Should Distrust Of Government Be A Phenomenon Exclusive To Gun Owners?

[marshaul]

You can reject the premise. And my premise will continue to play out, in your face. And whether or not you want to be part of the system we have here, you are part of it, period.

You talk about "legitimate Authority", and then you throw a naturalistic fallacy at me.

By this logic rapists have "legitimate Authority" since they do, in fact, exist.

I didn't ask you to explain to me how, in practice, a republic works. I asked you to defend the legitimization (key word) of authority by popular mandate.

Is-ought doesn't cut it.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

You talk about "legitimate Authority", and then you throw a naturalistic fallacy at me.

By this logic rapists have "legitimate Authority" since they do, in fact, exist.

I didn't ask you to explain to me how, in practice, a republic works. I asked you to defend the legitimization (key word) of authority by popular mandate.

Is-ought doesn't cut it.

No, the line of logic you offered does not correlate to statements I made.

I don't have to defend it. It exists. If you don't like it, rally the troops, and change it.

Ought, does cut it, when stating something ought to be a certain way. I will handle myself however I see fit.

The funny thing is, you're making an argument against the Founding Fathers Constitution. What makes their Constitution legitimate? I didn't create this System, someone else created the framework, and individually, I have very little chance of changing it....change is a collective endeavor.

 

[marshaul]

The funny thing is, you're making an argument against the Founding Fathers Constitution. What makes their Constitution legitimate?

I never said it was.

Lysander Spooner: No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

You're still missing the point, though. All you've done is prove that the government does, in fact, exercise authority. I did not ask you to prove this contention. I accept it.

I ask you to defend the premise that the will of the majority lends legitimacy to this authority. "It is legitimate because it is" doesn't cut it.

Consider:

"The reality is that police in the exercise of their authority occasionally beat and even murder innocent people. The police are hired by the "majority". Therefore, their actions necessarily constitute the exercise of legitimate authority."

Do you accept or reject this argument?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I never said it was.

Lysander Spooner: No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

You're still missing the point, though. All you've done is prove that the government does, in fact, exercise authority. I did not ask you to prove this contention. I accept it.

I ask you to defend the premise that the will of the majority lends legitimacy to this authority. "It is legitimate because it is" doesn't cut it.

Consider:

"The reality is that police – at least sometimes – use their authority to beat and even murder innocent people. The police are hired by the "majority". Therefore, their actions constitute the exercise of legitimate authority."

Do you accept or reject this argument?

First, I'm not stating it lends legitimacy, I'm stating it bestows, that's all the majority can do in a Democratic System. It's legitimate because it is, does cut it.

No, the police aren't hired by the majority. I reject the assertion that the police are hired by the majority. I disagree with your line of reasoning.

I disagree that it relates to what I stated.

 

[marshaul]

No, the police aren't hired by the majority. I reject the assertion that the police are hired by the majority. I disagree with your line of reasoning.

So the recipients of a few votes get the Mandate of [strike]Heaven[/strike] The People, and the legitimate authority to pass whatever laws they want, but they (and by proxy The People) don't have to take responsibility for agents they then hire to enforce these laws?

Way to have your cake and eat it too.

(By the way, it's not "my" line of reasoning insofar as I don't agree with it. I still diverge several premises ago.)

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I hate breaking posts up, seriously. I don't want to get into that sort of dialogue here.

So the recipients of a few votes

120,000,000 votes is not a few votes.

get the Mandate

Not necessarily do they get TO mandate through Authority to Power.

of [strike]Heaven[/strike] The People, and the legitimate authority to pass whatever laws they want

"Legitimized Authority." They get to pass whatever they want, while holding the Legitimized Authority.

, but they (and by proxy The People) don't have to take responsibility for agents they then hire to enforce these laws?

Too many degrees of separation to hold any person accountable. The practical response: A change in policy.

Way to have your cake and eat it too.

(By the way, it's not "my" line of reasoning insofar as I don't agree with it. I still diverge several premises ago.)

I agree, a divergence exists....

 

[marshaul]

Too many degrees of separation to hold any person accountable. The practical response: A change in policy.

Sure, in practice that's the way things will be, and I'm not prepared to argue otherwise.

But I submit that it's dangerous to justify this stuff "just because," or to ignore philosophical inconsistencies because they're inconvenient. It doesn't mean we necessarily have to rush headlong into anarchy (I wish!), either. For instance, the above can be largely resolved by using different philosophical justification: instead of justifying authority of popular mandate "just because", we should utilize a rigorous appeal to rights (and, I would argue, non-aggression), or at least some individual application of personal morality. Yes, this is more limiting, and many laws would suddenly lack justification, but that's the whole point.

Jefferson, for instance, accepted popular will as the ultimate source of political power, but he justified it on the grounds that the people were the "safest repository" for their own rights – that no beneficent third party could truly be interested enough to do as reliable a job in preserving them (an early appearance of the Skin in the Game theory). I actually share his reasoning for the most part, but I'm afraid it only actually works on a relatively small scale – that in a country as huge as ours, and with a Federal government with so much legislative authority (pretty much everything I'm referring to is commerce-clause-justified crap), it's far too easy for "minorities" consisting of literally tens (potentially hundreds) of millions of people to find themselves on the short end of the legislative stick, being jailed or having their property literally stolen for harming precisely nobody.

Consider, for instance, the countless people who have had everything they own literally stolen by the majority (we're talking explicit laws passed directly under the "legitimate authority" of your "popular will") to pay for fancy toys for a bunch of criminally aggressive drug/law enforcement agents, all for having the temerity to grow some silly damn plants, or the millions another "majority" would gladly (according, at any rate, to those who claim to represent and act under the mandate of this supposed "popular will") deprive of their firearm-related property for having the temerity to own that.

If that really is the will of the "majority", then the majority needs to grow the hell up before they exercise any authority whatsoever.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Sure, in practice that's the way things will be, and I'm not prepared to argue otherwise.

But I submit that it's dangerous to justify this stuff "just because," or to ignore philosophical inconsistencies because they're inconvenient. It doesn't mean we necessarily have to rush headlong into anarchy (I wish!), either. For instance, the above can be largely resolved by using different (philosophical justification: instead of justifying authority of popular mandate "just because", we should utilize a rigorous appeal to rights (and, I would argue, non-aggression), or at least some individual application of personal morality. Yes, this is more limiting, but that's the whole point.

Jefferson, for instance, accepted popular will as the ultimate source of political power, but he justified it on the grounds that the people were the "safest repository" for their own rights – that no beneficent third party could truly be interested enough to do as reliable a job in preserving them (an early appearance of the Skin in the Game theory). I actually share his reasoning for the most part, but I'm afraid it only actually works on a relatively small scale – that in a country as huge as ours, and with a Federal government with so much legislative authority (pretty much everything I'm referring to is commerce-clause-justified crap), it's far too easy for "minorities" consisting of literally tens (potentially hundreds) of millions of people to find themselves on the short end of the legislative stick, being jailed or having their property literally stolen for harming precisely nobody.

Consider, for instance, the countless people who have had everything they own literally stolen by the majority (we're talking explicit laws passed directly under the "legitimate authority" of your "popular will") to pay for fancy toys for a bunch of criminally aggressive drug/law enforcement agents, all for having the temerity to grow some silly damn plants, or the millions another "majority" would gladly (according, at any rate, to those who claim to represent and act under the mandate of this supposed "popular will") deprive of their firearm-related property for having the temerity to own that.

If that really is the will of the "majority", then the majority needs to grow the hell up before they exercise any authority whatsoever.

Let's get one things straight, right off the bat--I respect you my friend, seriously, no joke, I respect you--but: FUQ any notion that any of this stuff we're talking about must have anything to do with logic, or objectivity.

FUQ, Jefferson. His opinion is duly noted. I don't give a rats ass about Jefferson, or his views; what I do give a rats ass about is the views of us living humans, right here, right now, engaged--whether we like it or not--in this System, our relationship to the System, with the System, etc.

FUQ the Majority, FUQ the Government. Seriously, 5,000+ posts, and people aren't getting what I'm stating in all of this. The best, off the fly, distilled version of what I'm saying here, in all of this: Government exists, period; you want to change the Government, it's all about numbers; all of the other BS, neck deep BS, that half the people on here regurgitate about Freedom, Liberty, getting away from Government, Government not being around, being done away with--it's all fantasy world crapola, it's philosophical masturbation.

Take the world that you were born into, that you interact with, as it is, and what you don't like about it, get a very large group together....I'm not talking sparse BS at the capital of 50-150 OC/CC'rs, I'm talking tens of millions, then force Government to change--President Obama has stated this numerous times.

We can sit here an pontificate about why Government is not legitimate, why Government ought to stay out of my private parts, and our firearm safes, but it don't mean sh*t if you sit there making declarations about the Government not being legitimate, or what-have-you, and not get off your ass, and walk.

 

[fighting_for_freedom]

We can sit here an pontificate about why Government is not legitimate, why Government ought to stay out of my private parts, and our firearm safes, but it don't mean sh*t if you sit there making declarations about the Government not being legitimate, or what-have-you, and not get off your ass, and walk.

And walk to where, may I ask? If there was somewhere free-er I could walk, or jump, or skip to, I would, but there is not.

And again, why should I have to wait for (or instigate) the majority to change the government? The majority has no interest or collective hold on what I do, say, think, or wish. It is my life, therefore only I am in control.

I love it when a government (local or otherwise) agent tries to tell me what I must and musn't do.

I say, "You have no authority here. F*** off."

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

And walk to where, may I ask? If there was somewhere free-er I could walk, or jump, or skip to, I would, but there is not.

And again, why should I have to wait for (or instigate) the majority to change the government? The majority has no interest or collective hold on what I do, say, think, or wish. It is my life, therefore only I am in control.

I love it when a government (local or otherwise) agent tries to tell me what I must and musn't do.

I say, "You have no authority here. F*** off."

So, if there was a Freer place, you would run away?--if that's what you feel you need to do.

Reality is in your face, you have nowhere to go, what are you going to do; sit here and wish it was better; sit here and pontificate day-in and day-out about a silent majority that's going to rise up, and give us all more choices, more Freedom, more Liberty?

120,000,000 voters is a large number of people. And your silent majority, it's greater than that? Good luck with your little fantasy.

Nobody likes it when they're pulled over for doing 80 mph (for example) in a 35. Nobody likes being ran over, and killed by a person driving their vehicle to fast, and in a reckless manner...where's the dead persons choice, so-called freedom, so-called Liberty?

Our existence is a paradox. Deal with it, you'll be better off in the end.

 

[marshaul]

Nobody likes it when they're pulled over for doing 80 mph (for example) in a 35. Nobody likes being ran over, and killed by a person driving their vehicle to fast, and in a reckless manner...where's the dead persons choice, so-called freedom, so-called Liberty?

Oh snap. This fundamentally changed my entire outlook.

I hereby propose we ban life. Living people sometimes kill other people. Where's the dead persons choice, so-called freedom, so-called Liberty? The majority really needs to get together and ban life to safeguard against death.

/illogical red herring

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Oh snap. This fundamentally changed my entire outlook.

I hereby propose we ban life. Living people sometimes kill other people. Where's the dead persons choice, so-called freedom, so-called Liberty? The majority really needs to get together and ban life to safeguard against death.

/illogical red herring

Nice! Are you going to vote for President Obama, with me, in 2016?

 

[marshaul]

Nice! Are you going to vote for President Obama, with me, in 2016?

I heard some girls at Tech talking (in all seriousness, as far as I could tell) about "forget term limits, Obama 2016!"

The arrogance of some people.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I heard some girls at Tech talking (in all seriousness, as far as I could tell) about "forget term limits, Obama 2016!"

The arrogance of some people.

I don't mind President Obama, but eight years is enough for me.

I'm sure most people on here will have had their fill by 2016 LOL.

I wonder though, how people are going to react when Hillary/Obama (Michelle) win in 2012.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The majority. Welcome aboard, social creature.

LOL.....So the majority gets to rule unless its the wrong context, but the majority somehow decides the context? Too funny. So prop 8 was a good law?

And I am not denying being a social creature but this has nothing to do with socialism. We as individuals acting on our own free will, freely socialize or not with other individuals. One group does not ever have the right to vote the social values and rights onto another group.

The Government defines Justice, and Good. You don't like it, change Government. A name: Noam Chomsky....happy reading.

I don't care who states this, it's a lie people define this.

Yes, there are areas where there is the visual presence of Government. Just can't seem to get rid of those damn glasses!

Avoiding the point?

I don't see a china man committing suicide as Justice...he does.

This is not how you stated it. You said self imposed justice, not that he sees it as justice.....

Let's get one things straight, right off the bat--I respect you my friend, seriously, no joke, I respect you--but: FUQ any notion that any of this stuff we're talking about must have anything to do with logic, or objectivity.

FUQ, Jefferson. His opinion is duly noted. I don't give a rats ass about Jefferson, or his views; what I do give a rats ass about is the views of us living humans, right here, right now, engaged--whether we like it or not--in this System, our relationship to the System, with the System, etc.

FUQ the Majority, FUQ the Government. Seriously, 5,000+ posts, and people aren't getting what I'm stating in all of this. The best, off the fly, distilled version of what I'm saying here, in all of this: Government exists, period; you want to change the Government, it's all about numbers; all of the other BS, neck deep BS, that half the people on here regurgitate about Freedom, Liberty, getting away from Government, Government not being around, being done away with--it's all fantasy world crapola, it's philosophical masturbation.

Take the world that you were born into, that you interact with, as it is, and what you don't like about it, get a very large group together....I'm not talking sparse BS at the capital of 50-150 OC/CC'rs, I'm talking tens of millions, then force Government to change--President Obama has stated this numerous times.

We can sit here an pontificate about why Government is not legitimate, why Government ought to stay out of my private parts, and our firearm safes, but it don't mean sh*t if you sit there making declarations about the Government not being legitimate, or what-have-you, and not get off your ass, and walk.

It's the "mental masturbation" that is the precursor to change......believe me many of us have gotten off our asses and are doing something about it, part of that is the exchange of ideas on the illegitimacy of the government......

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

*snippers*
It's the "mental masturbation" that is the precursor to change.....*snippers*

Let's get it over with, and get to fixing the sandwich

 

[OC for ME]

B92FSL is a liberal. She votes liberal. She is anti-liberty because she votes for anti-liberty politicians. She is anti-citizen because she votes for anti-citizen politicians. She has no interest in any effort to reduce the size and reach of the federal government. Expansion of the federal government is her goal.

Her views on liberty have no merit because she is anti-liberty. Liberty is antithetical to what she desires for all citizens.

.....what I do give a rats ass about is the views of us living humans, right here, right now, engaged--whether we like it or not--in this System, our relationship to the System, with the System, etc.

This is a lie. A liberal cannot afford to "give a rats azz" about the view of their fellow citizens if that view is liberty-centric. The evidence as to the truth of this is that liberals know that gun control, as liberals define the issue, is not what the citizenry desires. This has liberals flummoxed.

A clear majority of the American citizenry rejects liberalism and liberals for that matter. Liberals should count themselves lucky that liberty-centric folks do not use liberal tactics to restrict the activities of liberals. Use the power of government to infringe upon the liberties of liberals.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Let's get it over with, and get to fixing the sandwich

We definitely have gotten out enough condiments....

 

[marshaul]

I'm sorry, what are we talking about now?

Because I have always... never mind.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

B92FSL is a liberal. She votes liberal. She is anti-liberty because she votes for anti-liberty politicians. She is anti-citizen because she votes for anti-citizen politicians. She has no interest in any effort to reduce the size and reach of the federal government. Expansion of the federal government is her goal.

Her views on liberty have no merit because she is anti-liberty. Liberty is antithetical to what she desires for all citizens.

This is a lie. A liberal cannot afford to "give a rats azz" about the view of their fellow citizens if that view is liberty-centric. The evidence as to the truth of this is that liberals know that gun control, as liberals define the issue, is not what the citizenry desires. This has liberals flummoxed.

A clear majority of the American citizenry rejects liberalism and liberals for that matter. Liberals should count themselves lucky that liberty-centric folks do not use liberal tactics to restrict the activities of liberals. Use the power of government to infringe upon the liberties of liberals.

I enjoyed reading your fancy little dance, above.

I'm a Liberal, so what.