposition. I certainly would not choose to join volunteery-ism-ists, my choice, no? But I would not interfere, nor criticize their choice.

But, if any number of citizens do choose to go all volunteery-ism the feds/state will have none of it. Those folks will be labeled "Domestic terrorists," "sovereign citizens," "Wackos from Waco," ect. Mitigation plans will be swift and potentially very violent. The "state" has shown time and again that they resort to violent physical force if citizen choose to not participate, peaceably, that is.

Proof, as a example? You cannot sell raw milk...raw milk, to your "neighbor" even if that "neighbor" wants your raw milk. And they are willing to pay more for your raw milk than the current price of store bought milk.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...m-raids-raw-milk-farm-rawesome-arrests-owner/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/?page=all

Click to expand...

so OC4ME, let's just say ,the vast federal government has granted, freely to allow volunteery folk to live in peace ~ which part of the country has been staked out for your you and 'your kind' so you can live in your volunteey-ist community in peace and harmony?

the caveat of the government...you and 'your kind' can not come back under their auspices. period!

think long and hard about climbing into that lifeboat OC4ME as it isn't 1620 as you sail to a new world to start a new life. your fellow volunteery folk will want those amenities currently furnished by the feds, say money to pay for their cells oh wait you won't have access to TWC per se, gas, food hummm not sure safeway et al., deals by barter, vehicles, oh and lets not forget medical care. remember, the beads and trinkets used to buy Manhattan don't carry much value these days...even bit coins, if you have no electronic infrastructure are worthless since the bird isn't in the seller's hand.

remember, the Davidians lived for almost 40 years quite in harmony with their waco neighbours. i wasn't there and the complete rational or personalities involved for drawing the ire of the government will never be truly known. but the fact is a group of volunteery folk of a specific religious ilk lived in peace on their compound and were left alone for almost a half a century!

Jonetown is another example of almost a thousand like minded folk who formed several communities while following a nationally recognized bloke around who's volunteey mentality finally inspired the followers to drink kool-aid in their self built paradise.

oh please enlighten me by advising who you are admitting into your community...will you accept anybody who pledges to your cause or will you follow ms jane elliot's methodology in choosing folk to join you in your brave new world?

are the sick and infirm or those showing obvious mental disorders allowed to join you and your ilk in your community? speaking of which, when someone speaks out against the other ilk, or get mentally deranged or terminally ill...are they banished or put down for the good of the ilk community?

and finally, please do not forget that your volunteey community will need some type of enforcement so before you leave i recommend you consult phil's results from his stadford's prison experiment for how to set up your enforcement efforts.

now regarding your out of blue diversion on raw milk: why not post the real article from the LA times instead of an op ed from someone who writes about video games...now there is a subject matter expert i would follow on the injustices of selling raw milk. ok, so all the kind folk had to do was get their license to produce raw milk...they refused, they got caught and milk destroyed. no worse than driving w/o a DL or insurance ~ you get caught and your car is towed and costs your $$$ !! oh by the way...why should the good citizen taxpayer's of CA have to bear the brunt of those afflicted from illnesses derived from drinking raw milk from uninspected facilities handling this highly susceptible to contamination type product ? when your entire volunteey community is afflicted by such a scenario, who bears the cost of lost productivity and such?

ipse

solus said:

so OC4ME, let's just say ...

ipse

Click to expand...

No, I will not "say." You may attempt to paint me with that voluneery-ism-ist brush, I will point you to my posts, starting with the one you quote here, that I am not of the volunteery-ism-ist stripe.

Your tone is that of a objectioner to citizens choosing peaceable interactions that disenfranchise the state at some level.

OC for ME said:

No, I will not "say." You may attempt to paint me with that voluneery-ism-ist brush, I will point you to my posts, starting with the one you quote here, that I am not of the volunteery-ism-ist stripe.

Your tone is that of a objectioner to citizens choosing peaceable interactions that disenfranchise the state at some level.

Click to expand...

OC4ME, you are of course right and due an apology from me associating you with volunerry concepts, which is tendered sincerely as i missed the word 'not' in your most recent post.

the premise of my post was centered on your second paragraph concerning the, how did you put it ~ oh, yes, quote ...the feds/state will have none of it. unquote.

therefore, the remainder of my post continued on to show the feds did condone for over 40 years the davidians!! another example of almost 20 years those that followed jim jones without incident. all peaceful communities per se.

my statement stands i wasn't there nor do i care to advise on the personality's which precipitated the government to intercede into the affairs of these communities nor to i care to stand in judgement of those involved in the aftermath of the government's intercession. the point is these communities survived for many many years in peace w/o governmental interference.

and yet you failed to address in my rebuke about the raw milk comment.

ipse.

solus said:

OC4ME, you are of course right and due an apology from me associating you with volunerry concepts, which is tendered sincerely as i missed the word 'not' in your most recent post.

the premise of my post was centered on your second paragraph concerning the, how did you put it ~ oh, yes, quote ...the feds/state will have none of it. unquote.

therefore, the remainder of my post continued on to show the feds did condone for over 40 years the davidians!! another example of almost 20 years those that followed jim jones without incident. all peaceful communities per se.

my statement stands i wasn't there nor do i care to advise on the personality's which precipitated the government to intercede into the affairs of these communities nor to i care to stand in judgement of those involved in the aftermath of the government's intercession. the point is these communities survived for many many years in peace w/o governmental interference.

and yet you failed to address in my rebuke about the raw milk comment.

ipse.

Click to expand...

No apology necessary. +1 to you Sir.

No, I did not fail to address, I ignored your rebuke, just as you ignored the protestations of the volunteery-ism-ist consumptioners of the raw milk listed in the linked news article and opinion piece.

The feds/state certainly did not take into account, by their actions, that the volunteery-ism-ist consumptioners not only we aware of the feds's/state's "dire warnings" as to the safety of the raw milk, the volunteery-ism-ist consumptioners categorically rejected those "dire warnings." To no avail, obviously.

The feds/state demonstrated, by their acttions, that peaceable volunteery-ism-ist interactions were not to be tolerated.

OC for ME said:

No apology necessary. +1 to you Sir.

No, I did not fail to address, I ignored your rebuke, just as you ignored the protestations of the volunteery-ism-ist consumptioners of the raw milk listed in the linked news article and opinion piece.

The feds/state certainly did not take into account, by their actions, that the volunteery-ism-ist consumptioners not only we aware of the feds's/state's "dire warnings" as to the safety of the raw milk, the volunteery-ism-ist consumptioners categorically rejected those "dire warnings." To no avail, obviously.

The feds/state demonstrated, by their acttions, that peaceable volunteery-ism-ist interactions were not to be tolerated.

Click to expand...

Oh, I by no means claim that the consumptioners were these anachro-capitalist/volunteery-ism-ist consumptioners as is being defined by some here. I suspect, with confidence, that they would also desire a government to be present and performing their proper and necessary duties efficiently with very minimal interference into the daily activities of the citizenry.

Wowwie!!! Off topic,,,, Jones town...

James Jones and his Town did go on for many years
without "some" governmental intervention,,, But
It was not peaceful, it was not a happy safe place!
Jones was a Tyrant, He was crazy and spiteful,,, And Everybody came to know it!!!

In this case the people begged for Governmental Intervention for their salvation...
Some Other Government!!!
They were not in an Utopia,,, they had become slaves,,, they had become prisoners!!

Jones Town Did have a government,,, a King ruled them,
he wasnt elected, the folks could not stop it,
He had all the guns!
The folks had None!

1245A Defender said:

James Jones and his Town did go on for many years
without "some" governmental intervention,,, But
It was not peaceful, it was not a happy safe place!
Jones was a Tyrant, He was crazy and spiteful,,, And Everybody came to know it!!!

In this case the people begged for Governmental Intervention for their salvation...
Some Other Government!!!
They were not in an Utopia,,, they had become slaves,,, they had become prisoners!!

Jones Town Did have a government,,, a King ruled them,
he wasnt elected, the folks could not stop it,
He had all the guns!
The folks had None!

Click to expand...

Minor details only muddy the discussion.

1245A Defender said:

James Jones and his Town did go on for many years
without "some" governmental intervention,,, But
It was not peaceful, it was not a happy safe place!
Jones was a Tyrant, He was crazy and spiteful,,, And Everybody came to know it!!!

In this case the people begged for Governmental Intervention for their salvation...
Some Other Government!!!
They were not in an Utopia,,, they had become slaves,,, they had become prisoners!!

Jones Town Did have a government,,, a King ruled them,
he wasnt elected, the folks could not stop it,
He had all the guns!
The folks had None!

Click to expand...

sorry you as an outsider to 'their' community can not adequately discern or apply your perception of peaceful, happy, safe or if they became prisoners!! you have no viable nor legitimate rationale to impose your values on these kind folk...tho in the aftermath, you are left to bury the remains at your expense.

those that left the community, (and completely non-citable hyperbole on my part) i am sure had to provide some rational for their remaining in the community for periods of time, therefore 'could have' manifested stories to justify their actions of leaving their original place of comfort and trot over to the other side of the fence to the Jones community where they might have found it just wasn't as cushy as what they left!

strange isn't it 1234, you consider those in jones' community as prisoners yet in this country those who have the guns to use them as they see fit against the 'community' citizens and who has the judicial power against the citizens; with both entities have almost unlimited impunity against community judicial consequences...and yet those in power who tolerate these good folk were elected by those with the mostest $$$$...hummmm

as previously pointed out, a Sultan ruled the ottoman empire for over 700 years covering multinational, multilingual empire controlling much of Southeast Europe, Western Asia, the Caucasus, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa!! but the European state banned together and decided the ottomans were too powerful so their governments forcibly destroyed the empire

ipse

Well,,,

I would be a fool to debate that rambling incoherent rant.

I was talking about 1 little bit of paradise.

georg jetson said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is a fine position to take. But never again claim you heard crickets when asking how to correct the current situation.

I happen to think abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed is less likely to right the wrongs than is the efforts I proposed. Especially when none of the proponents of abolishing the current forms is capable of providing any synopsis of their preferred alternative, much less to answer two very simple questions.

In any event, differences of opinion on what course is better are valid. But there is a material difference between disagreeing, and others' failing to post any alternatives. Indeed, at this point, it is the anarchist who have failed to post any meaningful alternatives.

georg jetson said:

By all means though... please blab more.

Click to expand...

Again, I do not believe this kind of personal sniping advances the discussion. Please stop.

Charles

Citizen said:

The facts say otherwise, readers.

Click to expand...

The facts you bring up, even if accepted without debate, are but one side of the equation. Almost anything can be justified by looking at only one side of the equation.

Let's just look at the big stuff.

How would a non-government of 300 million individuals living in the territory currently called the USA, have faired during the cold war against the Soviets? Or even the Mexican government wanting to reclaim their historic territory in the American Southwest?

How does public health in the USA compare to public health in parts of the world without functioning government? In how many places in the current USA is tap water biologically or chemically unsafe to drink? How much sewage to drinking water contamination in the current USA? Compared to areas of the world without functioning governments?

Many other examples exist. Point is, you've proven nothing with your examples except that you see various problems. We all do even if we disagree on the precise details of which items are problems. Rational men also see the benefits. Until you acknowledge the benefits, you haven't even pretended to do a cost/benefit analysis or to prove anything about relative costs. You're just preaching religious dogma.

Our current federal government has grown beyond its bounds precisely because large portions of our population wanted it to. Those people's views wouldn't change if the federal government ceased to exist tomorrow.

Which brings us back to my two simple questions:

1-On what principle does a non-government service provider presume to exercise authority over a non-member when his conduct isn't a violation of rights within his paradigm?

2-How does your favored (non)system resolve conflicts of what is or isn't a right, or who is or isn't entitled to them, between competing non-government service providers?

Two simple questions that nobody is able to answer. You'll understand if a lot of us don't want to follow you over the cliff when you can't answer two, such simple questions.

Charles

stealthyeliminator said:

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.

Click to expand...

Again, another false comparison to the founders and framers.

They were building upon 500+ years of progress with elected, representative government and certain rights guaranteed and respected. Their experiment was one of evolution, rather than complete revolution in terms of how society functions. Notably for this thread, those who proposed the change in forms were prolific in explaining how it would work.

The federalists didn't say, "You are beneath me for not agreeing with me and therefore I will not deign to explain anything to you." Nor did they say, "Trust us, it will work out fine." They explained in great detail how things would work.

Spend less time castigating those who don't already agree with you, and a little more time explaining.

Two simple questions I need to see answered before I can take the anarchists social structure seriously:

1-How do you arbitrate between non-government service providers when they disagree as to what is a right or who (or what) is entitled to rights?

2-Within the paradigm of no force, how does one non-government service provider protect its members from the conduct of non-members who honestly disagree as to what is or isn't a right?

Charles

utbagpiper said:

Again, another false comparison to the founders and framers.

They were building upon 500+ years of progress with elected, representative government and certain rights guaranteed and respected. Their experiment was one of evolution, rather than complete revolution in terms of how society functions. Notably for this thread, those who proposed the change in forms were prolific in explaining how it would work.

Click to expand...

The change being proposed is not as significant as you imply. It's mostly a change in understanding rather than one in practice or structure.

utbagpiper said:

The federalists didn't say, "You are beneath me for not agreeing with me and therefore I will not deign to explain anything to you." Nor did they say, "Trust us, it will work out fine." They explained in great detail how things would work.

Click to expand...

Neither have I said that, so...

The problem with demanding to be told how the proposed system would work is that the proposal is one of non-imposition, meaning that any solution found which doesn't violate principle would be allowed. It's like asking how the market will provide for a function - nobody can say. Scratch that, it literally is asking how the market will provide for a function. What will the next processor from Intel look like? What will the next version of IP look like? Etc. etc. All that can be laid out for your are ways in which services and goods could be provided, but without specific solutions being imposed with coercive monopolies, we can't say for certain what solution would be produced and successful in the marketplace.

utbagpiper said:

1-How do you arbitrate between non-government service providers when they disagree as to what is a right or who (or what) is entitled to rights?

Click to expand...

Example: submitting to 3rd party, neutral arbitration is less costly than violence, violence being something that would be viciously opposed in a market demanding peace.

utbagpiper said:

2-Within the paradigm of no force, how does one non-government service provider protect its members from the conduct of non-members who honestly disagree as to what is or isn't a right?

Click to expand...

Hmm. I'm not sure that a paradigm of no force is part of the proposal. A paradigm of no initiation of force, or violence, would be.

solus said:

why, oh why stealth, does your ego labour under the mistaken and misguided concept where you truly believe that my post, in any shape whatsoever, was personally directed towards anything of consequence you posted in this thread?

it wasn't!

Click to expand...

Yeah, I knew that you were going to say that. I, of course, can't read your mind, but I believe that it is highly likely that your post, which addresses the specific topic(s) in my post, and which immediately follows me post, was queued by mine. I will take note that you assert that is not the case, despite what seems apparent to me, and I am willing to move on from this.

stealthyeliminator said:

...The problem with demanding to be told how the proposed system would work is that the proposal is one of non-imposition, meaning that any solution found which doesn't violate principle would be allowed.

Click to expand...

Good point.

The coercive imposition of the state, as a violation of principle, doesn't meet the minimal requirements of an acceptable proposal, let alone a solution.

stealthyeliminator said:

The change being proposed is not as significant as you imply. It's mostly a change in understanding rather than one in practice or structure.

Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to be the case from what has been proposed. To move from a government structure that can impose force regardless of individual consent, to a completely voluntary non-government social structure seems to be a pretty big change.

stealthyeliminator said:

The problem with demanding to be told how the proposed system would work is that the proposal is one of non-imposition, meaning that any solution found which doesn't violate principle would be allowed. It's like asking how the market will provide for a function - nobody can say. Scratch that, it literally is asking how the market will provide for a function. What will the next processor from Intel look like? What will the next version of IP look like? Etc. etc. All that can be laid out for your are ways in which services and goods could be provided, but without specific solutions being imposed with coercive monopolies, we can't say for certain what solution would be produced and successful in the marketplace.

Click to expand...

Some examples of how it might be expected to work would be very useful then.

I'm not asking what the next Intel processor will be. I'm asking what is the process by which we could expect to see the next chip come into existence. That includes a system that recognized and protects property rights, including intellectual property. The system permits corporate entities so as to raise funds by separating ownership of the company from the day-to-day operations and liability for what the company does. And a free market in which a company meets market needs through investing, advertising, and selling.

stealthyeliminator said:

Example: submitting to 3rd party, neutral arbitration is less costly than violence, violence being something that would be viciously opposed in a market demanding peace.

Click to expand...

Remember, my original questions presupposes that neither side will retreat from their position. Arbitration works great when we are willing to retreat or find compromise. But what is the solution when there is no compromise?

The South wasn't going to compromise any further on slavery. The abolitionists were not going to compromise to let slavery continue nor the South secede.

40% of the nation believes that nearly unrestricted access to elective abortions is a woman's right. Another 40% pretty strongly believes that elective abortion is nigh unto murder. Arbitration isn't going to work.

I think federalism solves the problem: One set of laws in one State, a different set in another. But as minimally explained so far, anarchy doesn't permit that.

stealthyeliminator said:

Hmm. I'm not sure that a paradigm of no force is part of the proposal. A paradigm of no initiation of force, or violence, would be.

Click to expand...

But the question remains, what is the initiation of force?

Is the slave owner initiating force against another being with full rights? Or is he simply exercising lawful control over his property?

Is the abortion doctor initiating force against an innocent, unborn child, or is he simply removing an unwanted growth?

Is the cattle owner initiating force against an being with full rights, or is he simply exercising lawful control over his property?

However imperfectly, our current systems has dealt with and is dealing with these 3 specific issues. Those who propose anarchy should be able to address how the issue of arbitration of rights is dealt with for situations such as these when neither side is going to compromise because their position is basically a religious position or one that starts from fundamentally incompatible views of what are rights and who gets them.

Charles