Individual rights v. governent intervention

ATM said:

I don't entertain discussion of minutiae with folks who haven't reconciled the basis of this topic or those who wish to avoid it.
....

Nothing personal, this principle is just too important to be rushed past or assumed.

Click to expand...

If you are unable to answer questions about how the basic structure functions, I'd welcome your thoughts on the principles.

Is there anything beyond, "Governments are evil and should be eliminated"?

I welcome whatever insights you can provide.

Charles

ATM said:

I don't entertain discussion of minutiae with folks who haven't reconciled the basis of this topic or those who wish to avoid it.

.

Click to expand...

" A straw man is a common reference argument and is an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition."



Please let me know what the basis of the topic is. Apparently I've completely missed it.

Because someone agrees with the ends but wants details on the means, that means they haven't reconciled the basis of the topic?

Ok.

utbagpiper said:

If you are unable to answer questions about how the basic structure functions, I'd welcome your thoughts on the principles.

Is there anything beyond, "Governments are evil and should be eliminated"?

I welcome whatever insights you can provide.

Charles

Click to expand...

I've given you links to millions of proposed answers to your questions, I will not undertake the task of copying and pasting them individually here for you.

My thoughts on the principles are already scattered throughout this thread and, again, readily available to you at the same sources I reference.

J_dazzle23 said:

<snip>

...Please let me know what the basis of the topic is. Apparently I've completely missed it.

Because someone agrees with the ends but wants details on the means, that means they haven't reconciled the basis of the topic?

Ok.

Click to expand...

I know what a straw man is, but it would be a stretch to apply it there.

And I believe you have that last part backwards. Most of these trivial questions regard the ends, or at least seem to desire a concrete prediction of them.

The means should be the actual basis. If the means to any end is a certain group being legally excepted to initiate force against others, no ends will be justified.

When you begin with, or attempt to skip past, the base proposition that the current system of force is a viable or tolerable one, what point is there in even discussing, let alone 'selling' alternatives? It would miss the point.

ATM said:

I know what a straw man is, but it would be a stretch to apply it there.

And I believe you have that last part backwards. Most of these trivial questions regard the ends, or at least seem to desire a concrete prediction of them.

The means should be the actual basis. If the means to any end is a certain group being legally excepted to initiate force, no ends will be justified.

When you begin with, or attempt to skip past, the base proposition that the current system of force is a viable or tolerable one, what point is there in even discussing, let alone 'selling' alternatives? It would miss the point.

Click to expand...

I don't think the system is viable. Tolerable? For a short period of time.

That's is why most of us here on this forum would like to change the system, in a lawful manner.

By suggesting throwing out the current system in totality, and not attempting to fix the current one, it makes sense to answer basic questions about how this system would work.

If you just want to point me to a few books, great.

But you have both said that you have sources that explain this, then in the same breath stated that this explanation doesn't matter.

Please correct me if I'm getting that wrong.

Here's what I've gathered:

A. "The current system is broke, let's get a new one"

B. "Great, how should we set it up so that it works?"

A. "Dont know, cant answer, doesn't matter, the current system is broke."


seems like the stuff in the middle is perhaps, a little bit more than meaningless details.

I don't seem to be making progress here, maybe some of the resources provided in this thread have some solid answers.

I can recommend Against The State, a recent book by Lew Rockwell, as a fairly concise modern starting point.

The author then suggests further reading if you are so inclined: For A New Liberty and The Ethics Of Liberty, both by Rothbard.
These are considered by many to be the best original sources of detailed anarcho-capitalist thought and theory.

Therein you will find the reasoning suggesting the futility of attempting to fix the current force monopoly as well as detailed answers to questions about how a voluntary system of self-ownership and self-governance could work.

These, in addition to the many free resources both detailing and summarizing these ideas and principles, are far better suited to an honest exploration of the topic than any meandering, off-topic, social conversations or arguments one may rustle up here on this forum.

Regards.

It's been a fun thread to follow. But It all seems to come down to whether or not you support the state's power to take your money and use it to force you to do and not do whatever they wish under the ultimate threat of death or imprisonment. I don't. So I support any effort out there to restore more rights and less control.

twoskinsonemanns said:

So I support any effort out there to restore more rights and less control.

Click to expand...

I can confidently say we are all on this bus. I honestly believe that.

utbagpiper said:

Obviously geography plays a role in war. But to think that large oceans offer us the same protections they did in the 18th century is a bit naïve, at least.

Rather than cherry pick one or two little aspects of a conflict, why don't you simply address directly and fully how well you think a bunch of disjoint tribes of Angle-Saxons or Celts or Scots could have repulsed the Nazi war machine. Even the Romans managed to overcome the challenges of channel. True, the Celts/Scots made life difficult enough in the Highlands that the Romans decided Hadrian's wall to keep the barbarians out was better than trying to conquer them. The Romans did not have the Luftwaffe, Panzers, nor other modern weapons.

Lacking the end of the war, but facing real resistance that conventional weapons couldn't break, do you think the Nazis would not have eventually developed the atomic bomb? Or perfected their rockets?

It cost the US some $23 Billion in current dollars to develop the A-bomb. That is $75 for every man, woman, and child in our nation today, probably double that to $150 for our population in the 1940s. Or, something like $700 for every household. The A-bomb is horrible thing. The only thing worse than having it, is not having it when violent and avowed enemies do. How does a non-nation, with highly desirable land full of rich natural resources, develop the weapons needed to defend against nations with active military programs?

The American Indians were unable to defend against the English war machine of the 17th and 18th centuries including muskets and cannon, and number of recruits. They were ultimately unable to defend against the US government.

Without government, how do the peoples of the lands now called the USA defend against the Chinese, Soviets, or even Mexican governments if any of these decide they'd like to expand their holdings? Even more challenging, lacking government how do the peoples of Texas, Alaska, and the Dakotas prevent Arab nations from bombing their oil wells so as to reduce supplies and increase the value of Middle East oil?

Click to expand...

What is your point behind these extraneous lines of discussion. This foray into the weeds, this tedious pursuit of things not related to the op.

utbagpiper said:

So when you look to buy a home or rent an apartment you don't give any consideration at all to the crime rates in the areas where you are looking? You would be one of the few.

Most of us buy in the lowest crime area we can afford, given other considerations like where we work.

Click to expand...

Please do not be obtuse. Crime rates vary from one place to another, low one day, higher the next...so to speak. Urban vs. suburban vs. rural.

utbagpiper said:

The macro-level is nothing but a fancy way of talking about crime rate. I like having the violent crime rate at one-half what it was when I was growing up in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. I'd like to see us half it again and then again to get back down to our historic low rates during the early 50s.

The macro effects of policing directly affect things like quality of life. I carry a gun because of the stakes, not because of the odds. And I hope never to live where there are high odds of actually needing the gun.

But to each his own.

Charles

Click to expand...

No, it is a fancy way of discussing individual liberty vs. government intervention (interference). The crime rate in NYC (NY State), for example, is completely irrelevant to me. I would not live there. The crime rate may be low, relatively speaking, in NYC (NY State) when compared to other states/cities, but this is not a determining factor for me to prompt further research into a "nice" place to live in a anti-liberty state.

I get it, you have this anarchist stuff stuck under your saddle like burr and continue to hint at it in virtually every one of your posts. It is ironic that such a trifle in the "macro" is of such a great concern to you. To be so singularly focused on what other liberty minded citizens think of our government seems a waste of virtual ink.

But, to each their own.

The state has done more to increase crime than lessen it.

The state doesn't arbitrate fairly now. The state doesn't police well now. The state doesn't do anything better than private people can.

I've seen over the years lots of people who claim to be libertarian and then leave bashing other libertarians because they wouldn't change the philosophy to fit their statism.

If you believe in in individual rights over government intervention you can't then argue that an individual must be forced to consent to a system he doesn't agree with.

OC for ME said:

What is your point behind these extraneous lines of discussion..

Click to expand...

Obfuscation? Red Herrings? Strawman? Obtuseness?

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/govt.html

Those who do not "see" government as a evil, a necessary evil, will work to make a evil government more to their liking.

A moral individual...a liberty minded individual, does not accept a ends justifies the means approach to governance by our elected critters. The threat of violent physical force by our "employees' is the only reason the government has not been drastically reshaped back to what our Founders had in mind for a federal government.

I axed a question earlier...what if a citizenry voted to abolish their local government? What if the citizenry voted to abolish their state government? Do any here believe that the "state" would bow to the will of The People?

sudden valley gunner said:

Obfuscation? Red Herrings? Strawman? Obtuseness?

Click to expand...

Me, I think he dislikes the fact that reasonable folks can completely disagree with just about every aspect of his belief system yet retain a few point where agreement exists.

Me, again, see every vote for a liberal as a vote against liberty. It matters not how many guns the liberal owns, he votes for a anti-gun political critter he votes against liberty. If a vote is cast for a political critter who then votes to expand government that is a vote against liberty.

Ya know, it is OK for political critters to repeal a law (portions of a law) vs. passing a new law (with extra crap in it) to fix a/the bad law they passed previously. Some folks here do not see it that way, it seems.

ATM said:

These, in addition to the many free resources both detailing and summarizing these ideas and principles, are far better suited to an honest exploration of the topic than any meandering, off-topic, social conversations or arguments one may rustle up here on this forum.

Click to expand...

So this discussion really has nothing to do with advocating FOR anarchy. It simply an argument AGAINST our current government.

That is a valid point of view. Not very persuasive to those who heed the warning in the DoI about abandoning the forms to which they are accustomed. But to each his own.

Charles

OC for ME said:

What is your point behind these extraneous lines of discussion.

Click to expand...

You asserted the state couldn't prevent anything. I offered some examples showing your assertion was invalid and you tried to counter.

OC for ME said:

Please do not be obtuse. Crime rates vary from one place to another, low one day, higher the next...so to speak. Urban vs. suburban vs. rural.


...The crime rate in NYC (NY State), for example, is completely irrelevant to me.

Click to expand...

It is you who is being obtuse. You have found your hammer and now everything looks like a nail. That state is evil, it can't protect you, it can't do anything right. So even when presented with evidence of the (relatively few) things it does get right, you refuse to concede the point.

The crime rate in NYC may be irrelevant to you. But if you are at all prudent, once you find the State and city in which you are going to live, you check out crime rates and other macro data for various neighborhoods. At the very least, most of the rest of us do. We recognize that while the police can't protect any of us individually, they do provide a valuable service in terms of general crime reduction, keeping the peace, and so on.

OC for ME said:

I get it, you have this anarchist stuff stuck under your saddle like burr and continue to hint at it in virtually every one of your posts. It is ironic that such a trifle in the "macro" is of such a great concern to you. To be so singularly focused on what other liberty minded citizens think of our government seems a waste of virtual ink.

Click to expand...

We are all liberty minded citizens. What is a waste of virtual ink is to complain about the current system, advocate its eradication, but be incapable of providing any alternative.

Lack of government is no more an alternative to our problems than is "lack of eating" an alternative to the problems in the meat industry. If you prefer something you call "non-coercive or volunteer government" great. Let's hear how it actually works. The vegans and vegetarians are very capable and willing to tell me exactly what non-animal sources of food are available to meet my needs. They have this funny habit of trying to get soy to taste like meat, while we meat eaters never seem to want our bacon to taste like soy. But the vegans can at least point to a viable alternative, demonstrate it in action, and so on.

If someone is going to attack the foundations of our government, they better have something to say besides the current system is broken. Broken compared to what? Worse than what?

And yes, I do get a burr when someone is so arrogant as to refuse to explain his position because those who ask questions are unworthy of the answers. I think that is just a less than honest way of saying, "I don't understand it well enough to explain how it would work. But that won't deter me from advocating for it."

Charles

utbagpiper said:

You asserted the state couldn't prevent anything. I offered some examples showing your assertion was invalid and you tried to counter.

Click to expand...

No, the state cannot prevent anything. Whatever is it that is prevented is born on the shoulders of those who obey the laws of men. Please do not give the state any more credit than they deserve. Setting the stage for the citizenry to do the right thing, in spite of the state in many cases, is not the state preventing anything. I hold my fellow citizen in a higher regard and believe that they will do the right thing whether the state has addressed that "right thing" or not. YMMV

It is you who is being obtuse. You have found your hammer and now everything looks like a nail. That state is evil, it can't protect you, it can't do anything right. So even when presented with evidence of the (relatively few) things it does get right, you refuse to concede the point.

Click to expand...

No, the state cannot protect us and has no duty to do so beyond constitutional requirements, as nebulous as they are. The citizenry can, and does every day protect themselves, again, often in spite of the state. You continue to subscribe to the state that which they do not deserve. The state is evil by its very nature and the citizenry must be ever vigilant to restrain this evil at every opportunity. A few attaboys will not ever mitigate the untold number of oh-darns. YMMV

The crime rate in NYC may be irrelevant to you. But if you are at all prudent, once you find the State and city in which you are going to live, you check out crime rates and other macro data for various neighborhoods. At the very least, most of the rest of us do. We recognize that while the police can't protect any of us individually, they do provide a valuable service in terms of general crime reduction, keeping the peace, and so on.

Click to expand...

I moved to a location that actually had a higher crime rate than my previous home because my home state is not as liberty minded, no OC, than where I reside now. YMMV

We are all liberty minded citizens. What is a waste of virtual ink is to complain about the current system, advocate its eradication, but be incapable of providing any alternative.

Click to expand...

I have never advocated that we eradicate the current system. I have consistently advocated that we severely restrain the current system, read my post just in this thread. This is why you are being obtuse.

Lack of government is no more an alternative to our problems than is "lack of eating" an alternative to the problems in the meat industry. ...

Charles

Click to expand...

See previous response, and stop bringing it up in any response to one of my posts please. I, again, do not support these anachro-capitalist (no government/volunteering-ism) notions, never have and never will. Not sure I can get any more clear on this point.

Your views of effective government, obviously, are far different than mine. The state has necessary and proper functions but the state (political critters) have expanded the list of necessary and proper functions, as predicted by our Founders, far beyond what I think they should be. Again, I fall in line with a view of government very similar to The Founders. The restoration of a unfettered RKBA is not going to fix the evils that are in government, that make government evil.

utbagpiper said:

So this discussion really has nothing to do with advocating FOR anarchy. It simply an argument AGAINST our current government.

Click to expand...

Close, but no. I do advocate for a society without a state, not just a society without our current government. Any proposed need of a state is refutable.

That is a valid point of view. Not very persuasive to those who heed the warning in the DoI about abandoning the forms to which they are accustomed. But to each his own.

Charles

Click to expand...

What the framers soon left us with was a state, most likely because it was the form they were accustomed to. This experiment in Liberty was always destined to fail, as the state cannot be constrained. Despite their best efforts to shackle it down, the state still assumed a monopoly of power by which to plunder the fruits of society.

Why do I need to be persuasive? I don't desire anything from you except for you to think. Thinking, considering ideas or principles which it didn't plant, that's about the only thing the state fears.

sudden valley gunner said:

The state has done more to increase crime than lessen it.

Click to expand...

Citations?

I can easily accept differences of opinion. When opinions are stated as facts, I want to see documentation.

Charles

ATM said:

Close, but no. I do advocate for a society without a state, not just a society without our current government.

Click to expand...

Semantics. A society needs a way to arbitrate differences, to protect rights, to punish crimes. Call it what you will (or won't).

If you are unable to describe your vision, all you are left with is opposition to the status quo, rather than advocacy for something else.

Charles

The state is crime - no citation needed.